Making a Murderer (Massive Spoilers Within)

[Yevrah]

All finished and....






<Massive gap to protect the below from the main page highlighted thread preview>








....I'm now morbidly depressed.

Nothing compared to what those two poor bastards are more than likely undeservedly going through obviously, but you absolutely can't call a documentary spanning 30 years Making a Murderer when it ends like that.

The thing builds to a peak in the verdict and then after that it's just pure misery, with the only respite occurring when Chief Lutz is outed as a sex pest - which I'd clocked from fairly early on, but is hardly any sort of consolation.

It's also absolutely trashed any remaining faith I had in the Jury system.

Fuck me, what a shit start to 2016. I'm going to bed.

[Yevrah]

This man needs his own show.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Wlh7DiXgik

[SvN]

The thing that bothers me the most about the entire thing, beyond the police corruption and the planting of evidence, is the fact that Brendan was so clearly failed by the system.

He is forced, by his own legal team, to draw pictures - not of what happened, but instead that represented the scenes the private investigator was describing - and they are then used against him in court. His first lawyer was essentially responsible for the drawings and the phone call to his mother where he was told to tell her he'd done it.

It was clear in the first, taped confession, that he had no idea what he was getting into. Saying he needed to get back to class because he had a project due, and asking "For the day?" when being told he was being taken into custody. Shit, he asked his mum to tape Wrestlemania for him for fuck sake.

I don't understand how it was allowed to happen

[SvN]

I wanted to punch the screen every time this cunt came squirming onto screen with his shiteating grin.

http://hellogiggles.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/30/pic6.jpg

Press conference before even MEETING your client. Yeah, nice one mate. He has cancer now, so there is some justice.

[Yevrah]

Yep, while it may be the case that Avery did indeed kill Halbach (although unlikely in the manner that the prosecution described), I'd be absolutely staggered if Brendan had anything to do with it. The poor bastard was only dragged into it by cops trying to make a story fit and was clearly coerced by that snivelling smug shithouse of a cop/man who then had the Chutzpah to testify in court that his primary duty is to protect (all of) the public.

When the investigator first gets involved and you see the tapes of it, I could barely believe what I was watching. This is the defence, really? Although I guess that goes to show the difference between having $240k to play with to defend yourself as opposed to having to make do with a court sanctioned freebie.

As for Avery, I guess Strang summed it up best when he said that he's reached the stage where he hopes he's guilty, as dealing with the reality he faces if he's not is too much to take.

On the other side of the coin, I really feel for the family members of the victims in cases like these, particularly the brother, who was so vocal in putting his faith in the police (and I suspect also the lord) to make sure that justice was done. Having been so adamant about Avery's guilt it'll probably finish him off if it's ever established that the actual murderer was A.N.OTHER.

I see (as you say) that Reddit and Anonymous are on the case, which will be a good test of the power of the internet.

[Yevrah]

I wanted to punch the screen every time this cunt came squirming onto screen with his shiteating grin.

Press conference before even MEETING your client. Yeah, nice one mate. He has cancer now, so there is some justice.

Cancer, I did wonder - he looked ill as fuck when the show jumped a few years.

By the end of the thing there were so many people I wanted to punch. Even some of the 'good guys' were monstrous twats. The young lawyer working for Innocent Kids (or whatever it was) that kept bleating on about constitutional rights being violated (no shit, sherlock) and the sycophant that introduced the case to that organisation in the first place - what use is a body like that that can't achieve any more than the square root of fuck all when up against a man literally dying on screen and a Bible bashing private dick who kept crying over a bow?

[Disco]

Where does this faith in 'the internet' come from? I remember the surety some people had in the Boston aftermath and we know how well that went.

[Yevrah]

Where does this faith in 'the internet' come from? I remember the surety some people had in the Boston aftermath and we know how well that went.

If you're referring to me, it doesn't. Sarcasm, sir.

There's nothing they (or anyone else for that matter) will be able to do and Avery will die in prison.

[Yevrah]

On a lighter note, some of the totty hanging round the courtroom and the press hall was pretty spesh - I bet Chief Lutz and his $350k house/6 figure salary had goosed a few of those.

[Yevrah]

Did you find it odd that Avery didn't testify SvN?

[The Merse]

I didn't actually - I assume (very speculatively) that his legal team looked at it as a risk based on him not being the most articulate of chaps.

The startling things for me is that the two appeared to prosecuted based on disparate stories given that Dassey's version (loosely put obviously, given that it was clearly coerced) of events was thrown out in one trial and then used to prosecute the other. As in the video above, it's fucking ridiculous to have two separate trials for the same crime, particularly when in these particular circumstances. Actually uncovering the truth simply wasn't a part of either trial as far as I can see.

It's just so unsettling from start to finish for so many reasons.

[Giggles]

Small town Murica, thats what you get. Never had a doubt they were going down.

Good show though, enjoyed it.

[Pepe]

Ok I'm done with it. I'll post more later, but the first thing I wonder is just how biased the documentary might be. Obviously they can't show the whole trial, but I wonder just how cherry-picked it was to show Steve as innocent. Still, enough shit in there for anyone to doubt.

Steven's trial was sketchy to say the least, but Brendan's is beyond a joke. Not a single piece of evidence yet he gets life despite obviously inconsistent 'confessions.' Absolutely atrocious. The whole thing makes me want to pack my bags and gtfo.

That reporter though. :drool:

[Pepe]

The startling things for me is that the two appeared to prosecuted based on disparate stories given that Dassey's version (loosely put obviously, given that it was clearly coerced) of events was thrown out in one trial and then used to prosecute the other.

I agree that is one of the biggest issues. In the first trial they decide that the murder happened not at all as Brendan described (although no one did a rundown of how it supposedly occurred, which was an issue for me. Also, no one ever addressed intent and motive, another issue for me) yet they still decide Brendan is guilty because why the fuck not.

[Yevrah]

The Brendan stuff is deeply troubling and probably the worst aspect of it for me.

If we go with the prosecution, all along he's painted as someone who was controlled by Avery, but somehow he finds himself facing charges that carry a 41 year sentence before the possibility of parole for crimes against a woman he probably didn't even meet.

And one of the worst things is that for the first few episodes I was thinking "who's driving the boat here" only to be hit with the horribly reality that it's no one person, just an absolutely fucked up system, full of a lot of cunts.

Fuck, it makes me angry just typing about it.

[Pepe]

Imagine the amount of poor sods stuck in jail for shit they never did. Avery was lucky (if you could say that, considering) that rock solid evidence was found in his first case and that he had money for competent lawyers in the second one (not that it was much help in the end.) Most people are stuck with a public defendant or a buck an hour lawyer who will be incompetent and overworked at best if not actively working against you as that cunt 'representing' Dassey clearly was. The lawyer had it spot on at the end when he said that you can claim you will never commit a crime but you can't guarantee that you will never be accused of one, at which point you are fucked.

I've always thought 'a jury of peers' deciding in these cases is complete bullshit, this certainly didn't make me change my mind.

[Yevrah]

Some evidence that wasn't shown in the show.

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

One of the points he raises definitely was, but there we go.

[TG09]

Just finished watching it the other day, poor two. Lots of stuff I don't think was taken in to account. Blood splatter was not there, I don't think they actually found out if the bones was that woman. They never looked in to the facts there could of been another person that killed here. Her Ex or flatmate. Too many unknowns, so they shouldnt of jailed them both.

[Pepe]

— The documentary said that part of Avery’s criminal past included animal cruelty. To my recollection, it didn’t specify exactly what that animal cruelty was. I know that for some of our readers, knowing is enough to want to see Avery get the death sentence regardless of whether he murdered Halbach: He doused a cat in oil and threw it on a bonfire (this is not relevant to the murder trial, but it certainly diminishes the sympathy some of us felt for him).

— Past criminal activity also included threatening a female relative at gunpoint.

Those two were mentioned. It also points towards something that REALLY fucks me off: using judge of character, rather than reasonable analysis of evidence, to make a judgement.


— In the months leading up to Halbach’s disappearance, Avery had called Auto Trader several times and always specifically requested Halbach to come out and take the photos.

— Halbach had complained to her boss that she didn’t want to go out to Avery’s trailer anymore, because once when she came out, Avery was waiting for her wearing only a towel (this was excluded for being too inflammatory). Avery clearly had an obsession with Halbach.

— On the day that Halbach went missing, Avery had called her three times, twice from a *67 number to hide his identity.

Those I think should have been mentioned, but I don't think they are relevant to the trial at all since they are not enough to show any kind of intent. Still, in the show it seemed like he had never seen the woman before. The bolded part is just the writer of that article making shit up. 'Clearly' my arse.


— The bullet with Halbach’s DNA on it came from Avery’s gun, which always hung above his bed.

While not mentioned it is kind of obvious, isn't it? The doubt on the DNA tests remains.


— Avery had purchased handcuffs and leg irons like the ones Dassey described holding Halbach only three weeks before (Avery said he’s purchased them for use with his girlfriend, Jodi, with whom he’d had a tumultuous relationship — at one point, he was ordered by police to stay away from her for three days).

Dassey described fuck all, he just said yes to everything.


— Here’s the piece of evidence that was presented at trial but not in the series that I find most convincing: In Dassey’s illegally obtained statement, Dassey stated that he helped Avery moved the RAV4 into the junkyard and that Avery had lifted the hood and removed the battery cable. Even if you believe that the blood in Halbach’s car was planted by the cops (as I do), there was also non-blood DNA evidence on the hood latch. I don’t believe the police would plant — or know to plant — that evidence.

The statement is worth nothing as all his other statements. If there was other DNA evidence which was also tested and indeed belonged to Avery, then that is a bad omission from the documentary.


Shit in the update

The transcript does show more detail than in the show (time constraints force this of course.) It is still nothing but testimony and without evidence not enough for a conviction I feel (I'm clearly wrong since Dassey was convicted only from a testimony, so there you have it.)


Yet, it was, and to any jury seeing it — and the specificity of the details — you might see why they believed Avery and Dassey committed the crime.

Sure, I can see that. I believed they could have done it just after watching the documentary and still do. Beyond reasonable evidence though? I think you need a lot more for that.

[SvN]

I was surprised that he didn't testify. Dean Strang (his lawyer - the shorter one) has said that it was Steven's decision, but couldn't go into why because of attorney-client privilege. It's only speculation, but I think he may have been worried about his words being twisted on the stand and taken out of context. He's not the sharpest tool, and I think he's well aware of that.

I've seen that article that Yev posted 2 posts up linked a lot, and also seen the points within it repeated quite a lot over the last few days. Stealing a bit from Reddit in places, here's what I'd say...


The documentary said that part of Avery’s criminal past included animal cruelty. To my recollection, it didn’t specify exactly what that animal cruelty was. I know that for some of our readers, knowing is enough to want to see Avery get the death sentence regardless of whether he murdered Halbach: He doused a cat in oil and threw it on a bonfire (this is not relevant to the murder trial, but it certainly diminishes the sympathy some of us felt for him).
They did allude to him throwing a cat on a fire. They didn't say he doused it in oil first. But still, obviously that's a fucking awful thing to do, but it means nothing at all in context of the case.


Past criminal activity also included threatening a female relative at gunpoint.
Eh? They went over this in great depth, and even interviewed the female relative.


In the months leading up to Halbach’s disappearance, Avery had called Auto Trader several times and always specifically requested Halbach to come out and take the photos.
She was a freelance photographer, so it's not at all outrageous to suggest that she may have asked him to do this, as it's extra paid work for her. Or perhaps he just thought she did a good job on the jobs she'd done for him previously? It's no different to using the same plumber every time your boiler goes to shit.



Halbach had complained to her boss that she didn’t want to go out to Avery’s trailer anymore, because once when she came out, Avery was waiting for her wearing only a towel (this was excluded for being too inflammatory). Avery clearly had an obsession with Halbach
From what I can gather, this is bullshit. She mentioned to a receptionist that he answered the door wearing a towel and then said "Ew" and laughed. She didn't report this to her boss, nor did she say she didn't want to go there again. This was excluded as the receptionist didn't know when this conversation took place - nothing to do with being too inflammatory. Not sure how a hillbilly answering the door in a towel means there's "clearly an obsession". I mean, fucking hell.


On the day that Halbach went missing, Avery had called her three times, twice from a *67 number to hide his identity.
Dean Strang has said that Avery used *67 regularly because he valued his privacy. Other than that, so what? She was doing work for him that day, so what if he called her 3 times. She knew who he was because a) she'd taken photos of his cars several times before (I've seen the number 11 mentioned in this regard, but can't verify that) and b) the Avery property is so distinctive, there's no way she didn't know where she was going.


The bullet with Halbach’s DNA on it came from Avery’s gun, which always hung above his bed.
The gun above his head belonged to the owner of his trailer. As for the bullet being shot by that gun, I'm curious as to how true this fact is, as I've seen it disputed in some reddit threads. I've seen some people claiming it was simply the same caliber, and others claiming it matched using ballistic fingerprinting. I'd really like to know the answer to this one.



Avery had purchased handcuffs and leg irons like the ones Dassey described holding Halbach only three weeks before (Avery said he’s purchased them for use with his girlfriend, Jodi, with whom he’d had a tumultuous relationship — at one point, he was ordered by police to stay away from her for three days).
Dassey said he used ropes and chains, not handcuffs and leg irons.



Here’s the piece of evidence that was presented at trial but not in the series that I find most convincing: In Dassey’s illegally obtained statement, Dassey stated that he helped Avery moved the RAV4 into the junkyard and that Avery had lifted the hood and removed the battery cable. Even if you believe that the blood in Halbach’s car was planted by the cops (as I do), there was also non-blood DNA evidence on the hood latch. I don’t believe the police would plant — or know to plant — that evidence.
This one is definitely more concrete. I think we can disregard everything from Dassey's confessions, as we have no idea whether he was the first to state it, or he was simply regurgitating it. We know that there were at least 2 interviews with Dassey where the recording equipment "malfunctioned", so it wouldn't surprise me at all if there were other unrecorded sessions. However, the DNA being there is definitely an arrow to the knee of the "Steve is innocent" brigade. It's definitely not impossible to plant - they had all of his belongings at their disposal, so it would've been trivial to rub a sock on the hood or something - but it would be an odd thing to plant, given they already had his blood in there.

I'm of the opinion that Steve probably did it. Perhaps 60/40 - it varies, to be honest. But he absolutely did not receive a fair trial, and I'm as close to being certain as one can be that evidence was planted to incriminate him. And there is, without question, reasonable doubt, in my opinion.

[The Merse]

http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/4561506.html

An interesting little note via Reddit.

I'm of the opinion of SVN. I have lot's of doubts, but can see it likely that Steven Avery was guilty, but that there is a great deal of doubt and that both prosecutions were botched to the extent of being entirely unsafe.

[Pepe]

I was surprised that he didn't testify. Dean Strang (his lawyer - the shorter one) has said that it was Steven's decision, but couldn't go into why because of attorney-client privilege. It's only speculation, but I think he may have been worried about his words being twisted on the stand and taken out of context. He's not the sharpest tool, and I think he's well aware of that.

I am not sure what he could have gained from testifying. I mean, what could he say apart from 'I didn't do it' and 'I wasn't there?' I don't think the prosecutors could gain much from it either, beyond things like asking him whether he regrets what he did or not and such which, while obviously complete nonsense, do tend to sway a lot of people because of their stupid Christian belief. Again, judging character instead of facts. So yes, I can see why he wouldn't testify. then again, idiots will also go for the 'if he had nothing to hide then he would testify.' Can't win against preconceived ideas really.

As for whether he did it or not, the only thing that matters is whether you can be 100% sure that he did it or not. If you are 95% sure he did it, then you should vote not guilty. That is the principle of the law, in practice it is never that way of course and in fact more often than not the burden of proof to the degree of certainty seems to fall on the accused rather than on the prosecution.

[SvN]

This one is definitely more concrete. I think we can disregard everything from Dassey's confessions, as we have no idea whether he was the first to state it, or he was simply regurgitating it. We know that there were at least 2 interviews with Dassey where the recording equipment "malfunctioned", so it wouldn't surprise me at all if there were other unrecorded sessions. However, the DNA being there is definitely an arrow to the knee of the "Steve is innocent" brigade. It's definitely not impossible to plant - they had all of his belongings at their disposal, so it would've been trivial to rub a sock on the hood or something - but it would be an odd thing to plant, given they already had his blood in there.

Page 78 of this document is where Brendan reveals the detail of Steve popping the hood: http://convolutedbrian.com.s3.amazonaws.com/dassey/01Mar2006/01Mar2006Transcript.pdf




FASSBENDER: OK, what else did he do, he did somethin' else, you need to tell us what he did, after the car is parked there. It's extremely important. (pause) Before you guys leave that car.

BRENDAN: That he left the gun in the car.

FASSBENDER: That's not what I'm thinkin' about. He did something to that car. He took the plates and he, I believe he did something else in that car. (pause).

BRENDAN: I don't know.

FASSBENDER:OK. Did he, did he, did he go and look at the engine, did he raise the hood at all or anything like that? To do something to that car?

BRENDAN: Yeah.

FASSBENDER: What was that? (pause)

WEIGERT: What did he do, Brendan?

WEIGERT: It's OK, what did he do?

FASSBENDER: What did he do under the hood, if what's what he did? (pause)

BRENDAN: I don't know what he did, but I know he went under.

FASSBENDER: He did raise the hood? (Brendan nods "yes") You remember that?

BRENDAN: Yeah.


As you'll see, it wasn't unprompted at all, but fed to him like most of the other detail in the confession.

[Giggles]

That reporter though. :drool:

http://jimromenesko.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/averym.png

Dat chin :drool:

[Yevrah]

Regarding Avery not testifying, I don't understand the argument that he'd have cracked under examination. While that's always possible, he spoke eloquently enough in court when addressing the judge directly, particularly after being found guilty and I'd say any risk of cracking was far outweighed by the loss of categorically stating to the court that he didn't do it. I know it shouldn't work this way, but jury members are clearly influenced by that sort of stuff.

Obviously said with the benefit of hindsight and I'm no legal expert (etc.) but it just struck me as an odd tactic.

I'd also love to know which members of the originally picked jury Strang decided were better to remove than the father of a local law enforcement official.

[John Arne]

Just finished it. Epic.

Steve I think is 60/40 guilty... I really can't make my mind up. He definately didn't kill her in the manner suggested - but there is something strange afoot.

Brendan, it is clear that there is not one iota of evidence linking him to the crime scene.... It's absolutely astonishing that he is currently locked away. Staggering.

[Yevrah]

Steve I think is 60/40 guilty... I really can't make my mind up. He definately didn't kill her in the manner suggested - but there is something strange afoot.

Isn't this the sort of approach that jurors who've misunderstood what they're meant to be doing take?

[TG09]

Regarding Avery not testifying, I don't understand the argument that he'd have cracked under examination. While that's always possible, he spoke eloquently enough in court when addressing the judge directly, particularly after being found guilty and I'd say any risk of cracking was far outweighed by the loss of categorically stating to the court that he didn't do it. I know it shouldn't work this way, but jury members are clearly influenced by that sort of stuff.

Obviously said with the benefit of hindsight and I'm no legal expert (etc.) but it just struck me as an odd tactic.

I'd also love to know which members of the originally picked jury Strang decided were better to remove than the father of a local law enforcement official.

What got me is that the Jury was made up of local people from the town, who hate the Avery family anyway apparently. Sure all Jury members should be from out of town/city?

[Yevrah]

What got me is that the Jury was made up of local people from the town, who hate the Avery family anyway apparently. Sure all Jury members should be from out of town/city?

They probably should have been, but after the press conference which the whole state would have seen there wasn't really anywhere left they could take it to get a fair trial and/or Strang and the other chap didn't have the experience or influence to do so.

[John Arne]

Isn't this the sort of approach that jurors who've misunderstood what they're meant to be doing take?

Indeed. He should have been acquitted. The State clearly didn't prove anything beyond all reasonable doubt.

[TG09]

Indeed. He should have been acquitted. The State clearly didn't prove anything beyond all reasonable doubt.

That is the biggest thing I took away, there was no hard evidence that he did it. If they can not prove beyond all reasonable doubt, then he has to be found not guilty.

[Boydy]

Finished this. Fucking hell. Neither of them should be in prison.

Earlier on I really thought it was going to turn out that the ex-boyfriend did it. He seemed well shifty. But he kind of just disappeared from the narrative after a while.

That brother was a dick as well.

Paul Dano was very good as Brendan though.

[Yevrah]

Earlier on I really thought it was going to turn out that the ex-boyfriend did it. He seemed well shifty. But he kind of just disappeared from the narrative after a while.


I thought so too. It's not that relevant I don't suppose as it wouldn't have helped to get Avery off (because they weren't allowed to pursue it to the ultimate end game) but that whole part of the trial where they explained 'hacking' into Holbach's mobile account online stank to high heaven.

[Boydy]

I thought so too. It's not that relevant I don't suppose as it wouldn't have helped to get Avery off (because they weren't allowed to pursue it to the ultimate end game) but that whole part of the trial where they explained 'hacking' into Holbach's mobile account online stank to high heaven.

Yeah, that sounded really dodgy. That and the deleted voicemails. I sort of thought the brother might have been involved at that point as well.

[TG09]

Yeah, that sounded really dodgy. That and the deleted voicemails. I sort of thought the brother might have been involved at that point as well.

Same at with the brother or the ex. Deleting them voicemails didnt go anywhere from what we saw. I would of looked in to that a bit, I also thought it was strange that at the start of the episode it was her video that was shown and she talked about if she died? Who does a video talking about if they die?

[Yevrah]

Same at with the brother or the ex. Deleting them voicemails didnt go anywhere from what we saw. I would of looked in to that a bit, I also thought it was strange that at the start of the episode it was her video that was shown and she talked about if she died? Who does a video talking about if they die?

That was all a bit Twin Peaks.

In respect of why Strang and Buting couldn't follow the voicemail line any further, the brother and weirdo ex simply weren't on trial. The police would/should have covered that in their investigations had they been doing their jobs properly. That they hadn't meant that while Strang and Buting were free to ask about it, they had absolutely no capacity to perform any sort of interrogation on either witness at the trial.

[SvN]

Indeed. The prosecution questioning him further at that point would've just strengthened the defence case that they didn't investigate thoroughly.

[Yevrah]

Indeed. The prosecution questioning him further at that point would've just strengthened the defence case that they didn't investigate thoroughly.

Eh? It was Strang questioning him about accessing the voicemails and there's a tangible moment when you know he'd love to go further but the judge had already laid down the rules of engagement about no other individual(s) based theories being allowed.

[SvN]

I thought TG09 meant he thought the prosecution should've looked into it more.

[Yevrah]

I thought TG09 meant he thought the prosecution should've looked into it more.

Ah, I thought he meant the defence should have given how dodgy the whole thing sounded in court.

[SvN]

Yep I think I got the wrong end of the stick in fairness.

I'd love to know a geniune opinion from the Halbach's about the documentary. I wonder if they feel betrayed at all, or just blindly believe what Krantz and the prosecution told them.

[TG09]

I thought TG09 meant he thought the prosecution should've looked into it more.

No sorry the defense.

[Yevrah]

Yep I think I got the wrong end of the stick in fairness.

I'd love to know a geniune opinion from the Halbach's about the documentary. I wonder if they feel betrayed at all, or just blindly believe what Krantz and the prosecution told them.

I guess you've already seen it, but I think the only thing they've said so far is "I wish people would stop profiting from the death of our family member", which is a reasonably fair enough comment.

I could sort of understand the brother's stance on Avery as he had history and there was evidence (if you blindly believe what the police tell you), but when he spoke in the documentary about being disappointed at Dassey not confessing on the stand it was like he was watching a different trial. Either way, he was clearly a lost cause at that stage as someone who a) absolutely blindly believes 100% of what the police tell you or b) knew who actually did it and was covering up for them.

I don't think a Netflix documentary will change that perspective.

[SvN]

Fucking hell

http://ideape.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/avery-road-dead-end-part-iii.html?view=classic&m=1

What a total nutter :D

[Boydy]

How does Steven Avery have so many relationships as well? That baffled me.

[Yevrah]

How does Steven Avery have so many relationships as well? That baffled me.

Because he's a human and humans like getting it on with each other.

[Yevrah]

Fucking hell

http://ideape.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/avery-road-dead-end-part-iii.html?view=classic&m=1

What a total nutter :D


Ryan Hillegas, if you're reading this, what I want you to know is that from now on I'm going to do my best to eliminate you as a suspect.

:D

[Boydy]

No humans want to get it on with me. :(

[Yevrah]

No humans want to get it on with me. :(

Get yourself out there then. You might not want to get it on with them, but there's bound to be people who do with you and eventually (depending on how picky you are) you'll find one/some you want.

[Yevrah]

I wish these blog fuckers knew how to use paragraphs. Despite clearly being penned by a nutter, the link to the blog SvN posted is quite an interesting read, but a fucking headache to digest at the same time.

[Yevrah]

22

Fucking hell, if that's genuine. :D

[SvN]

I can't believe the fucker actually turned up at the Avery household. What the fuck is wrong with him.

[Yevrah]

This gave me a genuine lol.


Mr. Kratz, Can You Answer These 22 Questions About Ryan Hillegas?
Ken,

As you may be aware, the person I think most likely did this was Ryan Hillegas. I'll just compose a list as you have done that I need answers to so I can go back home (which I would very much like to do at this point, actually cause my friends and family are giving me loads of crap right now for being in Manitowok).

That bit in brackets. :D

[Yevrah]

I can't believe the fucker actually turned up at the Avery household. What the fuck is wrong with him.

It might just be my sense of humour, but this is a brilliant read.


But I didn't come to Wisconsin to try on silly hats. My objective was to get to the Avery homestead a good ninety minutes away by car by late afternoon. The busses that day were running, at least so far as I could determine, early morning or in the evening. I'm a night owl, so early in the morning wasn't going to work, and I didn't want to take the later bus as I would have arrived at the Avery's at an injudicious hour, particularly on Christmas day. That left me with no option but a taxi which was going to be expensive, but I had no choice.

After casting around a bit along the row of taxis you typically find at an airport, I finally found Gary, an Iraqi expat who was willing to take me for $150. I was to eventually learn that the price had been greatly reduced from a year ago owing to the proliferation of services like Uber.

I immediately liked Gary. As an interlocutor, he was neither indifferent nor overbearing in conversation. And he had interesting stories to relate. What more can you ask for when talking to anybody, really? On the way we fell into conversation easily. Most interestingly he told me that he once worked at notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad Iraq. What would anyone think hearing a statement like that? So I asked him a bunch of questions about it, and it turns out that he was there before Saddam Hussein took power in the early 70s (I believe it was). He said it was actually a nice place to work then -- laid back, no one being tortured or shot. His job was to manage the workers who build and maintained the facility as far as I could determine. The next way station on his life's journey was to move to the US to learn how to become a tractor mechanic. While he was here, he was able to meet and marry a woman with whom he's been married to for almost four decades.

He eventually asked me where I was going and why. I told him I was here in Wisconsin to look into the hunch that I developed while watching Making a Murderer. He hadn't heard about the show, but when I explained to him that it was my belief that a killer was on the lose, he understood and offered encouragement. "You are doing the right thing", he said. I asked him if would be ok for me to post the phone number to his taxi business in case others needed a ride out to Manitowok, and he said that would be fine.



The casual throwing in of completely useless and insignificant titbits as if they're as relevant as visiting some complete strangers unannounced on Christmas Day is gold.

[Yevrah]

There's actually some reasonably compelling stuff in that blog.

http://ideape.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/dupers-delight-that-smirk-that-says-so.html

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oKF4ExbNVcY/VoOHIVjDjzI/AAAAAAAAArA/PV7pXe-os_o/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-12-29%2Bat%2B9.10.57%2BPM.png

[Boydy]

It was deffo Hillegas.

[Yevrah]

There was an episode of Touch of Frost from years back that had the fit blond from Teachers in it (now married to Keith Allen I believe, having met on the set of Bodies, which I still haven't seen) that was set in a university where a psycho was preying on female students and doing a lot of weird shit. All stereotypical stuff obviously, but his mannerisms, the good looks and a certain sense of confidence come arrogance is the absolute spit of the way Hillegas looked and behaved in the footage shown of him.

Which given Touch of Frost was merely an entertaining break out drama for the lovable David Jason (and this is reality) probably means he had absolutely nothing to do with it, but I mention it anyway.

[Yevrah]

Hillegas' Facebook profile, that's remarkably open.

https://www.facebook.com/ryan.hillegas

Mike Hallbach's is in his friends list as well.

In posting that one wonders how this might all end. It's alright in my hands as while I'll admit I'm probably intrigued too much by this case, I am on the right side of hatstand and therefore pose no threat. There must be hundreds who aren't though.

[TG09]

I can't believe the fucker actually turned up at the Avery household. What the fuck is wrong with him.

That does take some big balls to do that, then later they called the police on him..hahaha

[Yevrah]

I've read it all now and it's fair to say it's a good read (irrespective of it ultimately being pointless) and the chap writing it is very interesting. He also has a rap sheet as long as your arm.

[Pepe]

I will not be getting into blogs and other shite.

As for the people believing he did it, or 50/50 or whatever, what makes you think he did? None of the evidence shown in the documentary seems convincing enough to me, at all. The confession is bollocks, the key is bollocks, the bullet DNA is bollocks. The bones were shown to be moved. The car in the property is bollocks considering he had that crushing machine which would have been better than the lol idea of using two branches to cover it. the only decent piece of evidence is the blood inside the car with his DNA, but the fact that his previous evidence was tampered with and that not a single fingerprint was found apparently make it far from convincing. Am I missing something here?

[TG09]

I will not be getting into blogs and other shite.

As for the people believing he did it, or 50/50 or whatever, what makes you think he did? None of the evidence shown in the documentary seems convincing enough to me, at all. The confession is bollocks, the key is bollocks, the bullet DNA is bollocks. The bones were shown to be moved. The car in the property is bollocks considering he had that crushing machine which would have been better than the lol idea of using two branches to cover it. the only decent piece of evidence is the blood inside the car with his DNA, but the fact that his previous evidence was tampered with and that not a single fingerprint was found apparently make it far from convincing. Am I missing something here?


Nope, you summed it up quiet nicely fella.

[Yevrah]

I will not be getting into blogs and other shite.

As for the people believing he did it, or 50/50 or whatever, what makes you think he did? None of the evidence shown in the documentary seems convincing enough to me, at all. The confession is bollocks, the key is bollocks, the bullet DNA is bollocks. The bones were shown to be moved. The car in the property is bollocks considering he had that crushing machine which would have been better than the lol idea of using two branches to cover it. the only decent piece of evidence is the blood inside the car with his DNA, but the fact that his previous evidence was tampered with and that not a single fingerprint was found apparently make it far from convincing. Am I missing something here?

I don't think you're missing anything, it's just that more people than one would imagine don't understand what the role of a jury is. Which reminds me of this quite brilliant set of questions from the Vicky Pryce case jury.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/vicky-pryce-jury-asks-can-you-define-reasonable-doubt-judge-its-a-doubt-that-is-reasonable-8503427.html

I suppose they at least had the good grace to own up to not having a fucking clue as to what they should be doing, rather than tossing it off for the time they were meant to be deliberating.

[Mazuuurk]

Ok, DONE!

The fact that I had seen something about Anonymous getting involved in this, and that all the conversations with Avery were always on the phone (even if that could have been to create the sense of chronology) made me always believe he was still in prison, regardless of the current state of the appeals etc.

However, like Yev, I kind of expected a little more redemption, or something interesting to come up right at the end that would re-open the case.

I kept expecting more information to pop up about that fucker L.E.N.K., and like you lot I also felt well miffed by both the Brother (although he did some good acting at points if he was involved) - but more importantly about the Ex, Ryan, and also the two other Dasseys (can't remember the relations) that acted quite odd, Bobby Dassey and another older dude. Maybe it was Dytrich or something. What the fuck were they all about?

[Boydy]

Scott Tadych (wasn't it?). He was Brendan's stepdad, wasn't he? He did seem quite odd too, yeah.

The thought of being on trial with a jury of twelve average joes off the street is fucking terrifying.

[TG09]

Scott Tadych (wasn't it?). He was Brendan's stepdad, wasn't he? He did seem quite odd too, yeah.

The thought of being on trial with a jury of twelve average joes off the street is fucking terrifying.

For a while I thought it was Scott too, but that Ryan dude seems suspect.

[Samadini]

The 'discovery' of the key is absolutely amazing :D

[SvN]

So the big news today is that one of the jurors (not the one that was excused) has claimed that they think Steven was not guilty, was framed, and they were afraid to hold out on their not guilty vote and feaful for their own safety.


"(The juror) told us that they believe Steven Avery was not proven guilty,'' Ricciardi said. "They believe Steven was framed by law enforcement and that he deserves a new trial, and if he receives a new trial, in their opinion it should take place far away from Wisconsin."

"That was the actual word the juror used and went on to describe the jurors ultimately trading votes in the jury room and explicitly discussing, 'If you vote guilty on this count, I will vote not guilty on this count,'" Ricciardi said.

There was behind-the-scenes vote-trading going on during the trial,the juror told the filmmakers, and the verdicts on each count were "a compromise."
"So that was a significant revelation."

The juror also said he or she voted to convict, but claimed the decision came under duress.

"They told us really that they were afraid that if they held out for a mistrial that it would be easy to identify which juror had done that and that they were fearful for their own safety,'' Demos said.
The filmmakers said they have not been able to verify the claims because they have not spoken with any other jurors. If there was a new trial, though, the mystery juror would be willing to serve as a "source," they said.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/steven-avery-juror-believes-police-framed-2016-1?r=US&IR=T

[Yevrah]

Looks to me like a case of someone who was too unprincipled/lazy to stand up for what they thought was right at the time massively regretting it now.

If I genuinely thought someone was innocent/guilty having heard all of the evidence and finished deliberating it wouldn't matter to me what the other 11 thought, I'd stick to my guns and people who aren't prepared to do that shouldn't be called.

[Davgooner]

Nothing beats web sleuths. I check in on the mob over at Zodiac Killer fairly regularly and considering they're investigating something that's been idle for the best part of 45 years it's unbelievable what they turn up. Admittedly there're some absolute loons as well.

[SvN]

I read through the entire 2005 thread from websleauths. One poster inparticular, Sherlockmom, who makes some absolutely horrendous posts on the subject. I wonder what she thinks now, knowing what she knows. It's a huge thread and it's useful for nothing other than following how events unfolded and how the media was portraying them at the time.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?31696-WI-Teresa-Marie-Halbach-25-Manitowoc-31-Oct-2005

[Yevrah]

58 pages SvN? You must be more into this than I am...

In other news, I ended up coming across Statement Analysis last night. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement_analysis Which looks dodgy enough, but people who think Avery is guilty seem to be pointing towards this technique proving that, despite Avery saying "I didn't do it" numerous times. :cab:

[SvN]

I've found the entire thing fascinating. I've even read quite a few legal documents that were part of the Dassey case, as they've all been released.

[Yevrah]

Yeah, I've read a fair bit of the transcript of his statement.

[Boydy]

It's all really interesting but fuck reading extremely long threads on an internet forum populated almost entirely by loons.

[Pepe]

It's all really interesting but fuck reading extremely long threads on an internet forum populated almost entirely by loons.

Exactly what I said earlier.

[Yevrah]

If you're interested in the case there are some interesting things to found though.

[Pepe]

I am sure there are, I just don't want to go through all the shit.

In the interest of discussion:

I am sure most, if not all, of us agree that the 'jury of your peers' system is fucked up. Having some regular folks who don't really understand things deciding whether you spend your life in jail or not simply does not sound right. What are the alternatives though? Would a system where someone who understands law (the judge could be it I guess) makes the decision be any better? Initially I think it would but then I think it would also be more prone to corruption and would be more likely to side with the state as the prosecutor. What do you folks think?

[Mazuuurk]

Well, if the jury actually consisted of a bunch of people that knew law, say aspiring judges, that may be the best bet. Then at the same time, it seems a little less democratic, and like you say it seems like those people would have to be in many trials and the risk of corruption would increase monumentally.

Actually I can't think of a better idea myself.

[SvN]

I seem to be the only one that wasn't hooked to the Serial podcast last year, but if you haven't listened to Series 1, then go and get it. You'll love it if you enjoyed MaM.

Series 2 isn't really anywhere near as good so far, unfortunately.

[Giggles]

Been meaning to listen to that after listening to a few other podcast series. There's also another Netflix show that people keep comparing this to that I want to see too.

[Yevrah]

Despite what happened here, I think jury of your peers is the best system.

Implementing a system where any sort of ‘professional’ people are employed to judge is not only open to corruption, but more worryingly open to those involved being swayed by previous cases and the judgements about people they’ve made in those being used to form preconceptions which are then fallen back on rather than relying on the evidence at hand.

I would imagine if you asked any law enforcement officers or lawyers if they ‘knew’ if the accused was guilty within minutes of meeting them and they were being honest, their response would be ‘yes’ and I doubt that that opinion would change (again if they were being honest) having formulated/reviewed the evidence. That’s all that would happen with any sort of professional system.

That said, I appreciate the current system’s not perfect and to my mind it would certainly benefit from jurors being scrutinised more before being selected. Not sure how you do that in practice, but there’s certainly a legitimate issue with them not understanding what they’re there to do and that has to be the system’s fault more than theirs.

Having had friends who’ve done it they’ve pretty much outlined the above as being problematic. I’d quite like the chance myself at some point, just to get a better feel for what it’s actually like.

[Yevrah]

Well, if the jury actually consisted of a bunch of people that knew law, say aspiring judges, that may be the best bet.

It's an awful idea. For the reasons I listed above, plus (and I might be wrong), but I think law students aren't allowed on juries (in England?) because all that happens is they end up applying laws they don't understand properly or worse still, introducing elements to their verdict that either weren't covered in the way they would have done or they believe have been covered incorrectly.

And the problem in this case wasn’t only the jury, but more the system up to that point.

[Pepe]

How about 'testing' a jury's decision in the case they choose guilty. Taking this case as an example: If they believe there is no doubt that he did it, then they should be able to recreate how the murder happened and be able to prove that their recreation is consistent with all the evidence presented. I doubt they could do that.

[Mazuuurk]

Been meaning to listen to that after listening to a few other podcast series. There's also another Netflix show that people keep comparing this to that I want to see too.

What's it called, do you know?

Have you seen The Jinx, by the way?


It's an awful idea. For the reasons I listed above, plus (and I might be wrong), but I think law students aren't allowed on juries (in England?) because all that happens is they end up applying laws they don't understand properly or worse still, introducing elements to their verdict that either weren't covered in the way they would have done or they believe have been covered incorrectly.

And the problem in this case wasn’t only the jury, but more the system up to that point.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. As I wrote that I realized it wasn't ever going to be a good idea.


How about 'testing' a jury's decision in the case they choose guilty. Taking this case as an example: If they believe there is no doubt that he did it, then they should be able to recreate how the murder happened and be able to prove that their recreation is consistent with all the evidence presented. I doubt they could do that.

Yeah but, well, that's kind of the prosecutions (and defence's) tasks, isn't it?

[Pepe]

Sort of. An explanation of why they came up with the verdict they did would be beneficial I feel because as Yev expressed, many of them probably are not really sure of what they are supposed to be doing.

[Yevrah]

If you want to narrow jurors down to aspiring crime writers, then yeah, fill your boots.

And it's reasonable doubt, not no doubt.

One thing that is important here is that one has to distance themselves from what we saw and put ourselves in the jury's position. So, if, for example, we take the blood found in her car - by the time we see that bit in court, we've seen 4/5 hours of a documentary in Avery's favour, a whole load of dubious things the cops may have done and an unveiling of Avery's blood sample that looked unbelievable in terms of the conditions it had been kept in and an unveiling which set up a quite beautiful cliffhanger into the next episode.

Whereas the first thing they see is an FBI agent saying the blood couldn't have been planted because there's no (or they couldn't find) EDTA in it, which to be fair carries a lot more weight than a woman with no teeth subsequently saying the test might be a bit dodgy.

Which isn't to excuse the decision the jury reached, particularly not if some of them pussied out, but I can understand it - if they believe the police didn't plant the key and all the other evidence put forward hadn't been manipulated or staged then I can see how they found him guilty.

The Dassey situation is obviously completely different and I can't for the life of me understand what happened there. Well, beyond the jury thinking the lad was scum either directly or by association, so he must have done it. Which again, is far from excusable.

[Pepe]

I would imagine if you asked any law enforcement officers or lawyers if they ‘knew’ if the accused was guilty within minutes of meeting them and they were being honest, their response would be ‘yes’ and I doubt that that opinion would change (again if they were being honest) having formulated/reviewed the evidence. That’s all that would happen with any sort of professional system.

Not sure I agree. The goal of the 'professional system' would be to avoid exactly this from happening. We all think we're good judges of character (you should know.) This people, whoever they would be, would be trained to follow logic and reasoning rather than preconceptions.

[Mazuuurk]

Yeah but then you get the problem of: what if their motivation, or what you would call it, it batshit mental let's say. Who is actually to be given to power to question them and decide that it IS indeed batshit mental (and should be made void...or..?) ? The judge? Then you ultimately put all the power with him/her anyway, and that's also (more) open to corruption.

[Giggles]

What's it called, do you know?

Have you seen The Jinx, by the way?


You just answered your own question :D

I may be incorrect that it was a Netflix show, but I've heard it mentioned a lot since this came out. Is it worth watching?

[Mazuuurk]

If you want to narrow jurors down to aspiring crime writers, then yeah, fill your boots.

And it's reasonable doubt, not no doubt.

One thing that is important here is that one has to distance themselves from what we saw and put ourselves in the jury's position. So, if, for example, we take the blood found in her car - by the time we see that bit in court, we've seen 4/5 hours of a documentary in Avery's favour, a whole load of dubious things the cops may have done and an unveiling of Avery's blood sample that looked unbelievable in terms of the conditions it had been kept in and an unveiling which set up a quite beautiful cliffhanger into the next episode.

Whereas the first thing they see is an FBI agent saying the blood couldn't have been planted because there's no (or they couldn't find) EDTA in it, which to be fair carries a lot more weight than a woman with no teeth subsequently saying the test might be a bit dodgy.

Which isn't to excuse the decision the jury reached, particularly not if some of them pussied out, but I can understand it - if they believe the police didn't plant the key and all the other evidence put forward hadn't been manipulated or staged then I can see how they found him guilty.

The Dassey situation is obviously completely different and I can't for the life of me understand what happened there. Well, beyond the jury thinking the lad was scum either directly or by association, so he must have done it. Which again, is far from excusable.

There were also apparently some stuff you didn't get to see in the documentary at all, one of them is they had proved somehow the bullet they found was actually fired from Steven Averys gun (which is why he was convicted on the possession of firearm charge, I suppose). That still doesn't mean that bullet wasn't tampered with, I reckon, but to a jury it's probably also further convincing.

[Yevrah]

Sort of. An explanation of why they came up with the verdict they did would be beneficial I feel because as Yev expressed, many of them probably are not really sure of what they are supposed to be doing.

I don't know if this is standard for the US (far from so in England), but I remember the jury on the Jackson sex abuse trial being interviewed afterwards, explaining why they found him not guilty. Which essentially boiled down to "would I let him anywhere near my kids? Not a fucking chance. Was there enough evidence demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that he fucked them? No".

Not sure if that would help as standard, in terms of educating the public a bit more, but ultimately 'the system' needs to better explain what's required.

[Mazuuurk]

You just answered your own question :D

I may be incorrect that it was a Netflix show, but I've heard it mentioned a lot since this came out. Is it worth watching?

Ah, yeah no it's HBO, that's why.

And yeah, it is. Although I did enjoy MaM a little more, but The Jinx is definitely also very good.
A little more sensational, not quite as bleak perhaps, is how I'd describe it.

[Giggles]

Ah, yeah no it's HBO, that's why.

And yeah, it is. Although I did enjoy MaM a little more, but The Jinx is definitely also very good.
A little more sensational, not quite as bleak perhaps, is how I'd describe it.

I'll have a hunt for it and give it a watch, cheers.

[Pepe]

I don't know if this is standard for the US (far from so in England), but I remember the jury on the Jackson sex abuse trial being interviewed afterwards, explaining why they found him not guilty. Which essentially boiled down to "would I let him anywhere near my kids? Not a fucking chance. Was there enough evidence demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that he fucked them? No".

Not sure if that would help as standard, in terms of educating the public a bit more, but ultimately 'the system' needs to better explain what's required.

What's required definitely needs to be explained better. I've heard from people who have been called for jury duty and they've told me its a lolfest. As for the first part, that is sort of what I'm getting at. At least a summary of why the decision was taken could be provided, to determine whether the jury followed the proper guidelines. Would help people looking for appeals for one, if they could show that the jury didn't quite understand its role.

[Yevrah]

There were also apparently some stuff you didn't get to see in the documentary at all, one of them is they had proved somehow the bullet they found was actually fired from Steven Averys gun (which is why he was convicted on the possession of firearm charge, I suppose). That still doesn't mean that bullet wasn't tampered with, I reckon, but to a jury it's probably also further convincing.

Yeah, of course, I saw all that. Which is why I can see how they reached their verdict.

What's worrying though is that the number of juror's that changed their minds over the course of deliberating. What could have been said in 2/3 days that was more convincing than a 6 week trial? If it were the case that the 7 jurors (was it?) who changed their minds did so because they realised they hadn't been following the judges instructions, then fine, but I suspect what's more likely (given the circumstances of the man involved) that a few belligerent hicks who had him bang to rights from the get go managed to wear down or bore off enough of the others who couldn't be arsed/were guilted into the repercussions of letting someone go who might have done that.

[Mazuuurk]

Yeah, of course, I saw all that. Which is why I can see how they reached their verdict.

What's worrying though is that the number of juror's that changed their minds over the course of deliberating. What could have been said in 2/3 days that was more convincing than a 6 week trial? If it were the case that the 7 jurors (was it?) who changed their minds did so because they realised they hadn't been following the judges instructions, then fine, but I suspect what's more likely (given the circumstances of the man involved) that a few belligerent hicks who had him bang to rights from the get go managed to wear down or bore off enough of the others who couldn't be arsed/were guilted into the repercussions of letting someone go who might have done that.

Agreed. That was the theory of the dude that was excused as well, wasn't it?

[Yevrah]

This blog really is required reading.

http://ideape.blogspot.co.uk/?view=classic

He's now got Ken Kratz to enter into dialogue with him.

[simon]

Do you lads think that the documentary was quite biased? When watching it, I couldn't help thinking that my line of thought was being led down the path the makers wanted me to go down.

My 'theory' for a good while was that Avery had multiple personality disorder and therefore did it. That didn't quite match up come the end though, so yeah. He definitely deserves a retrial, there's no doubt about that. And the poor kid should be exonerated immediately.

[Yevrah]

The documentary was biased and manipulative, there's no doubt about that. Doesn't mean that it didn't make valid points though, but it is important to recognise that.

[Yevrah]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIBAoe8hNPk

They don't, but a good watch nonetheless.

[Pepe]

Unless new evidence came up, I am not sure why Avery deserves a retrial. Dassey definitely does.

[SvN]

http://chadsteele.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/some-clarity-to-some-of-evidence-in.html?m=1

Interesting view on the scientific evidence.

[Yevrah]

http://chadsteele.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/some-clarity-to-some-of-evidence-in.html?m=1

Interesting view on the scientific evidence.

When you read that (assuming he/she is right), how on earth did Strang and Buting manage to muff their contesting of those two bits of key evidence up so much?

[Yevrah]

Oh and on the evidence that wasn't presented, why does the DNA under the hood of Hallbach's car mean anything?

She'd been there somewhere up to 5 times, to see a man who worked/owned a salvage yard. He could have quite easily taken a look at something in her engine for her. Ooh-er missus aside.

People never seem to state this when it's raised though.

[Giggles]

When you read that (assuming he/she is right), how on earth did Strang and Buting manage to muff their contesting of those two bits of key evidence up so much?

Because if the whole thing is as crooked as planting it suggests, then the judge is part of that system.

[Yevrah]

Because if the whole thing is as crooked as planting it suggests, then the judge is part of that system.

You what? Well in advance of the trial they were worried about what the FBI might do to refute their planted blood claims, and that (now I no more about EDTA) could only mean they were going to produce 'evidence' to suggest that EDTA wasn't present. As the writer of that blog says, the witness they called did mention that using only 3 samples and extrapolating wasn't correct, but she sure as shit didn't explain the rest of it in the sort of layman terms that are obviously required when trying to convince a jury, as the blog does.

Same type of thing goes for the DNA on the bullet - unless I'm not recalling correctly or it wasn't shown, there was no witness called to say once the negative control is compromised IT ISN'T A TEST anymore.

I thought Strang and Buting were both top gents, but (from what we saw) they were pretty poor in these areas. How hard would it have been to court two experts to come and talk for you on the subjects, explaining it properly? Instead they chose a Woman (sorry, not good enough in rural 'Murica) who had no teeth to do so and she muffed it.

[Magic]

That reporter though. :drool:

:D

This is basically all I took from the series also.

[Pepe]

Haven't seen the link but the dna tests being completely inconclusive was most definitely mentioned.

[Yevrah]

Haven't seen the link but the dna tests being completely inconclusive was most definitely mentioned.

I'm pretty sure that was in respect of the EDTA in blood.

For the DNA, Katz managed to wing it and suggest that it wasn't that much of a big deal as Avery's DNA was still present. Which again, as a layperson on these matters, I initially thought sounded reasonable (while still thinking they could have planted it). Had the defence explained it in the way that blog does (you should read it) and got a credible witness to do so, I wouldn't have thought the same for shit.

Which either means the Blog is wrong, or they muffed it.

[Magic]

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=angenette+levy&hl=en-GB&source=android-browser&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwif0Yril5bKAhUKvBQKHdQHAcYQ_AUIBygB

:drool:

[Yevrah]

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=angenette+levy&hl=en-GB&source=android-browser&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwif0Yril5bKAhUKvBQKHdQHAcYQ_AUIBygB

:drool:

What's remarkable about her is that she can pull off so many different looks. From mom next door, to secretary, to nice person, to hardened reporter bitch. She'd be phenomenal in the sack.

[Pepe]

I'll read it later as I'm in a meeting but the bullet dna test should have not been used AT ALL. It was completely flawed.

[Giggles]

What's remarkable about her is that she can pull off so many different looks. From mom next door, to secretary, to nice person, to hardened reporter bitch. She'd be phenomenal in the sack.

The glasses are a must.

[Yevrah]

I'll read it later as I'm in a meeting but the bullet dna test should have not been used AT ALL. It was completely flawed.

Yeah, that's what the blog says. Maybe I am mis-remembering bits, it was a looong night, but had it been explained in those terms I'm sure I'd have felt as strongly about it as I do having read that blog.

[Yevrah]

The glasses are a must.


http://i.imgur.com/6533CsI.jpg


I don't even...

[Pepe]

She is superb. :drool:

[Giggles]

Guaranteed she'd be in the shackles market too.

[Yevrah]

Interestingly, if you search for this:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=angenette+levy&hl=en-GB&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBiqnemJbKAhUGShQKHQmhCfcQ_AUIBigA&biw=1920&bih=955&dpr=1#hl=en-GB&q=angenette+levy+age

It's not immediately apparent and there are some results that have been removed under the European Data Protection act.

It's disappointing that (we live in a society where) women still need to do that shit.

[Magic]

Steven who?

:drool:

[Pepe]

Ok, just read the blog. Both of those were brought up but I guess as a scientist myself they were obvious enough. That's the reason I said earlier that the DNA tests were complete bollocks, both of them. If anything, bringing up any of them, let along both, as evidence was downright cheating from the prosecution and one definitely fuels the 'planted evidence/corrupt state' fire.

[Yevrah]

Ok, just read the blog. Both of those were brought up but I guess as a scientist myself they were obvious enough. That's the reason I said earlier that the DNA tests were complete bollocks, both of them. If anything, bringing up any of them, let along both, as evidence was downright cheating from the prosecution.

Fair enough. To a layperson/thicko and only from what we saw, they weren't explained that well. And I can all but guarantee you that that jury would have seen little to nothing wrong with the issue with the DNA obtained from the bullet test.

[Pepe]

I don't know how much of the closing statements we were shown, but I did think that the defense did not bring all the inconsistencies up in a loud and convincing enough manner there.

[simon]

Speaking of the closing statements, Krantz plastering the grinning faces of those two slime-ball cops onto the monitor and then essentially saying 'do you believe these lovely policeman or that odd looking man over there?' was rather infuriating.

[TG09]

They talk about using bleach, but surely they can pick up that bleach has been used to clean up blood. You see in it TV Show with black lights etc... So if they did clean up all the blood they should of seen it?

[Yevrah]

I don't know how much of the closing statements we were shown, but I did think that the defense did not bring all the inconsistencies up in a loud and convincing enough manner there.

I did wonder while watching (particularly after the verdict) whether Strang or Buting had mis-judged the (geographical) area that they were operating in and therefore the jury too. I don't suppose there's much demand for a couple of city slickers to come and represent the underclass in backwater America, so presumably this would have been their first time dealing with a community where cattle rustling is probably generally about as serious as it gets and everyone knows and (more importantly) trusts the police.

It's one thing trying to convince a jury that an inner city group of cops they've never even met are guilty of planting evidence, but another entirely trying to convince people who've probably had their cars towed through the snow by some of them personally the same.

They were obviously forced to try in the circumstances, but I fear they misjudged the difficulty of pulling it off, despite Strang saying "it's something you'd never want to do".

[Magic]

Why was the jury allowed to be from Manitowac when the Averys were well known as scummy cunts?

[Yevrah]

They talk about using bleach, but surely they can pick up that bleach has been used to clean up blood. You see in it TV Show with black lights etc... So if they did clean up all the blood they should of seen it?

I'm no forensic expert, I'm Yevrah (I hope Lewis read this thread one day, orgasm on the spot) but I'm pretty sure that even dousing the shit out of somewhere with bleach is still going to leave a shitload of evidence, particularly in a garage that looked like it still had things put there in the 1970s in it.

[Pepe]

One more: Any evidence found months after the initial searches can fuck right off. Do your job properly and find it the first time around.

[Yevrah]

Why was the jury allowed to be from Manitowac when the Averys were well known as scummy cunts?

Strang has addressed this since the show aired (hell, I think I did in the thread earlier too) and his point was that they'd have struggled to form an objective jury from anywhere in Wisconsin after that press conference where Krantz explained how it all 'happened' took place.

My gut feeling was that while they were obviously better lawyers than anything that poor bastard Dassey ended up with, they probably weren't of the calibre required to get that sort of request granted.

[Yevrah]

One more: Any evidence found months later after the initial searches can fuck right off. Do your job properly and find it the first time around.

I wouldn't always say that should be the case, as it can presumably work both ways (evidence comes to light that gets someone out of prison), but how anyone in the jury bought that key being found on the 8th search is beyond me.

[Pepe]

I've definitely heard before that getting the right jury is over half the battle in such a case.

[Yevrah]

Speaking of the closing statements, Krantz plastering the grinning faces of those two slime-ball cops onto the monitor and then essentially saying 'do you believe these lovely policeman or that odd looking man over there?' was rather infuriating.

The absolute worst part of any closing speech was the absolutely disgusting and emotive language used by the prosecution in Dassey's case about his sexual lust taking over and him helping himself.

I was ready to smash through the tv and step into his arsehole at that point.

[Pepe]

I wouldn't always say that should be the case, as it can presumably work both ways (evidence comes to light that gets someone out of prison), but how anyone in the jury bought that key being found on the 8th search is beyond me.

Yes, I agree. But then that would be looking in some place that wasn't looked into before or looking for something very specific. A key in the room and a bullet in the garage? Those should be found within the first five minutes ffs.

[Yevrah]

Yes, I agree. But then that would be looking in some place that wasn't looked into before or looking for something very specific. A key in the room and a bullet in the garage? Those should be found within the first five minutes ffs.

Oh of course.

[Magic]

Its embarrassing all round. Bet there's hundreds of similar cases all over the US.

Can you imagine what it's like in South America? Russia? China?

[Yevrah]

Its embarrassing all round. Bet there's hundreds of similar cases all over the US.

Can you imagine what it's like in South America? Russia? China?

Probably a bit like this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BxFlmb6S6E

[Pepe]

As I said earlier, imagine been stuck with a public defendant (Len K says hi) instead of ultra expensive lawyers. You'll be locked within five minutes.

[Yevrah]

An IQ of -12 + Len K and you'd be absolutely fucked.

It'd probably be worse with a higher IQ actually as you'd understand both the gravity and graveness of the situation, while being able to do fuck all about it.

[Magic]

As I said earlier, imagine been stuck with a public defendant (Len K says hi) instead of ultra expensive lawyers. You'll be locked within five minutes.

Mert is destined for such a role.

"I'd like to open by first stating that as a female, and thus a second class citizen, she cannot be held responsible for the heinous crimes which she clearly committed"

[Yevrah]

Can you imagine fucking mert representing you and having to pay for the privilege? :sick:

[Mazuuurk]

Strang has addressed this since the show aired (hell, I think I did in the thread earlier too) and his point was that they'd have struggled to form an objective jury from anywhere in Wisconsin after that press conference where Krantz explained how it all 'happened' took place.

My gut feeling was that while they were obviously better lawyers than anything that poor bastard Dassey ended up with, they probably weren't of the calibre required to get that sort of request granted.

He paid them about 400k dollars, right? Now, I have no idea what lawyers actually cost, but given the length of the case/trial and that I assume as a lawyer during that time you don't do any other work either, and by that it just doesn't seem like a very astronomical salary for them.

Really fucking admire both of them though. That Strang dude is a real film type. Every time I see him, I feel as if I'm watching Dustin Hoffman in a film.

[Yevrah]

Yep. If you're not already aware, Strang's become something of a sex symbol online.

Avery settled on $400k compensation and the previous lawyers took 40% of that, so he had $240k to play with. I don't know/didn't note how long they worked on the trial for, but I'm guessing you're right in that that sort of money won't get you that far.

[Magic]

Their fees have probably skyrocketed.

[Mazuuurk]

Didn't know that, no :D

In fairness, there were a few times where I was sure that saucy reporter you all talk about was just about to bite her lip when he was going on during the press-sessions.

[Pepe]

A sex symbol. :D

[Mazuuurk]

Their fees have probably skyrocketed.

Not sure if you're serious or not, but this may very well be one of the few instances in the US where two lawyers actually losing a case have made them more attractive for employment, I reckon.

[Magic]

Kratz has probably knocked a few out over her.

[Magic]

The Innocence Project's website is a disgrace. The 334 people they've exonerated, all that work, simply undone by a shit website.

[Yevrah]

A sex symbol. :D

Don't take my word for it, take the word of the Guardian's Lilit Marcus:

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/jan/04/dean-strang-making-a-murderer-netflix-sex-symbol

And whichever twisted brainfail made this...


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXcX7E2WYAAVT8M.jpg:large

[Magic]

I thought the 96-97 lawyers were really good too.

[Josh]

Just finished watching this and don't have much to add beyond what has already been said but Dassey needs to be released immediately. Avery has probably been indoctrinated to an extent from his previous stint but Dassey is a cunthair off a full retard and the poor kid needs to be out.

As others have said I think Avery did it but nothing like they said but there's too much reasonable doubt for him to be put away. Dassey definitely had nothing to do with any of it.

Massively engaging documentary.

[Giggles]

I can't find the Jinx. Is there anywhere to watch it legit?

[Josh]

http://www.canistream.it/tv/series/289946/the-jinx-the-life-and-deaths-of-robert-durst

[Josh]

Apparently 'The Staircase' is another worth watching if you enjoyed this.

[Max Power]

That Sheriff going on TV and saying "why would we frame Steve Avery when it would be easier to kill him?" or words to that effect :D

Manitowoc County just seems to be exclusively populated by cunts and weirdos.

[Mazuuurk]

That Sheriff going on TV and saying "why would we frame Steve Avery when it would be easier to kill him?" or words to that effect :D

Manitowoc County just seems to be exclusively populated by cunts and weirdos.

Yeah, when I saw that I just pictured the conversation they must have had at some point. "No, let's frame him instead just to be safe, nobody will suspect anything as it would have been a lot easier to just kill him".

In a sense he's right though, it seems like it would have been a lot simpler for them to just either find a pretext or just sneak up and kill him. Morally, it certainly must have been easier for, say LENK or RYAN to just kill him, than go through the trouble of killing & burning Teresa Halbach - and all the stuff surrounding.

[Pepe]

People thinking he did it: Why do you think so and how do you think he did it?

[Magic]

"So basically you were working for the prosecution whilst representing the defendant?"

"...*sobs* ...sorry I keep thinking about that blue ribbon."

Was my favourite bit. :D

[Pepe]

That was pathetic. :D

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

What was that all about? Did I completely miss something?

[Adamski]

Finished this earlier today.

Can't believe they still thought it was appropriate to have Colborn chaperone BOTH of them to prison after they had been found guilty :D

[Pepe]

They probably have like five cops in the whole department.

[Adamski]

So there was 3 people better suited to that job then.

[Pepe]

True. :D

[Magic]

What's the difference between the sheriff and the actual cop departments?

[John Arne]

What's the difference between the sheriff and the actual cop departments?

Nothing really. It's a geographical jurisdiction distinction - Sheriffs control counties, whereas cops control cities and towns.

[Yevrah]

Not sure I agree. The goal of the 'professional system' would be to avoid exactly this from happening. We all think we're good judges of character (you should know.) This people, whoever they would be, would be trained to follow logic and reasoning rather than preconceptions.

Realised I missed this at the time.

That can be the goal as much as you like, but people (when doing the same thing over and over again) become institutionalised, it's just human nature.

It's the biggest (and probably only reason) to have a jury of your peers and for me it's a reason that outweighs all the other negatives of that system.

[Davgooner]

Greg Gutfield (I know) was suggesting on his show yesterday that the documentary failed to include reference several key pieces of physical evidence against the geezer.

[SvN]

That claim originated from Ken Kratz (of all people) and has largely been debunked. There's also a lot of evidence supporting him that was left out. 10 hours simply isn't enough time to include everything, so the filmmakers left out the less important stuff.

[leedsrevolution]

I read the other evidence and it doesn't change the show. I'm on episode 8 and still can't decide if he did it. Dassey is the biggest victim by the looks of things.

[Yevrah]

Avery has a new lawyer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3391648/She-s-supposed-really-really-good-Making-Murderer-Steven-Avery-s-mother-praises-son-s-new-Chicago-based-lawyer.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Zellner

[Pepe]

She looks filth.

Seems to have a good track record aswell.

[Yevrah]

Looking at that link again, they need to get Brendan Dassey out of prison ASAP, preferably before he eats himself to death.

[Boydy]

:D

At least he got his high school diploma.

[Yevrah]

I suppose bulking up would be a half decent way of deterring bum rapists though.

[Magic]

He wouldn't be particularly hard to abuse, would he?

[Boydy]

He's probably just being forced to give tit wanks now.

[Baz]

Just finished this. Man it got seriously boring once it was just courtroom.

[Boydy]

Read This: The pro-Steven Avery list of what was left out of Making A Murderer (http://www.avclub.com/article/read-pro-steven-avery-list-what-was-left-out-makin-230634?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Default:1:Default)

[Boydy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRa7yPDjBzk

It was so these two. Look at that.

[Foe]

Just finished smashing through this.

There's no way any logical person can be sure one way or another who killed that girl. You can see what the prosecution have done in working the sentimental aspect and just ignoring all of the logical, sometimes obvious, flaws in that exist. What I don't understand is why the prosecution were able to have clearly a non independent person conduct the car blood sample testing. It's just baffling that that was allowed, and even upheld despite being shown to be completely non compliant.

I thought the documentary tried to appear to be balanced, while definitely serving on averys side. However, it some sense it's almost karma that now there's really well spread public knowledge to cast doubt. In the original trial the news has plastered out the prosecutions unfounded belief of what had happened.

It should hopefully push for a re-trial. Now the defence would have to effectively prove his guilt, which is what they should have been doing in the first place. It would be interested to find out how this documentary has landed in Wisconsin.

[Mazuuurk]

If there is a re-trial, you better BELIEVE that there will be some astronomical coverage of that. I mean if they were allowed to be filming in the courtroom the first time.... Imagine if the just live-broadcasted this for weeks or months or whatever time it would take.

It would be like when you're in England and one of these never-ending Cricket matches are on TV, and it just stands there while noone is watching - except anyone English occasionally stops, folds their arms and observes for a few minutes before moving on.

[Yevrah]

I don't really know what they could do with any re-trial to bring any sort of impartial result to result to it now.

[Mazuuurk]

The same thing all over again, except with a new Jury that's biased the other way this time.

[Foe]

I don't really know what they could do with any re-trial to bring any sort of impartial result to result to it now.

The purpose of a retrial would be to identify guilt without reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt has been highlighted pretty clearly and the layers of the procesuctions methods shown to be clearly flawed.

Given the time that's elapsed it would be really interesting to do a re-test the method used for the Edca or whatever to understand whether it had any bearing.

Whats concerning for me is that we've got no inclination of what actually happened to her. If the propane truck drivers testimony is right in that the green suv did leave the plot then we have absolutely no idea where she went or what she did. Everything presented by the prosecution that was suggestive of the event taking place on the property was circumstantial or unfounded. It doesn't seem at any point that anyone actually looked at it and questioned where else she might have been.

[Foe]

Going to try and get my sister to watch through it. She's technically a lawyer so would be interesting to see if she basically thinks it's a nonsense or not.

[Yevrah]

I understand what the purpose of a re-trial would be (:cab:) I've just got no fucking idea how you pull together an impartial jury for one.

[Pepe]

Main thing is that unless new evidence is found I don't see what the basis of a re-trial would be. I guess if you could prove the jury was bent it could happen, but then that would also count as new evidence. Maybe if some populist politician goes balls deep into it.

[Yevrah]

I don't think there will be one unless new evidence comes to light.

[Giggles]

There won't be. And in a months time people will be onto some other TV show and nobody will give a shit.

[Pepe]

True.

[Magic]

Going to try and get my sister to watch through it. She's technically a lawyer so would be interesting to see if she basically thinks it's a nonsense or not.

All my ex colleagues were going rabid over it.

[Henry]

Not going to read the thread, as I'm just about to go onto episode 6, but just to note that this is an exceptional show.

[Yevrah]

It is indeed, one of the best I've ever seen.

[Pepe]

Probably #2 after The Wire for me. Can't wait for other similar shows to appear and the inevitable disappointment that will come with them.

[Baz]

Not going to read the thread, as I'm just about to go onto episode 6, but just to note that this is an exceptional show.Episodes 6 to 9 are boring. The rest is great though, especially 2 to 4.

[Pepe]

The fuck are they boring. Not enough explosions for you?

[Yevrah]

Probably #2 after The Wire for me. Can't wait for other similar shows to appear and the inevitable disappointment that will come with them.

I can't really see much rivalling it due to it being absolute happenstance that the documentary team were on site at the right time to get the level of footage they did, which is what made the show so good.

[John Arne]

Check out The Staircase from 2004. I'm halfway though, and it's very good so far.

[Bernanke]

Just finished it, Dolores is a rock.

No idea if he did it, but there's no way it was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The kid should be released immediately.

[Baz]

The fuck are they boring. Not enough explosions for you?:D What a default response. Explosions? Hahaha you mug.

I just though it was boring once it was nothing but courtroom footage, that's all.

[Magic]

There wasn't enough Baz, Mike or The Reid to make it entertaining for him.

[Boydy]

It's very good but it's not best or second best TV show ever good.

[Giggles]

3rd for me after Southland and the first series of True Detective. Though if you count True Detective as a whole then it drops to somewhere behind Home Improvement and moves MoM up to 2nd.

[Pepe]

It's very good but it's not best or second best TV show ever good.

Probably not but I don't watch that much TV. What's better in your opinion?

[Baz]

1 Goodnight Sweetheart
2 Workaholics
3 MOTD
4 Fringe
5 Doing Stuff A Bit

[Yevrah]

3rd for me after Southland and the first series of True Detective. Though if you count True Detective as a whole then it drops to somewhere behind Home Improvement and moves MoM up to 2nd.

True Detective, while very good for a time, relatively shat itself at the end and turned into formulaic mince.

24 Season 1 remains the best thing I've ever seen (I watched it all in a day knowing nothing going in), but this pushes that close.

[Henry]

Okay, done.

I'd like to say I was shocked, but you hear about so much injustice in the US that it's difficult to be so.
That said, it evoked genuine pathos at times - the despair in Steven's voice when he finds out Jody has left him stood out for me.

It did go on a bit too long, the last few episodes dragged a bit. They probably could have cut it down to eight instead of ten.

Possibly a bit one-sided? Yeah, why not interview the prosecutors, police etc. and allow them to give their views?

Brendan Dassey is certainly innocent. The lawyer and the investigators who were involved with him need to be doing prison time themselves.
I'm less sure about Steven Avery. There's no credible alternative theory as to how the bones got there for instance, and there's apparently some evidence that we didn't see. It's possible both that he was the killer and that there was police misconduct in his case. Either way there is reasonable doubt and the system being so fucked means that any conviction is unsafe.

[Yevrah]

There's no credible alternative theory as to how the bones got there for instance

There's also no credible primary theory about how he killed her in the manner described and managed to remove all trace evidence so thoroughly that even the cast of CSI couldn't find it.

The omitted evidence from the documentary is all hokum.

Which isn't to say he didn't do it, but I've seen nothing within the show and outside it that convinces me he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Agree with you entirely on Dassey, the whole thing was sickening.

[Henry]

I don't think it's the best show I've ever seen or anything like it, I'll add.

The Wire has that honour by some distance.

[Giggles]

That's the second time I've read that in a couple of days about The Wire. Is it that good? I never remember hearing much about it from people or on here before.

[Yevrah]

I watched the first 10 episodes and gave up due to it being a tedious borefest.

That said, me and the mate I watched it with are seemingly the only people in the entire world who've seen (a fair bit of) it and think that.

[Henry]

The Wire demands patience and concentration. It's not an easy watch, admittedly.

[Yevrah]

I gave it 10 hours and was losing the will to live well before that point.

[John]

If that wasn't sarcasm from Giggles then fucking hell. It came up so much in the TV thread on the old board that there was a recognised ritual and about fifteen tags dedicated to it.

As good as this was, the impact of the realisation that the American justice system is a huge bowl of steaming piss was diluted somewhat by having watched a load of John Oliver. He's had people on who've ended up doing fifteen years because of a parking fine that they only couldn't pay because collection of said fine was farmed out to a company who applied any payment to their own fees first. Once you've seen that sort of shit you realise that the scope for people to get fucked up the arse in that system is infinite.

The first few episodes were great, but I thought it reached a point of diminishing returns about halfway through, when the sheer weight of cuntery was so great that nothing else could really add to the outrage.

[Yevrah]

I'd suggest that people who were most captivated when the show was pissing them off were probably watching it wrong (similarly to how people who cringe at David Brent, in the office at least, didn't get that either).

Sure, there was a certain element of enjoyment feeling the rage boil, but it was really at its best for me when it became a whodunnit and about whether he'd get off or not.

[Giggles]

I really hadn't noticed. I knew it was watched and all but never that it was 'best ever' territory.

[Smiffy]

I've just finished watching the series so before I go and read the rest of this thread (thanks for not spoiling Yevrah!) I have to say that that was absolutely fucked up from start to finish. It makes you feel sick to your stomach, especially for Brendan. Poor git.

I'm still sat here wondering what the hell I've just watched.

[Smiffy]

That's the second time I've read that in a couple of days about The Wire. Is it that good? I never remember hearing much about it from people or on here before.

Definitely worth the watch. I really liked McNulty.

[Pepe]

I watched the first 10 episodes and gave up due to it being a tedious borefest.

That said, me and the mate I watched it with are seemingly the only people in the entire world who've seen (a fair bit of) it and think that.

I don't think it is the kind of show you want to be binging, which seems to be your preference.

[Alan Shearer The 2nd]

I watched the first 10 episodes and gave up due to it being a tedious borefest.

That said, me and the mate I watched it with are seemingly the only people in the entire world who've seen (a fair bit of) it and think that.

I was the same and that was a few episodes into season 2.

[John Arne]

The Staircase.

I mentioned this on the last page, but I don't think anyone noted it.

This is another real footage murder case, however, this is from 2004 - and you can see how it influenced Making A Murderer - it's very similar in style.

Get it downloaded - it's very, very good - with equal amounts of "for fucks sake" moments.

[Boydy]

Is it a series as well or just a one-off?

[Giggles]

I still haven't managed to find The Jinx. Well not in a format I can cast anyway. Is there nothing similar to Netflix that has some of the missing stuff on it?

[John Arne]

Is it a series as well or just a one-off?

8 episodes, 40 minutes each. It flows a little quicker than MaM.

[Danny]

The Staircase.

I mentioned this on the last page, but I don't think anyone noted it.

This is another real footage murder case, however, this is from 2004 - and you can see how it influenced Making A Murderer - it's very similar in style.

Get it downloaded - it's very, very good - with equal amounts of "for fucks sake" moments.

A source would be appreciated

[SvN]

I still haven't managed to find The Jinx. Well not in a format I can cast anyway. Is there nothing similar to Netflix that has some of the missing stuff on it?

I watched The Jinx after MaM and Serial. It was fantastic. Totally different, and way more "Drama, mate", but the last episode was outstanding.

I'm downloadng The Staircase now, hopefully it will be in the same ballpark as the 3 mentioned above.

[John Arne]

A source would be appreciated

A source for a download?

[Danny]

Yeah, if you have one

[Giggles]

I watched The Jinx after MaM and Serial. It was fantastic. Totally different, and way more "Drama, mate", but the last episode was outstanding.

I'm downloadng The Staircase now, hopefully it will be in the same ballpark as the 3 mentioned above.

I have all of Serial downloaded and on a playlist but there's just too many other podcasts even with the amount of driving I do. Doubt I'll ever get round to it. I might buy the Jinx though to try that. The DVD is only around 15 quid on Amazon.

[SvN]

Season one of Serial is outstanding. I can't recommend it enough.

[John Arne]

Yeah, if you have one

I got it from Piratebay.

[Magic]

I watched The Jinx after MaM and Serial. It was fantastic. Totally different, and way more "Drama, mate", but the last episode was outstanding.

I'm downloadng The Staircase now, hopefully it will be in the same ballpark as the 3 mentioned above.

Just finished it there, wasn't as addicted to it as MaM but in retrospect it built up utterly superbly to the last two episodes, both of which completely floored me. Completely. The thing with MaM is the inevitability of it all. You knew it was always headed that way, no matter how preposterous it got. Its the complete opposite of Durst. Plus I loved the production of it, the recreations were fantastic.

Wow.

[Magic]

What's this all kicking off on Reddit by the way about some German who had access to an Incinerator and links to Halbach? Also a burn pit can't reach the temps required to do that sort of damage to bones. Teeth survive, there were no teeth. Apparently it needed cat 5 burning, which is incinerator level, the Averys have a smeltor which melts metal, not disintegrate bone.

plus the Manitowac cops actually lost one of the burn barrels. Lol at that.

[Kikó]

The new lawyer for Avery came out arguing the burn pit temperatures would never be high enough without burning down Avery's house.

Just started on jinx, totally different but I'm looking forward to the story.

[Magic]

The new lawyer for Avery came out arguing the burn pit temperatures would never be high enough without burning down Avery's house.

Just started on jinx, totally different but I'm looking forward to the story.

Presumably you'd need some sort of insane fuel to reach 3000C.

[SvN]

I've just finished "The Staircase" which had my jaw on the floor. Another similar docuseries that gets recommendation from me. Currently downloading the sequel.

[John Arne]

I've just finished "The Staircase" which had my jaw on the floor. Another similar docuseries that gets recommendation from me. Currently downloading the sequel.


Crazy, eh? Once again the justice system is completely shown to be a mess. The fact that not only did they consider the incident from Germany, but they basically changed the verdict of that case as well... madness. The defence offering up no murder weapon (lol - what a scene that was "This is the blowpoke!!".. [gasps from courtroom]. I actually trust Michael less than I believe Avery - there is something about him that I don't like or trust.

To be honest, I think both the prosecution and defence failed in some way. The prosecution in not finding a murder weapon, or a decent motive, and I thought his defence offered little by way of alternative... although, I guess, "if" she feel down the stairs, then perhaps there is nothing else to be argued.

Finally, as in MaM - the TV coverage is absolutely disgraceful... how on earth are the lawyers allowed to speak to the press during the trial... is this still allowed? It's certainly not permitted in the UK.
I watched a BBC follow-up but it was pretty crap - it just sounds like they are appealing, but not much has happened since.

The moment when the jury returned is probably the most hooked I've been on TV for a while... I was completely engrossed and at the last minute, I genuinely thougt that they would find him not guilty.

[Pepe]

Presumably you'd need some sort of insane fuel to reach 3000C.

Hydrogen would do.

[Magic]

Hydrogen would do.

Mixed with pure oxygen? You couldn't achieve those temps with any fuel on am open bonfire, basically?

[Kikó]

Are you an engineer?

[Giggles]

You bet your ass he is.

[Pepe]

Mixed with pure oxygen? You couldn't achieve those temps with any fuel on am open bonfire, basically?

Basically.

[Magic]

#teamengineer solves the Avery case. :cool:

[Pepe]

Where does the 3000 C number come from though?

[Magic]

Its where a forensic burn specialist said to achieve the level of burn on Halbach's bone you'd need cat5 burns which is the highest level, 3000C. Even her teeth melted which requires that temp.

[Pepe]

Sounds a bit high to me.

[Magic]

Shite, I meant F. :D

[John]

Letter from Ken Kratz to Avery, apparently posted on Twitter by his lawyer.

http://i68.tinypic.com/rqvynp.jpg

Fucking hell. :sick: