Making a Murderer

Not sure if there's already discussion about the Netflix documentary yet, but I for one am thoroughly disgusted by what I've seen, and feel the need to speak up.

Granted, it's a documentary, and a theatrical production, at its heart. Its designed to elicit a response. Also, the director and producer clearly have taken a stance that supports the theory that the defendants in the murder case are innocent, and victims of a frame up. So, I've tried to take it from a cautious view point, not wanting to be swayed by sensationalism.

It's very clear that this is only one side of the story. But after reflecting on it for several days now, I think that side is pretty damned compelling. Regardless of the truth behind the conspiracy, this story has utterly shaken my confidence in the entirety of the criminal justice system...police, the courts, the checks and balances in place...I trust none of it now. I know there are good and honest cops, and judges, detectives, lawyers, prosecutors and everyone else in between. I know that most of the CJ professionals in the country are likely good folks trying to earn an honest living.

But this show has taught me that it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil your life, especially if they decide not to like you. It takes apparently very little to provoke their ire, and that's all that's is needed for them to abuse their power. Unchecked, that abuse can transcend common sense, and with a little coordinated effort, your liberty and any presumption of innocence can be stripped from you faster than the grenading of a Camry on an autox run.

How embarrassing it must be for the legal system... How embarrassed must the state of Wisconsin be by this? In my mind, I keep hearing a phrase I picked up as I was being raised - "all that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to stand idle and do nothing". I can't shake this feeling that my inaction is tantamount to agreeing with what I've seen, and equal to having taken part in the injustice I feel.

Perhaps it's time to write letters, or donate to an innocence project? I'm not sure what to do. Does anyone else feel this way?

Before anything else, I'm local to enough to this and my parents know Teresa's mother.

If the cops framed him for the murder, did they themselves kill her? How else could they have planted the key. It definitely sketchy that the Manitowoc Sheriff found it after all the other searches and he shouldn't have been there anyway. If they did plant the key and didn't kill her, where did they find the key? Somewhere else on the property? What's the point of moving it into his trailer?

I think he's guilty. Start reading other stuff on the internet about it. The facts left out of the 'documentary' is pretty self serving.

Yep. I'm not sure what to do either.

Just remember 12 of his peers decided he was guilty, and they heard all of the facts.

I've never had much faith in our criminal justice system. There's been enough innocent people locked up while scumbags run free. I also know one tiny piece of information can change a whole story. People want good and bad, black and white, innocent or guilty. Real life is rarely so clear cut.

RossD wrote: Before anything else, I'm local to enough to this and my parents know Teresa's mother. If the cops framed him for the murder, did they themselves kill her? How else could they have planted the key. It definitely sketchy that the Manitowoc Sheriff found it after all the other searches and he shouldn't have been there anyway. If they did plant the key and didn't kill her, where did they find the key? Somewhere else on the property? What's the point of moving it into his trailer? I think he's guilty. Start reading other stuff on the internet about it. The facts left out of the 'documentary' is pretty self serving.

A couple co workers got me caught up in it. I ended up doing some reading online and it seems there is a lot the documentary left out that makes him look pretty guilty. I feel a little bad for the waterhead accomplice. I wonder if they ever let him see WrestleMania.

I've not seen it, nor plan to- but am aware of it.

My question- why focus on THIS case? Over the past few years, quite a few people have been freed from prison for bad prosecution. Of the thousands out there, what's the point about getting everyone excited about this one?

RossD wrote: Just remember 12 of his peers decided he was guilty, and they heard all of the facts.

While I agree with you, 12 of OJ's peers decided he was innocent.

Duke wrote:

RossD wrote: Just remember 12 of his peers decided he was guilty, and they heard all of the facts.

While I agree with you, 12 of OJ's peers decided he was innocent.

I have sat on three fairly serious juries. Since then, I have said I do not want to be judged by these people.

Duke wrote:

RossD wrote: Just remember 12 of his peers decided he was guilty, and they heard all of the facts.

While I agree with you, 12 of OJ's peers decided he was innocent.

If it don't fit, you must acquit! Biggest bunch of BS I've ever seen, trying to put on a weathered glove over a latex glove and pretending to have trouble doing it. OJ's finest acting role.

RossD wrote: Just remember 12 of his peers decided he was guilty, and they heard all of the facts.

But they also heard all of those 'facts' for the first time on a TV press conference - said by the DA (someone who the public should trust) - the day after Brendan 'confessed'.

My big beef with the whole thing is less about the trial proceeding (even though there appear to be some serious holes there too), and more about the government's non-presumption of innocence. I thought 10 guilty men were supposed to walk free in this country before 1 innocent man serves. I thought we were all supposed to be free until proven guilty. That was clearly not the case here.

Duke wrote:

RossD wrote: Just remember 12 of his peers decided he was guilty, and they heard all of the facts.

While I agree with you, 12 of OJ's peers decided he was innocent.

"If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."

A friend of mine lived about 3 miles from the junkyard and actually met one the cops a few years ago. He said the locals all assumed the guy did it because it seemed like something he would do and until he watched the documentary never questioned his guilt. No he is convinced the guy was framed.

I don't have Netflix and haven't seen the show.

RossD wrote: Just remember 12 of his peers decided he was guilty, and they heard all of the facts.

No, only the facts that were allowed to be presented.

Even if he is guilty this was such a giant cluster@#)($* that he should walk. Maybe that way these clowns will actually do things thoroughly and correctly the next time.

Also, I don't think jury's get the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" part of things, but that's another discussion entirely.

My biggest beef:

• Why were LEO's, currently involved in an active suit with the defendant, who were part of a previous case where they were found to have been part of a wrongful conviction of this man, allowed withion a thousand miles of this case? How is that not conflict of interest? in what universe was there no reasonable oversight of this group?

Other pertinent thoughts:

• How is it possible that Teresa's DNA is not present on the key?
• Why wasnt the Key found during days of previous searching (days!!!)
• How did Colburn know the make, model, color, and license plate of a car belonging to a woman that wasnt yet reported missing?
• Why did the ex-boyfriend and roomate of the murdered girl break into her voicemail inbox and start deleting messages?
• Why wasnt the fire pit allegedly used to burn the body searched properly?
• How would it have been possible to scrub a garage packed full of junk of any and all blood or other DNA evicence?
• If the Dassey boys first appointed defender was dismissed for (among many other violations of civil liberties) not being present during the minor's questioning, why was the "confession" collected during said questioning deemed admissible?

Granted, these are all questions raised by the documentary - theres who-knows how much more "evidence" that I wasnt shown. But, those points, as well as dozens of others brought up by the documentary, are quite capable of raising "reasonable doubt" as to the guilt of Avery and Dassey.

RealMiniParker wrote:

Duke wrote:

RossD wrote: Just remember 12 of his peers decided he was guilty, and they heard all of the facts.

While I agree with you, 12 of OJ's peers decided he was innocent.

"If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."

I'm not following this TV show, but in OJ's case there was a very valid reasonable doubt argument, thanks to more than a little bad police work, and the skills of Johnny Cochran and friends.

SWMBO watches every true crime show under the sun, all I have to say is that juries scare the heck out of me, and so does what passes for sound scientific evidence.

Whether or not he committed the murder honestly isn't the issue. The burden of proof being beyond a shadow of a doubt is. That shadow was cast.

For the record I'm a former LE officer who had a single double homicide case where I was the arresting officer of a pair of suspects who were tried and convicted. We took 217 samples at the seen and send 37 off for DNA testing. You make a mountain of insurmountable evidence against the suspects when building a case to be prosecuted.

The case being discussed has major flaws in the police work and work of the prosecution done. That being said the defense failed to argue some aspects in a proficient matter that would warrant a not guilty verdict. The same judge should not have been allowed to hear post sentencing proceedings. (I was also disturbed to see that one of the officers implimented in the alleged conspiracy involving the planting of evidence was on the security detail of one of the prisoners, that leads me to believe that most of the county comes from the same stock of gene pool, and a pool that appears to be quite shallow).

It's one thing to gather evidence, quite another to fabricate it entirely. I don't feel that anything the prosecution presented resembled proof, at all.

HappyAndy wrote:

RealMiniParker wrote:

Duke wrote:

RossD wrote: Just remember 12 of his peers decided he was guilty, and they heard all of the facts.

While I agree with you, 12 of OJ's peers decided he was innocent.

"If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."

I'm not following this TV show, but in OJ's case there was a very valid reasonable doubt argument, thanks to more than a little bad police work, and the skills of Johnny Cochran and friends.

There may well have been reasonable doubt about OJ. But the verdict in a 4-month trial, that was reached in less than 4 hours, had nothing to do with "reasonable doubt". But that's a whole other thread and I don't mean to dilute this one any further.

The documentary did it's job. It's made you question the justice system.

spitfirebill wrote:

Duke wrote:

RossD wrote: Just remember 12 of his peers decided he was guilty, and they heard all of the facts.

While I agree with you, 12 of OJ's peers decided he was innocent.

If it don't fit, you must acquit! Biggest bunch of BS I've ever seen, trying to put on a weathered glove over a latex glove and pretending to have trouble doing it. OJ's finest acting role.

huh, have you not seen naked gun?

I tried watching t this weekend, but man it was boring. Kept falling asleep during it. It's like a long drawn out episode of Forensic Files.

I haven't seen the doc, but I have been reading about it. USA today has a lot of stuff about it, the new stuff seems to point toward a frame up, but I don't trust the media any more than I trust the cj system. But I read an article from 2005 or 2006 when the trial was going on. The girl had been there once before and said she wouldn't deal with him anymore because he answered the door in a towel. He called autotrader and claimed to someone else in the family and told them to send that particular girl. Guys he was in prison with the first time said he was showing off his drawings of a torture chamber he planned to build when he got out. There were other girls saying he sexually assaulted them, his ex wife wouldn't have anything to do with him or let him see his kids because he was violent and unpredictable. If he doesn't get out it doesn't bother me too much.

Planting keys and bullets would be easy. How would they plant her SUV on his property without being noticed?

I think the guy is such an unsavory sort that most people don't really care if a mistake was made. "He must have done something"

RossD wrote: Just remember 12 of his peers decided he was guilty, and they heard all of the facts.

Actually, they only heard the facts the judge deemed were admissible, and only testimony as specific answers to targeted questions as asked by both sides.

Our legal system is definitely not faultless, and money may buy you out of prosecution, just as a lack of it may prevent you from having a proper defense. Or it may not.

I served on a jury for a DUI case a year ago where the defendant was obviously guilty. The whole jury knew it. However the prosecutors completely berkeleyed up the case, and the only bits we were given that "proved" the case were deemed inadmissible by the judge. Talk about frustrating.