Making a Murderer

[adc7236]

I think you may be correct that ego does play a role in it, along with people not wanting to admit being wrong in general. Hopefully some experienced criminal lawyers can throw in some other insight.

[ScottyIce]

I've got a ton of stuff to say about this show, but can't right now. Stay tuned.

[NUance]

 

_{I have not seen it yet but hope to soon. I have heard the prosecution come out and denounce it, but that means little to me. I do have a question for any lawyer types though, as I know we have a few on the board. Why does it seem like the prosecution almost never admits to mistakes in what is or appears to be wrongful convictions? I will use the Duke Lacrosse scandal with Mike Nifong as one extreme example, but I think I have seen other times when it puzzled me how much they stuck to their position regardless of evidence, new or old.}

I'm no lawyer and there very well could be a legal explanation for this. But, outside of the law, I think part of it is ego. Put yourself in the prosecutor's shoes - you spend months, sometimes years, where the whole point of your job is to provide evidence that someone committed a crime. You're also charged with refuting every attempt by the defense to clear their defendant's name. You're also facing a lot of pressure from higher-ups and local law enforcement to build a case that sticks. And, instead of presuming the person you're trying to convict is innocent, you're trying to prove (and operating under the mentality) that this person is guilty.

 

If and when you win your case, the law is now officially on your side backing you up. You're not going to be easily swayed of your opinion or quick to believe the person you convicted is innocent. We have a tendency in this country to make sure someone is blamed and held accountable rather than making sure it's the correct person. A lot of people also don't like to admit they're wrong, particularly when murder is involved.

 

When you do get a chance to watch the documentary, you'll notice law enforcement officials STILL refuting Avery's innocence in the rape case he served 18 years for. Deputies, under oath, questioning DNA evidence that exonerated Avery. It's a pretty incredible sight to see.

 

 

That, and the threat of civil lawsuits. They might be afraid that any admission on their part could be used in a civil suit against them—even if they are sorry for what they did (which I doubt).

[suh_fan93]

Both my wife and I think that there is something odd about the victims brother. He's always the spokesperson for the victim rather than the parents lol seems odd? Both him and the victims ex boyfriend were in charge of the search.

 

I'm close to my sister but I don't know my sisters password to her phone so for him to guess the password on her phone to listen to the voicemails was really odd and for one of the voice messages to have been deleted too was odd.

 

Also the victims ex boyfriend figured out his ex girlfriends Cingular password on the cell phone companies website was odd too

 

I thought the very same thing about the victims brother. They somehow just magically figured out her cell phone password? Then on top of that her (the victims) voice mails were magically deleted?

 

Gotta love the scene showing not only that the box that contained Steven Avery's blood had been cut open but that also there was unbelievably a syringe hole present in top of the vial lid. Unbelievable.

 

I feel horrible for not only Steven but also for his parents. Brendan also. Speechless.

[Enhance]

Brendan is the biggest travesty in this whole story. He has a substantially low IQ and, in my opinion, was bullied by the local authorities. I don't know what's worse - the fact that they believed his story or that they continued to go along with it despite there being absolutely no physical evidence to corroborate his involvement. But, perhaps one of the most heartbreaking moments in the whole series is when Brendan has to ask his mother what the word 'inconsistent' means because he has no idea. And, sadly, she couldn't explain it to him either.

 

Dan Wetzel has a blog where he talks about some non-sports related things including this series. He had some very interesting thoughts, many of which I agree with. He particularly made mention that it's probably a good idea for people to lay off the brother a bit. His reasoning is that everybody deals with grief in different ways. Some people want to talk to the media about it and others want nothing to do with the media. Here this brother is all of a sudden becoming a spokesperson for the entire family in the midst of a horrible tragedy. Who can say how the rest of us would act or respond in this situation? Wetzel went on to say he's met families that didn't want to talk about their murdered loved one, but also sat down and had dinner with a murder victim's family while they waited for the verdict. You just never know.

 

It's a lengthy read, but an interesting one. http://danwetzelsports.tumblr.com/post/136779561747/making-a-murderer-thoughts-discussion

[KazLong]

 

 

_{I have not seen it yet but hope to soon. I have heard the prosecution come out and denounce it, but that means little to me. I do have a question for any lawyer types though, as I know we have a few on the board. Why does it seem like the prosecution almost never admits to mistakes in what is or appears to be wrongful convictions? I will use the Duke Lacrosse scandal with Mike Nifong as one extreme example, but I think I have seen other times when it puzzled me how much they stuck to their position regardless of evidence, new or old.}

I'm no lawyer and there very well could be a legal explanation for this. But, outside of the law, I think part of it is ego. Put yourself in the prosecutor's shoes - you spend months, sometimes years, where the whole point of your job is to provide evidence that someone committed a crime. You're also charged with refuting every attempt by the defense to clear their defendant's name. You're also facing a lot of pressure from higher-ups and local law enforcement to build a case that sticks. And, instead of presuming the person you're trying to convict is innocent, you're trying to prove (and operating under the mentality) that this person is guilty.

 

If and when you win your case, the law is now officially on your side backing you up. You're not going to be easily swayed of your opinion or quick to believe the person you convicted is innocent. We have a tendency in this country to make sure someone is blamed and held accountable rather than making sure it's the correct person. A lot of people also don't like to admit they're wrong, particularly when murder is involved.

 

When you do get a chance to watch the documentary, you'll notice law enforcement officials STILL refuting Avery's innocence in the rape case he served 18 years for. Deputies, under oath, questioning DNA evidence that exonerated Avery. It's a pretty incredible sight to see.

 

 

That, and the threat of civil lawsuits. They might be afraid that any admission on their part could be used in a civil suit against them—even if they are sorry for what they did (which I doubt).

 

Can't speak for any States but Iowa and Nebraska, but they would have to show pretty high standards to sue the prosecutor, most if not all government actors are protected from personal law suites. Have to act with actual malice or reckless disregard.

 

I know council bluffs county attorneys office, and ultimately the county had to settle for millions 10+ years ago after they lost a highly covered trial and went to the local media and said essentially I know they did it, they got it wrong etc etc, don't remember the exact facts but that is really the only time besides a few out layers that come to mind of prosecutor misconduct.

 

As far as why prosecutors don't admit mistakes, I have met some that do, some that don't. However a prosecutor that admits mistakes wouldn't make a good netflix series, also a prosecutor that would admit a mistake or see the problems in there case, probably wouldn't bring the charge, and or would of pled it out, hence again not making a good netflix show.

 

I have not nor will I probably watch this, however I have been asked about this at nauseum by friends who do not work in the field. I would just keep in mind both sides know more then the jury ever will due to the rules of evidence.

[adc7236]

Thanks for the insight Kaz.

[Landlord]

 

I have not nor will I probably watch this, however I have been asked about this at nauseum by friends who do not work in the field. I would just keep in mind both sides know more then the jury ever will due to the rules of evidence.

 

 

 

Everyone watching probably does too, because there's no off limits evidence for a documentary

[suh_fan93]

Who Is Ken Kratz? The Steven Avery Prosecutor Has Seen Scandal Outside Of 'Making A Murderer'

 

 

 

 

Making a Murderer's Ken Kratz's creepy sexual harassment texts revealed

 

[KazLong]

Who Is Ken Kratz? The Steven Avery Prosecutor Has Seen Scandal Outside Of 'Making A Murderer'

 

 

 

 

Making a Murderer's Ken Kratz's creepy sexual harassment texts revealed

 

Both look like class acts.

[krc1995]

I'm pretty sure that Avery did it and if not Avery, then a family member. Not sure about Brendan and if even if he was pulled into it by Steven, I think the first degree charge is absurd. What a bunch of creeps on both sides. Brendan's attorney should be stripped of his right to practice.

 

Why the split on the charges on Steven? I can't rationalize the jury's thought process on this

[The Dude]

Even if Avery did do it, which is possible of course, it certainly wasn't in any way like the events described by the police. She wasn't stabbed and had her throat slit in his bedroom. There was no gunshot in the garage. You can't do that without leaving any evidence whatsoever. Blood splatter would be on everything, it would be almost impossible to clean all the traces if you did, it would be blatantly obvious that the entire room had been meticulously cleaned. But it wasn't, because they found Avery's DNA everywhere (naturally; it's his own home).

 

The actual evidence that they have points to her body being moved in her car and thus likely not killed at that location. Avery could have done that too, but there's nothing specifically pointing to him besides the things that are likely plants (the key and the blood). The police know the story they told is a fabrication, but it was their best chance at getting a conviction. They spent over a week going through what they purport to be a brutal murder scene and found no evidence of a murder on that property other than a key and a bullet that seemingly appear out of nowhere when Lenk turned up after everything had already been searched for days.

 

Brendan is even more heartbreaking because there is literally no evidence, not a single thing, tying him to the crimes aside from his confession. If that confession was thrown out - as it should have been given his intelligence and how each time it was pried out of him (without a lawyer present) over hours by gaining and breaking his trust, and how each of his confessions were different and full of objective lies - if that wasn't admissible in court, the prosecution would literally have nothing. Their entire argument was "innocent people don't confess". That is objectively false. It's the whole basis of the Paradise Lost documentary (in that case another teenage boy with learning disabilities gives a false confession under pressure).

[krc1995]

The defense was hog tied because they could not give alternate theories as to who did kill her. I thought it was historically the duty of the defense to present alternate theories.

[NebraskaHarry]

Finally finished it. I found the incompetence of Manitowoc County officials, and for that matter Wisconsin state officials involved in the case, flabbergasting. Frankly, the county and state's demeanor in this whole case really made it difficult to take their side on anything it seemed. At least without questioning it based on the evidence or lack there of.

 

I'm not sure Steven Avery did or didn't commit the murder. From what I saw the evidence really didn't prove it one way or the other.

 

That said, the one thing that makes me question Steven Avery the just as much as that Rav4 being found on the property, or his supposed blood, or Teresa's bone fragments being found in the burn pit, is the written letter to his ex-wife while serving those 18 years in prison the first time. Him writing a heated letter to his ex-wife saying he would kill her... You really have to question the true personality of Steven Avery in that case. You just don't say things like that.

[krc1995]

I cannot come up with someone else who could have done it. I've read who others think could have (brother-in-law, victim,bro, boyfriend.) and I just cannot find anyone that could have planted all that evidence. Maybe the brother in law but that is the only plausible option. Watching the tv interview with Steven immediately after Theresa went missing I saw zero indication of possible guilt. And Steven isn't the most sophisticated person so I doubt that was an act.

 

Weird too was that she was supposedly raped and throat slit in the trailer but there was zero evidence(blood splatter,dna, etc) to prove that any of that happened. Save for the key being found five days into the search by an investigator that was not supposed to be there unaccompanied and in plain sight. That had to have been planted