Making a Murderer Discussion Thread (Spoilers Likely)

[Big Lex]

There were a lot of problems with the physical evidence. Among other things, burning a body is not as easy as it may sound, and it still amazes me that someone would burn a body and leave the remains right there.

The Manitowoc cops seem really crooked. But its also possible they planted evidence, framed Avery, etc., yet they were framing the RIGHT person.

I don't know who killed the woman because the documentary was limited, one-sided, etc.. I would have been much happier with the verdict had there been more evidence in Avery's house, in his garage, and if there had at least been some indication that the police were at least trying to do due diligence with regard to ruling out other possible suspects. I don't have any trouble overlooking some of the holes in the prosecutions case, but it really bothers me that they apparently did not investigate anyone else.

They went right for Avery (and Dassey) and never looked back. And maybe it's good that they did. But it makes me less confident in the verdict. There could be an even better explanation out there, but we will never know, because they didn't even try to find it.

[Jeremie Boop]

9 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

There were a lot of problems with the physical evidence. Among other things, burning a body is not as easy as it may sound, and it still amazes me that someone would burn a body and leave the remains right there.

The Manitowoc cops seem really crooked. But its also possible they planted evidence, framed Avery, etc., yet they were framing the RIGHT person.

I don't know who killed the woman because the documentary was limited, one-sided, etc.. I would have been much happier with the verdict had there been more evidence in Avery's house, in his garage, and if there had at least been some indication that the police were at least trying to do due diligence with regard to ruling out other possible suspects. I don't have any trouble overlooking some of the holes in the prosecutions case, but it really bothers me that they apparently did not investigate anyone else.

They went right for Avery (and Dassey) and never looked back. And maybe it's good that they did. But it makes me less confident in the verdict. There could be an even better explanation out there, but we will never know, because they didn't even try to find it.

Just curious, as I did not and will not watch a biased docudrama, was there even any other people to investigate? I mean, if there were no other suspects then what else were they going to do besides focus on these guys?

[Silent]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

She said within a month, and yet, nothing's happened. That's all I was pointing out.

She may have a long list, but how many has she failed to exonerate?

I don't see a quote where she actually said that. Just an article, without quoting Zellner herself, stating she will bring the appeal in 30 days.

I'm sure she failed also. My point is not that I think she will exonerate Avery since she exonerated before; that a big jump and chances are high that it will never happen. My point is that with a lawyer with her reputation, and the way she is actively generating attention about this case, I can't imagine she won't even bring an appeal and that's the end of it. Since you were asking if the appeal was there yet :) It will be there in time, can't imagine it won't.

[Big Lex]

38 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

49 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

I would have been much happier with the verdict had there been more evidence in Avery's house, in his garage, and if there had at least been some indication that the police were at least trying to do due diligence with regard to ruling out other possible suspects. I don't have any trouble overlooking some of the holes in the prosecutions case, but it really bothers me that they apparently did not investigate anyone else.

They went right for Avery (and Dassey) and never looked back. And maybe it's good that they did. But it makes me less confident in the verdict. There could be an even better explanation out there, but we will never know, because they didn't even try to find it.

Just curious, as I did not and will not watch a biased docudrama, was there even any other people to investigate? I mean, if there were no other suspects then what else were they going to do besides focus on these guys?

There were other people who at least should have been scrutinized and forced to produce an alibi, the alibi corroborated, etc. And they didn't do this. Or at least that's what the defense argued. Also, there was some person that the murdered woman was having a series of "difficult" conversations with, according to her boss, who witnessed one of these conversations on the day of her disappearance or the day before, and this was not investigated. Finally, a series of text messages between the deceased and some other people were wiped from her phone and/or telcom records. There was no explanation for this, either. All of this created some doubt as to whether the police were on the up and up regarding investigating all leads.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Big Lex

[Silent]

Once a week or so I check Zellner's Twitterfeed to see if something interesting is coming up there. Last couple of days this is what she wrote:

 

She really is suggesting that Theresa left the house alive, and that there's proof of another killer. Obviously she's not objective so I won't take her word for it just like that, but on the other hand I can't imagine she's showing all her cards now and it will turn out to be a whole lot of nothing. It's getting more interesting. Very curious about the actual appeal and the proof she's suggesting they have.

[Pretzel]

I don't know about others, but to me it almost seems unprofessional as a lawyer to tweet hints about an impending appeal like they're the teasers to a new season of a TV show. I can't describe exactly what about it feels wrong (I originally wrote this post trying to do so until I kept typing myself into a corner), but something just feels off about that.

[Silent]

25 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

I don't know about others, but to me it almost seems unprofessional as a lawyer to tweet hints about an impending appeal like they're the teasers to a new season of a TV show. I can't describe exactly what about it feels wrong (I originally wrote this post trying to do so until I kept typing myself into a corner), but something just feels off about that.

I agree, I don't think I ever saw that before. On the other hand this is not a normal case (like most exonnerations) with a prosecutor and a jury since the case is already closed. Right now it's all about freeing someone who's in jail innocent (looking at it from her perspective), so making waves and try to get the public behind you might be something powerful. Looking at her reputation and her track record she's far from unprofessional, even though that doesn't mean that her actions right now can't be ofcourse.

[Silent]

News from last week:

Quote

Kathleen Zellner is asking for more time before taking the next step in her efforts to win Steven Avery's freedom.

Zellner, who along with attorneys Douglas Johnson and Tricia Bushnell, are working in hopes of exonerating the convicted killer and "Making a Murderer" centerpiece, filed a motion this week to extend the deadline on her defendant-appellant's brief by 90 days.

The requested deadline is Aug. 29. The motion was submitted to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals on Wednesday.

The reason for the request, according to court documents, is the current workload on the trio of attorneys.

 

[Silent]

Quote

Making a Murderer new episodes with real evidence PROVING Steven Avery is innocent lawyer Kathleen Zellner confirms

Steven Avery's lawyer Kathleen Zellner has spoken out following the news Making a Murderer is set to return with brand new episodes.

It was confirmed by Netflix earlier this week that the new instalments are already in production and will return to delve inside the story of convicted murderers, Steven Avery and his co-defendant Brendan Dassey, as their legal teams fight to get their convictions overturned.

Speaking to People Magazine about the episodes, Zellner promised to present viewers brand new evidence that would prove Avery's innocence.

Second season underway. Full article: http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/making-murderer-new-episodes-real-8464810

Hopefully Zellner realises that see needs to 'prove' it in court, not in the series  Still very curious about the actual evidence she keeps talking about. If I'm not mistaken she should file the appeal at the end of August, so then we might know more.

[Strandly]

I watched the initial series where he got cleared of the attempted rape.  That was a pretty ridiculous shit show by the cops.

I saw the first bit after the Hallbeck murder as well and find it hard to believe he left her burnt corpse in the open pit in his front yard and then stored her car on his property.  I'm sure the guy isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer but come on...

The dude is either the dumbest criminal who ever lived or he's got he biggest balls of any murderer in America.

[iacas]

7 hours ago, Strandly said:

I watched the initial series where he got cleared of the attempted rape.  That was a pretty ridiculous shit show by the cops.

The victim identified him. He had previous issues legally and with women.

7 hours ago, Strandly said:

The dude is either the dumbest criminal who ever lived or he's got he biggest balls of any murderer in America.

Criminals are pretty dumb.

[boogielicious]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

The victim identified him. He had previous issues legally and with women.

Criminals are pretty dumb.

Nah. Criminals are wicked smart and have mad fighting and shooting skills at the beginning of a movie or show. Then by the end, they are dumb, can't shoot straight and fight like my grandmother. That's Hollywood baby!

[Silent]

Well, how about that.....

Quote

Judge overturns Dassey conviction in Halbach murder

In a 91-page ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Duffin was highly critical of investigators, Brendan Dassey's attorney and the state courts, concluding that Dassey's constitutional rights were violated.

U.S. Magistrate Judge William Duffin was highly critical of investigators, Dassey’s pretrial attorney and the state courts on how they handled the case, concluding that Dassey’s constitutional rights were violated. He found that the prosecutor’s investigators made false promises to Dassey during multiple interrogations.

“These repeated false promises, when considered in conjunction with all relevant factors, most especially Dassey’s age, intellectual deficits, and the absence of a supportive adult, rendered Dassey’s confession involuntary under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments,” Duffin wrote.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2016/08/12/dassey-wins-ruling-teresa-halbach-murder/88632502/

 

[Strandly]

The episode where the cops were initially interrogating this kid by himself in the school lounge or whatever was probably the most ridiculous police related thing I've ever seen.  Seems like a good decision to me.

[Silent]

3 hours ago, Strandly said:

The episode where the cops were initially interrogating this kid by himself in the school lounge or whatever was probably the most ridiculous police related thing I've ever seen.  Seems like a good decision to me.

It's a shame it took them 11 years to overturn this redicilous verdict. No physical evidence what so ever, only his own, very doubtful 'confession' from a underaged, slow and challenged guy. I guess better late than never.

[iacas]

40 minutes ago, Silent said:

It's a shame it took them 11 years to overturn this redicilous verdict. No physical evidence what so ever, only his own, very doubtful 'confession' from a underaged, slow and challenged guy. I guess better late than never.

None of which means he didn't do it.

[Silent]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

None of which means he didn't do it.

I'm not making that claim. It does mean he shouldn't be convicted for it, as I stated from the beginning. Good to see the federal judge saw that. 11 years down the drain...

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Silent said:

I'm not making that claim. It does mean he shouldn't be convicted for it, as I stated from the beginning. Good to see the federal judge saw that. 11 years down the drain...

I don't necessarily agree that he shouldn't have been convicted.

To say that would imply that I knew whether he did it. If he did, he should have been convicted. Simple as that.