Making a Murderer Discussion Thread (Spoilers Likely)

[Silent 61]

15 minutes ago, iacas said:

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.

That's okay. I feel like we had this discussion before ;) I don't agree it's as simple as that. Actually I'm quite sure it isn't. It should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Having those sets of rules is what should seperate 'our' courts from those in the third world. They failed to do so, yet he got convicted anyway. Knowing how unreliable such 'confessions' are (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession), especially from such a kid with an IQ as high as a carrot's, for me it's completely mindblowing he got a conviction in the first place. Now the federal judge said as well he shouldn't be convicted: that's not implying the judge (or me, or you) knows he is 100% sure innocent, that's a statement that with what they had at hand he shouldn't be convicted. And in my opinion that is as simple as that.

 

Now they will move on to Avery. I still think he ís guilty, but also that evidence might be planted in order to 'help' the investigation. That case seems quite shady as well, but not as much as Dassey's. Curious what we'll see there....

[iacas 7,951]

1 minute ago, Silent said:

That's okay. I feel like we had this discussion before ;) I don't agree it's as simple as that. Actually I'm quite sure it isn't.

I'm glad you're "quite sure" of your opinion, but once again, you're not hearing me.

If he committed the crimes, he should suffer the penalty.

The rest is just legal proceedings, fuck-ups, etc. It's filler. Fluff. Procedural legal bull.

If he helped kill, torture, rape, dismember, or burn the woman, he should suffer the penalty. The 11 years was not enough time, and the sentence he originally got was just. Regardless of how it came about.

IF he did the things for which he was convicted.

You're not talking about the same thing I'm talking about. You're talking about whether he should have been convicted procedurally. I'm talking about whether he should have been convicted and sentenced based on what neither of us know - whether he committed the crimes.

Guilty and innocent people are set free and/or convicted sometimes. OJ Simpson, who thinks he didn't kill his former wife and the other guy? Yet he was set free. The justice system isn't perfect. It's pretty good, and perhaps in this case they screwed up.

Perhaps.

Because we still don't know the facts surrounding even the confessions, etc. We saw what the TV people wanted us to see. And they were clearly presenting a biased view.

Truth be told he probably shouldn't have been convicted the way they got the confession, etc. But that doesn't mean he didn't do it, and it doesn't mean he shouldn't have been convicted. If he did it, he should still be in jail. It's luck and a failure of our justice system again if he was set free even after 11 years if he did do it.

[Silent 61]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

I'm glad you're "quite sure" of your opinion, but once again, you're not hearing me.

If he committed the crimes, he should suffer the penalty.

The rest is just legal proceedings, ****-ups, etc. It's filler. Fluff. Procedural legal bull.

If he helped kill, torture, rape, dismember, or burn the woman, he should suffer the penalty. The 11 years was not enough time, and the sentence he originally got was just. Regardless of how it came about.

IF he did the things for which he was convicted.

You're not talking about the same thing I'm talking about. You're talking about whether he should have been convicted procedurally. I'm talking about whether he should have been convicted and sentenced based on what neither of us know - whether he committed the crimes.

Ah, I'm not hearing you. Once again. Nice. The 'just legal proceedings' is the whole point of the documentary, and of my posts here where you responded on. Actually pretty much all my posts here I talk about the legal site of things, not about whether he (and Avery) did it or not because we simply can not know. Constitutional rights were violated, a young kid's life is ruined (I doubt he'll ever recover from this), and now a federal judge said as well he shouldn't be convicted. I post about that, share the articele and your first response (to me) is 'it doesn't mean he didn't do it'. True, it also doesn't mean I didn't do it, but that wasn't really my point. 

[iacas 7,951]

3 minutes ago, Silent said:

Ah, I'm not hearing you. Once again. Nice. The 'just legal proceedings' is the whole point of the documentary, and of my posts here where you responded on. Actually pretty much all my posts here I talk about the legal site of things, not about whether he (and Avery) did it or not because we simply can not know. Constitutional rights were violated, a young kid's life is ruined (I doubt he'll ever recover from this), and now a federal judge said as well he shouldn't be convicted. I post about that, share the articele and your first response (to me) is 'it doesn't mean he didn't do it'. True, it also doesn't mean I didn't do it, but that wasn't really my point. 

A young man's life is ruined? A young woman's life ENDED and Dassey likely had a role in that.

If he did it he does not deserve to be released.

All of my posts have been about the facts, few of which were accurately represented in that show.

The purpose of the show was not about legal procedures. It was to provoke. It did so in a biased, editorialized way.

And yes. Either you're not hearing me or just intentionally talking parallel to me about a different topic. I don't care about the legal process. I care about the mystery - what actually happened?

[Silent 61]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

A young man's life is ruined? A young woman's life ENDED and Dassey likely had a role in that.

If he did it he does not deserve to be released.

All of my posts have been about the facts, few of which were accurately represented in that show.

The purpose of the show was not about legal procedures. It was to provoke. It did so in a biased, editorialized way.

And yes. Either you're not hearing me or just intentionally talking parallel to me about a different topic. I don't care about the legal process. I care about the mystery - what actually happened?

Completely disagree. The purpose of the show was for a big part about the flaws of the system and violated rights. Not once they stated Dassey or Avery are guilty or are innocent, it all was about whether they should be convicted for it or not with the evidence at hand. As is most of the discussion here. There really is no point in discussing about what actually happened, since we don't know and can not know. The mystery is very 'interesting', and I care about that to, I can speculate (and my speculations are that Avery did it after all, while Dassey is innocent; it's an educated guess at best), but I will probably never know what really happenend. I said from the beginning that in my opinion Dassey at least deserved a new trial, and I gave arguments why I thought so. I never said Dassey is innocent, I simply don't know. And yes, his life is ruined (like Avery's life was ruined after spending 18 years in prison innocent). That a young women's life ended doesn't mean you have to convict someone for it without actual prove he had anything to do with it.  I don't rule out the possibilty for another shocker (and we get at least some answers regarding what you call the mystery), but I fear we'll never really know unfort.

[Big C 188]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

If he helped kill, torture, rape, dismember, or burn the woman, he should suffer the penalty. The 11 years was not enough time, and the sentence he originally got was just. Regardless of how it came about.

 

@iacas are you suggesting that convictions obtained through illegal police means (denial of rights, illegal searches, etc.) should be upheld if those illegal means lead to proof of guilt?

[Strandly 34]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

I'm glad you're "quite sure" of your opinion, but once again, you're not hearing me.

If he committed the crimes, he should suffer the penalty.

The rest is just legal proceedings, ****-ups, etc. It's filler. Fluff. Procedural legal bull.

If he helped kill, torture, rape, dismember, or burn the woman, he should suffer the penalty. The 11 years was not enough time, and the sentence he originally got was just. Regardless of how it came about.

IF he did the things for which he was convicted.

You're not talking about the same thing I'm talking about. You're talking about whether he should have been convicted procedurally. I'm talking about whether he should have been convicted and sentenced based on what neither of us know - whether he committed the crimes.

Guilty and innocent people are set free and/or convicted sometimes. OJ Simpson, who thinks he didn't kill his former wife and the other guy? Yet he was set free. The justice system isn't perfect. It's pretty good, and perhaps in this case they screwed up.

Perhaps.

Because we still don't know the facts surrounding even the confessions, etc. We saw what the TV people wanted us to see. And they were clearly presenting a biased view.

Truth be told he probably shouldn't have been convicted the way they got the confession, etc. But that doesn't mean he didn't do it, and it doesn't mean he shouldn't have been convicted. If he did it, he should still be in jail. It's luck and a failure of our justice system again if he was set free even after 11 years if he did do it.

Looks to me like you're talking about karma and not the legal system.  That's fine but that's really not what this decision was about.

[CoachB25 18]

I have never watched the show but grew up with enough murders for a lifetime.  I grew up in a real bad place.  Here is what I know about some of the murders I grew up with.  You can't figure them out.  They don't act rational.  Also, some have, as they say in a Lynyrd Skynyrd song, the smell of death is around them. 

 

Here is one case from the area I grew up in.  Karla Brown was about as nice of a person as you could ever meet.  https://mylifeofcrime.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/monsters-among-us-john-n-prante-convicted-of-killing-karla-brown-sentenced-to-75-years-in-prison/

[iacas 7,951]

4 hours ago, Big C said:

@iacas are you suggesting that convictions obtained through illegal police means (denial of rights, illegal searches, etc.) should be upheld if those illegal means lead to proof of guilt?

Of course not.

@Silent, the show was highly editorialized. They walked you into a conclusion they carefully crafted. So I reject the show and care only about the actual truth.

[Silent 61]

Good for you. I care about a fair system as well. Besides that, a coerced 'confession' by a young kid with a low iq doesn't necessarily lead you to the truth.

In the documentary, we see about three law suits.

1. First Avery case. Result: 18 years proven innocent in prison.

2. Brandan Dassey. Result: after 11 years the federal judge trew out his conviction.  

3. Second Avery case. Result: pending. I wouldn't be too surprised if something will happen there.

You can call the documentary all you want, but I can think for myself and did a lot of research; things that weren't mentioned, opinions of well respected people from law against Avery etc. as well. I'm dying to know what really happenend, but I'm also intrigued by the misconducts of several people in the system. It's funny that you talk about 'they walked you into a conclusion they carefully crafted', since I could say exactly the same about the DA and police towards the public regarding at least trial 1 and 2, and third to be seen.

I couldn't care less about Steven Avery as a person, it's proven he did some disturbing things, but 18 years in prison for something he didn't do is just messed up. If, and that's a really big if which I still think is not very likely, he's innocent of this crime as well there really is nothing 'we' can do to him to make it right. For the 'story' it would be a very cool twist in this case, but regarding the amount of victims, the peace of mind of relatives of Teresa etc. it's best if he's quilty as hell and the doubt about it can be taken away. If for example now they can prove his blood in the car was planted. What then? Probably the conviction will be trown, because if if you can't trust that (planted) evidence, you pretty much can't trust any. But it still doesn't prove his innocence, it creates (more) doubt and proves at least unethical behaviour of the plantee. That would be horrible for the family. Either way can't wait for the next 'episode' in this story, end of August the appeal for Avery will be filed.

 

[iacas 7,951]

4 hours ago, Silent said:

Good for you. I care about a fair system as well. Besides that, a coerced 'confession' by a young kid with a low iq doesn't necessarily lead you to the truth.

As you know, I didn't say it did.

4 hours ago, Silent said:

1. First Avery case. Result: 18 years proven innocent in prison.

Largely because the rape victim identified him. If she had said "no, that's not the guy" he'd have probably gone free and not been convicted.

And the first case has next to nothing to do with anything that followed, really. It's part of the "story" they sell you.

4 hours ago, Silent said:

2. Brandan Dassey. Result: after 11 years the federal judge trew out his conviction.

Yeah. This trial wasn't given a ton of attention, though. It was the "B" story. The show makers were too busy trying to lead everyone to a poor conclusion in the first.

4 hours ago, Silent said:

3. Second Avery case. Result: pending. I wouldn't be too surprised if something will happen there.

It's not "pending." He was convicted. If his case is "pending" then almost everyone in prison has a "pending" case.

4 hours ago, Silent said:

You can call the documentary all you want, but I can think for myself and did a lot of research; things that weren't mentioned, opinions of well respected people from law against Avery etc. as well. I'm dying to know what really happenend, but I'm also intrigued by the misconducts of several people in the system. It's funny that you talk about 'they walked you into a conclusion they carefully crafted', since I could say exactly the same about the DA and police towards the public regarding at least trial 1 and 2, and third to be seen.

The first trial, again, they had the rape victim personally identifying him. Why keep mentioning the first trial? Yeah, it sucks that he was imprisoned wrongly, but that doesn't mean he was imprisoned wrongly the second time. If I was the prosecutors, I'd be more certain he did the second thing, because to wrongly imprison a guy TWICE would be pretty silly.

The DA is supposed to lead you to a certain conclusion. It's their job. The "job" of a documentary maker is more to present the facts. To "document" the history or story of things. They didn't do that.

I too looked into a lot of the facts. For example, and though it's been awhile and my memory may not be entirely accurate, the bit about the seal on the blood vial. The "documentary" lead you very clearly to feel it was tampered, when that wasn't really the case at all (IIRC).

4 hours ago, Silent said:

I couldn't care less about Steven Avery as a person, it's proven he did some disturbing things, but 18 years in prison for something he didn't do is just messed up.

Which, again, has no real bearing beyond the emotional on the facts of this second case. Perhaps that's the disconnect between us or something… I see the first thing as "what's done is done" and can understand how they got a conviction (the victim identified him).

I don't see that as having any bearing on the second case. You seem to. Which is fine, but may be one of the disconnects we're having here.

4 hours ago, Silent said:

If for example now they can prove his blood in the car was planted. What then? Probably the conviction will be trown, because if if you can't trust that (planted) evidence, you pretty much can't trust any.

Probably it should be vacated, yes, in such a situation.

I don't think this case shows that there is some gross, big problem with the legal process in the U.S. or anywhere else. I think it was chosen because it was provocative, because of the prior conviction that was overturned, and because it was somewhat local.

Until anything new happens, that's about all I have to say. I don't really care about or for the "documentary." And as I nor you can truly know what happened, all we can really talk about is the legal proceedings, which I simply trust will work themselves out and, if they don't somehow, are not indicative of a major problem with the legal process here.

[Silent 61]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

As you know, I didn't say it did.

And I'm not saying you did. What I mean is that what you called 'legal bull' etc. doesn't have to stand in the way to get to the truth. Actually it might be quite important.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Largely because the rape victim identified him. If she had said "no, that's not the guy" he'd have probably gone free and not been convicted.

You know there was more to the story than that. The rape victim 'identified' him from a scetch made from a photo from Avery, instead of from a sketch made from her discription (which was of some big parts different). So yes, she identified him, but in a way you can compare it with Dassey's 'confession': it was steered towards something they wanted to hear. Shady police work to say the least.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Yeah. This trial wasn't given a ton of attention, though. It was the "B" story. The show makers were too busy trying to lead everyone to a poor conclusion in the first.

1 or 2 episodes I guess, plus I (we) discussed about it here as well.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

It's not "pending." He was convicted. If his case is "pending" then almost everyone in prison has a "pending" case.

Well, I'm guessing here you know what I mean with it. 2 out of 3 cases are trown out, the third there's a lot of speculation that it's heading the same way. All I'm saying is there's a possibility it will be 3 out of 3, and it doesn't seem to be that unlikely

1 hour ago, iacas said:

The first trial, again, they had the rape victim personally identifying him. Why keep mentioning the first trial? Yeah, it sucks that he was imprisoned wrongly, but that doesn't mean he was imprisoned wrongly the second time. If I was the prosecutors, I'd be more certain he did the second thing, because to wrongly imprison a guy TWICE would be pretty silly.

It's part of the story. Considering the (unlikely?) possibilty he was set up, the reason might be very well the first case and as a result the law suit for money. Or just that he would be an easy fall guy. Or in the case that you do think something is wrong in the system, it's a pattern.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

The DA is supposed to lead you to a certain conclusion. It's their job. The "job" of a documentary maker is more to present the facts. To "document" the history or story of things. They didn't do that.

Yes and no. The DA and invastigators should be like you say you are: only to care about the truth. Investigate and accept 'proof' with an open mind. A good DA would have big doubts in the first case, and big doubts about the confession of Dassey but seemed more interested in a conviction, than in finding the actual truth.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I too looked into a lot of the facts. For example, and though it's been awhile and my memory may not be entirely accurate, the bit about the seal on the blood vial. The "documentary" lead you very clearly to feel it was tampered, when that wasn't really the case at all (IIRC).

I do remember, and you are correct. I'm not blind at all about the fact that the documentary is quite one-sided. That doesn't change that in some parts they are, in my opinion, right. For example about the Dassey confession, his lawyer messing up (even the court said so), yet every request for appeal  was denied. That's just very, very strange and now the federal judge said so as well, using the same arguments for it as presented in the documentary.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Which, again, has no real bearing beyond the emotional on the facts of this second case. Perhaps that's the disconnect between us or something… I see the first thing as "what's done is done" and can understand how they got a conviction (the victim identified him).

I don't see that as having any bearing on the second case. You seem to. Which is fine, but may be one of the disconnects we're having here.

One can argue the cases are (possibly) related in many ways. The murder of Halbach might never have happenend if it wasn't for the first case (if Avery actually did it: 'making a murderer' literally, 18 years in prison might mess anyone up). Or it's related because he was set up because of his law suit for money. Or they are not related, but at least relevant because one would want to make a case that the system as a whole has big flaws and those 3 cases are all possible examples (or a pattern). I'm not saying all that is likely or is true, just that the first case might be relevant in a discussion regarding all this.

I'm fine with your opinion as well, and find discussions like this interesting as long as it's with respect and understanding. In my understanding the documentary is about more than this one case, it's an (interesting) example but they are trying to give the message about possible flaws in the system (the same judge that convicted Dassey, had to decide if he had the right for a new trial....), the chances of going down without a fighting chance if you can't pay for good lawyers (Dassey!), possible tunnel vision by police and investigators... so for me the discussion and a big part of interest is everything that happenend in court, in the investigation, procedures. Even if Avery is guilty, if you can't prove it (in court) within the rules he should walk free. That's a shame in this case, but otherwise a conviction is more like a lucky shot and next time someone who is really innocent will be locked up.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Until anything new happens, that's about all I have to say. 

And on that bombshell...

But yeah, we both know nothing about what really happenend ofcourse. But in speculation we are quite on the same page (guilt Avery). It's just hard to imagine someone would drive burned remains around, drop the victims car on the property, plant blood in it, throw a bullet in the garage, leave a key behind a closet in his bedroom, and all in a timeline that fits Avery's. But to end with a movie quote from Law Abiding Citizen which might be relevant here: It's not about what you know, it's about what you can prove in court 

 

[iacas 7,951]

I believe the sketch led to suspecting Avery, but IIRC she identified him in person. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know… don't really care about that case. They talked more about that than Avery torturing and killing pets, exposing himself to his female cousin and running her off the road, etc.

28 minutes ago, Silent said:

It's part of the story. Considering the (unlikely?) possibilty he was set up, the reason might be very well the first case and as a result the law suit for money. Or just that he would be an easy fall guy. Or in the case that you do think something is wrong in the system, it's a pattern.

A pattern with almost entirely different people, a different administration, etc.? I don't know. Sounds like a stretch.

28 minutes ago, Silent said:

The DA and invastigators should be like you say you are: only to care about the truth. Investigate and accept 'proof' with an open mind. A good DA would have big doubts in the first case, and big doubts about the confession of Dassey but seemed more interested in a conviction, than in finding the actual truth.

IMO that's not how the legal system works (nor how it should work). The DA is looking to convict the person they think committed the crime. They're not trying to play judge. That's for, oddly, the judge (and jury) to do. The DA's job is to tell a story and win the conviction. The legal system has two sides, defense and prosecution, and then the arbiters in the middle. Both sides have to try to compete as hard as they can, within the rules.

Yeah, like I said, I really have little else to add.

Aside from involving the same guy, I don't see the cases as linked, nor do I think the cases prove a big issue with the legal system.

[Silent 61]

On 15-8-2016 at 4:39 PM, Silent said:

The DA and invastigators should be like you say you are: only to care about the truth. Investigate and accept 'proof' with an open mind. A good DA would have big doubts in the first case, and big doubts about the confession of Dassey but seemed more interested in a conviction, than in finding the actual truth.

 

 

On 15-8-2016 at 5:10 PM, iacas said:

 

IMO that's not how the legal system works (nor how it should work). The DA is looking to convict the person they think committed the crime. They're not trying to play judge. That's for, oddly, the judge (and jury) to do. The DA's job is to tell a story and win the conviction. The legal system has two sides, defense and prosecution, and then the arbiters in the middle. Both sides have to try to compete as hard as they can, within the rules.

According to the rules of ethics for a DA, it is how it (should) work.

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/NDAA NPS 3rd Ed. w Revised Commentary.pdf

Quote

A prosecutor is the only one in a criminal action who is responsible for the presentation
of the truth. Justice is not complete without the truth always being the primary goal in all
criminal proceedings. A prosecutor is not a mere advocate and unlike other lawyers, a
prosecutor does not represent individuals or entities, but society as a whole. In that
capacity, a prosecutor must exercise independent judgment in reaching decisions while
taking into account the interest of victims, witnesses, law enforcement officers, suspects,
defendants and those members of society who have no direct interest in a particular case,
but who are nonetheless affected by its outcome

The truth is the primary goal for a DA, not a conviction; so exactly like I said. That's not necessarily the same, even though in most cases (I hope) it is. In the first case (which you don't care about ) there were a lot of factors that should tell the DA as well that the truth is not that Avery did it. Yet to 'win' and get a conviction seemed to be his only goal. In Dassey's case I can understand better that the DA proceeded anyway, yet it's at least a little bit doubtfull; even a blind man could have seen that the confessions was steered, and everybody in the business knows the high % of false confessions in such matters. But I understand here he wanted the judge to look at it, and he didn't trow it out at that time. Anyway, my point is that the DA has a responsibility as well, not only the jury. 

[iacas 7,951]

It doesn't really work that way. Prosecutors are judged by their conviction rate. If a prosecutor presses charges they believe they have the truth down well enough.

I'm teaching an assistant DA later today. Former. If I don't post again he'll have backed what I've said. If he contradicts I'll say so. But I've already asked three lawyers, so I'm guessing that'll be the end.

While "the truth" is always the goal the prosecution gets to create their story of how that truth occurred.

[Silent 61]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

It doesn't really work that way. Prosecutors are judged by their conviction rate. If a prosecutor presses charges they believe they have the truth down well enough.

I'm teaching an assistant DA later today. Former. If I don't post again he'll have backed what I've said. If he contradicts I'll say so. But I've already asked three lawyers, so I'm guessing that'll be the end.

While "the truth" is always the goal the prosecution gets to create their story of how that truth occurred.

Cool, thanks. I'm curious that if he thinks the defendant might be innocent, if he proceeds and pushes for a conviction anyway. "Let the jury decide.." I guess you might be right.

[iacas 7,951]

2 hours ago, Silent said:

Cool, thanks. I'm curious that if he thinks the defendant might be innocent, if he proceeds and pushes for a conviction anyway. "Let the jury decide.." I guess you might be right.

He said if they press charges they believe the person is guilty. So they believe that's the truth.

If things come to light to change that they drop or change charges.

There are undoubtedly bad apples in the lot who will make up their own facts or bend rules but I don't think there's a systemic problem.

[acerimusdux 32]

On 8/13/2016 at 9:55 AM, Big C said:

@iacas are you suggesting that convictions obtained through illegal police means (denial of rights, illegal searches, etc.) should be upheld if those illegal means lead to proof of guilt?

On 8/13/2016 at 2:00 PM, iacas said:

Of course not.

Thing is, I would say they should be. I think if someone does something illegal to obtain the evidence, then they should be disciplined or punished. But I think it's ludicrous that we "punish" police or prosecutors by endangering society.

But, that's the way the system seems to work. Even in cases where, for example, someone makes a mistake in filling out a warrant, evidence ends up being suppressed.