Jump to content
iacas

Making a Murderer Discussion Thread (Spoilers Likely)

120 posts / 20530 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

Not much happening? Because the court works in slow motion.... The motion for a new trial including a load of documents with 'proof' of planted evidence has been filed months ago already. For now the only thing to do is wait for the court. Also two higher courts judged Dassey has to be released, (last one already 3 months ago) but the appeals from the state take ages. Btw I can read all her Twitter, including the links to massive pdf's which claim to tackle a lot of the 'evidence' as presented in court. She did 'expose all the stuff', there's just no way for me (and you) to really judge how solid that proof is. It's in the hand of the appeal court now, and they take and need their time to rule on the motion......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

5 hours ago, Silent said:

Not much happening?

No, not really.

And her Twitter account was made private. You can read it because she approved your following. The world at large cannot.

I don't suspect many people care about this much anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

11 hours ago, iacas said:

Nothing's happened here lately, eh?

The closest I saw was something the lawyer tweeted back in February: http://www.newstalk.com/Making-a-Murderers-Steven-Avery-could-face-new-trial

Beyond that there were a couple tweets claiming how innocent he was, but they're definitely grasping at straws if the evidence they found wasn't enough to event warrant a hearing (because even setting the date for such a hearing would have been all over the news).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I was very late to this thread because I was a slow Netflix adopter. I am in now. About 2 weeks ago I finished the first season. After watching the first season and reading information available on the web I was 98% sure he was guilty. And was content to walk away. My wife convinced me to start the second season. I have not finished it yet, but after 2 episodes I am less sure of my position. His new lawyer, while made for TV, and probably 50% full of bullshit is at the very least a really good investigator. In the second episode she talks about dogs that were never mentioned in anything I had seen before, and they spent a great deal of time in the neighboring quarry. Where coincidentally the pelvis was found but that was a detail sort of slipped over as well. 

Much of what she has done is nonsense, like the brain testing or whatever, just really hard to know what the hell that was about, but some has drawn some questions. Like the DNA from sweat and how the amount of signal that came from his DNA more or less means he would have had to lick the hood opening. Or if his DNA was on the latch why no fingerprints. Or the introduction of the dogs. I am still in the 90% he did it camp. But I will say the new lawyer is a pretty good storyteller and therefore worth watching for her entertainment value. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

On 11/26/2018 at 7:02 PM, mchepp said:

Much of what she has done is nonsense, like the brain testing or whatever, just really hard to know what the hell that was about, but some has drawn some questions. Like the DNA from sweat and how the amount of signal that came from his DNA more or less means he would have had to lick the hood opening. Or if his DNA was on the latch why no fingerprints. Or the introduction of the dogs. I am still in the 90% he did it camp. But I will say the new lawyer is a pretty good storyteller and therefore worth watching for her entertainment value. 

There are plausible answers to all of those questions, but the documentary just doesn't share them with you.

  • The dogs: the scent dogs actually tracked Halbach's scent to Steven Avery's own garage, showing much interest, and then continued to his trailer. A scent dog also alerted inside Avery's trailer. Zellner is just focussing on tracks away from the trailer and avoids mentioning all the tracks that incriminate Avery.
    • for example the scent alert at Kuss rd. What she doesn't tell the viewer is that this trail began at Steven Avery's own trailer. 
    • she also doesn't mention the fact there is a scent trail from Steven Avery's trailer going all the way to where the RAV4 was found
  • the amount of DNA on the hood latch: just look at how the test is executed. She has some well rested tidy clean guys touch the hood latch. Steven wasn't well rested, nor clean. He was unkempt and in a rush to get rid of evidence, probably perspirating. The difference between 0,09ng and 1,8ng isn't a lot according to Meakin and Jamieson, two renowned DNA scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several "rebuttal" series out there that you might want to view. The most well known one is probably Dan O'Donnel's "Rebutting a Murderer" and there's another good one on Spotify by Real Crime Profile - a podcast by a former FBI Special Agent and a Analyst on People's Behaviour.

On YouTube there's a rebuttal series called Making a Murderer: 33 times it deceived its viewers. It lists over 30 examples of where the documentary was deceptive. And another user uploaded a podcast by two forensic scientists, Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg, who share their thoughts on Zellner's case and don't agree with her very often.

And...

 

Edited by ACJL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve seen all of this and frankly the whole thing has gone from ‘The Making of a Murderer’ to ‘The Making of a Film about The Making of a Murderer.’

It’s like both sides can go endlessly back and fourth making the other side appear wrong or deceitful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Much of Zellner's case seem to rely on misinterpretations of the original trial/police reports or leaving out evidence of the original trial/police reports though and she gets called out on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I can't stand about this otherwise excellent series is the unnecessary, superfluous narration. This NPR sounding woman is narrating as to what is clearly being shown on the video. What purpose does that serve? To have a needless narration is a distraction.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was a thread about that "b*%$h Carol Baskin" as Joe Exotic would say, LOL. Just got done watching the Tiger King and will have to watch this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Affiliates

    SuperSpeed
    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo
  • Posts

    • The Footjoy rain pants are huge. Not a good fit in my opinion. 
    • The 80 I shot a few months ago has been knocked off my card, and my handicap currently sits at 16.3. However, my round from today (score post in a little bit) knocked the next-lowest round, 83, off as well, so it will probably skyrocket when I get my update tomorrow. Stay tuned.
    • Swing looks great.
    • Haven’t practiced in a while. Got into a little bit of a funk there. Been playing poorly lately; was going to pack away the clubs for the winter but I committed to an outing for some reason so I’m going to make the best of it 😃 First swings weren’t great. Might have figured out the main issue, though. Backswing stuff, inconsistent club head position at transition. Leads to lots of randomness. Started rehearsing A4 and then slowly bringing the club back to the same position, feeling that I’m set there (kind of a pause or slight delay), and then firing hard.   I posted the swings at real speed because I wanted to see the backswing at real speed. Feels slow to me but isn’t, and I’m not surprised there’s no actual pause at transition. Hit the ball really well like this though, which is promising.
    • Played 18 yesterday. Didn't score well due to some lapses in my priority piece on the course and associated penalty strokes. When I executed the swing I worked on in my lesson and recent practice sessions (mainly the takeaway/backswing), the ball was going where I aimed it. Short and mid irons were straight, maybe with a touch of fade or draw to them. Longer clubs were a little bit of a pull-fade flight. Of course, this is n=1 so who knows if this pattern holds over time. My miss was a cut/fade that starts on target, or maybe a bit pushed, and moves moderately to the right, and comes up short of typical distance. This miss is much more playable than the violent hooks, pull hooks, and shanks I was hitting previously. Overall I'm feeling optimistic that I can solidify these changes quickly, and hopefully get some decent rounds in before rainy season. Another thing my teacher asked me to try was not hovering the club at setup. She thinks it can help with my commitment to my target line/setup. I didn't take this advice as something that is right or wrong, but just a new approach to try and see if there is any improvement. I tend get fidgety with my feet when I am hovering the club prior to takeaway and start repositioning my feet and changing my alignment. I tried it in my round yesterday when I remembered it, but reverted back to hovering often.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Aldo Aitken
      Aldo Aitken
      (30 years old)
    2. Also Aitken
      Also Aitken
      (30 years old)
    3. CJK
      CJK
      (62 years old)
    4. Coffin-dodger
      Coffin-dodger
      (70 years old)
    5. Greg55
      Greg55
      (65 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...