Making a Murderer

[teachercd]

I have a question… Who is the blazing hot reporter that asks questions after each day at trial…

[The Dude]

I have a question… Who is the blazing hot reporter that asks questions after each day at trial…

Ah yes. I knew I wasn't the only one. She looked really familiar for some reason.

[teachercd]

 

I have a question… Who is the blazing hot reporter that asks questions after each day at trial…

Ah yes. I knew I wasn't the only one. She looked really familiar for some reason.

Notice how as it goes on...she gets more and more camera time?

 

She is a smokeshow...I would like to film a cockumentary with her...

[krc1995]

 

 

I have a question… Who is the blazing hot reporter that asks questions after each day at trial…

Ah yes. I knew I wasn't the only one. She looked really familiar for some reason.

Notice how as it goes on...she gets more and more camera time?

She is a smokeshow...I would like to film a cockumentary with her...

Google it. There has been many request for her identity.

[Enhance]

Finally finished watching and I'm frankly just at a loss. I found myself crying near the end, especially for Brendan.

 

Based on what was put forth in the documentary, there's no real good reason to think that either of them is guilty of anything. Look - they're simple, dim-minded people. Watch the scene where Avery gets interviewed by the news right after Teresa goes missing, before being accused, arrested, anything. First of all he was fine to talk with the media in the first place (if you just committed and covered up a gruesome murder you'd probably be overly paranoid and laying low), and his tone, candor, body language, etc., are all the same as they are every single other time you ever see him.

 

What the hell happened with these jurys that they could convict on such shaky/inconsistent evidence? Especially in Brendan's trial. The only iota of evidence for Brendan is his testimony, which no rational person can come away from watching and think it's solid or reliable. Especially after watching the interview with the mustached a-hole pressuring him.

 

Feel terrible for this family.

This is pretty much where I've arrived with the series, as well.

 

I've watched it all and I've read as much reaction material as possible, including several articles written from the perspective of the prosecution and journalists who covered the trial. I just do not see how any jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, could've found either of these men guilty of the crimes they're accused of committing. Even the "damning" evidence the prosecutors claim was left out of the documentary does not hold up to the rigorous standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And some of it is not as "damning" as they believe it to be.

 

I believe they both should've been found not guilty, particularly Brandon. And I believe there were attempts by law enforcement and the judiciary to frame/manipulate several variables in this ordeal in order to arrive at guilty conclusions, from things like evidence collection all the way up to jury tampering/intimidation.

[KazLong]

Whats crazy is when the jurors did their first vote it was 2 undecided, 3 guilty and 7 for not guilty.

 

How do you get 7 people to switch their votes from not guilty to guilty on the lack of evidence that was provided?

 

He's guilty for murder but not for mutilating a body? Looks like the jury was trying to compromise on their verdicts to maybe help Avery get a new trial down the road maybe?

Juries will settle on a verdict all the time.

 

Depending on the judge, lots of judges don't let a jury hang, often time a judge will keep a jury at it for weeks or longer, depending on the length of the trial and the reports from the jury and the judges general theory on juries.

 

Had a 1st degree murder trial come back as murder in the second degree, when we argued for not guilty, State argued for guilty of first degree murder, no argument ever put forward for murder in the second degree, by either side...

 

However absent some showing of abuse of discretion or a short list, jury verdicts wont and cannot be questioned. It is basically could they possibly find a rational basis for this verdict...

 

In our case yes, so no appeal, even if it was the simple fact our two hold outs for not guilty, got sick and tired of arguing with the 10 guilty votes, so they settled on 2nd...

 

As to why most judges do not like a hung jury, it is not really fair to the Defendant or the State...

 

I would rather have a verdict every day of the week regardless of my side then re-try the same case against the same opposing counsel.

 

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2014/07/24/seth-techel-trial-conviction/13107245/

 

That was a local murder tried 3 times before a guilty verdict. At some point when two previous juries cannot decide on a verdict it makes you wounder if proof beyond a reasonable doubt can ever be reached unless you get really really really unlucky or lucky with the jury pool.

 

As to the human side of the jury, imagine if you where locked in a room after hearing evidence from two lawyers about the legacy of Bo Pelini, and you could not leave until you all agreed upon one and only one legacy lets say a grade, of Bo Pelini, and on one side you had some very strong Bo-Lievers and on the other had some very anti bozo pelini people, and some people who are fence riders, at a certain point people break down and start refusing to talk to each other etc... I have heard shouting in jury rooms before, which result in me leaving the area, it is improper to over hear anything in a jury room.

 

As to helping him get a new trial kinda doubt it, most jurors know that there verdicts cannot be questioned etc, the judge usually instructs them as such. Granted you can have a judge that has massive courage grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, basically if the jury based there conclusion upon something that is not based upon any evidence or rational jury could find, however those are rarely granted as those are usually taken care of by motion for directed verdict.

 

If you where to ask me, which I doubt any of you would, that result was most likely a compromise for personal feelings to 'give' the defendant something or more accurately to give the people who wanted not guilty or guilty of a lesser crime an olive branch to get a verdict submitted.

[teachercd]

So the ex-boyfriend just "guessed" her cellphone password?

 

I can hardly remember mine and he is just guessing them correctly?

 

Also, Brandon Dassey got a raw deal and I know that the old "liar liar pants on fire" is not much of a defense but if you have ever worked with kids like him (at the time, when he was young) you know that those kids will pretty much just start agreeing. They tend to want the questions to either end...or they want the people asking them the questions to be happy.

[Landlord]

So the ex-boyfriend just "guessed" her cellphone password?

 

I can hardly remember mine and he is just guessing them correctly?

 

Also, Brandon Dassey got a raw deal and I know that the old "liar liar pants on fire" is not much of a defense but if you have ever worked with kids like him (at the time, when he was young) you know that those kids will pretty much just start agreeing. They tend to want the questions to either end...or they want the people asking them the questions to be happy.

 

 

 

My freshman year I got accused of stealing a $10 CD player that belonged to another kid. I didn't do it, but our guidance counselor and principal turned a molehill into a mountain by locking me in the office and interrogating me about it. Anything I said would further convince them I was guilty, they even called my mom to ask if the cops could come search my room. Ridiculous stuff, but basically goes to show you that there's not much hope for someone once the people in charge have already made up their minds.

[teachercd]

 

So the ex-boyfriend just "guessed" her cellphone password?

 

I can hardly remember mine and he is just guessing them correctly?

 

Also, Brandon Dassey got a raw deal and I know that the old "liar liar pants on fire" is not much of a defense but if you have ever worked with kids like him (at the time, when he was young) you know that those kids will pretty much just start agreeing. They tend to want the questions to either end...or they want the people asking them the questions to be happy.

 

 

 

My freshman year I got accused of stealing a $10 CD player that belonged to another kid. I didn't do it, but our guidance counselor and principal turned a molehill into a mountain by locking me in the office and interrogating me about it. Anything I said would further convince them I was guilty, they even called my mom to ask if the cops could come search my room. Ridiculous stuff, but basically goes to show you that there's not much hope for someone once the people in charge have already made up their minds.

 

 

It is very true especially if you are a kid and super-especially if you are a kid that has a few learning issues, which his case clearly is.

 

For goodness sake the kid that he would just "go home" if he started admitting to all that stuff.

[Whistlebritches]

It wouldn't really surprise me if Steven is actually guilty of the murder though I find it hard to believe it happened how the prosecution suggests.

 

Poor Brendan on the other hand....what a complete miscarriage of justice.

[krc1995]

It wouldn't really surprise me if Steven is actually guilty of the murder though I find it hard to believe it happened how the prosecution suggests.

 

Poor Brendan on the other hand....what a complete miscarriage of justice.

I agree but look at that interview the tv station did with Steven the day she was reported missing by her family. I don't think anyone, even a psychopath, could be that good. He was not avoiding any questions and let cops freely search his property.

[Enhance]

It wouldn't really surprise me if Steven is actually guilty of the murder though I find it hard to believe it happened how the prosecution suggests.

 

Poor Brendan on the other hand....what a complete miscarriage of justice.

The thing that perfectly illustrates Brendan's lack of intelligence and understanding is his comments immediately following his admittance to murdering the victim. He asked the cops when he could get back to school because he had a project due in 6th period. Here's a kid who has quite literally just stated he brutally raped and murdered a woman, yet he lacks the comprehension that he will be unable to casually go about his life anymore.

 

That alone, at least to me, proves he was bullied and manipulated into a confession.

[QMany]

 

It wouldn't really surprise me if Steven is actually guilty of the murder though I find it hard to believe it happened how the prosecution suggests.

 

Poor Brendan on the other hand....what a complete miscarriage of justice.

The thing that perfectly illustrates Brendan's lack of intelligence and understanding is his comments immediately following his admittance to murdering the victim. He asked the cops when he could get back to school because he had a project due in 6th period. Here's a kid who has quite literally just stated he brutally raped and murdered a woman, yet he lacks the comprehension that he will be unable to casually go about his life anymore.

 

That alone, at least to me, proves he was bullied and manipulated into a confession.

I think this was mentioned before, but it was really sad when he didn't understand what the cops meant when they said his statements were inconsistent, because he didn't know the definition of inconsistent. Even worse, his mom didn't either...

 

Brendan never stood a chance, especially with his own counsel plotting against him. That was the saddest part of the show.

[Hooked on Huskers]

It wouldn't really surprise me if Steven is actually guilty of the murder though I find it hard to believe it happened how the prosecution suggests.

 

Poor Brendan on the other hand....what a complete miscarriage of justice.

 

 

Now. Pushing 300 lbs.

[krc1995]

I wonder if the outcome flwould have changed if Steven testified and Brenden didn't?