Making a Murderer

I like how Ken Kratz, who everyone agrees is an immoral prick, came out after the documentary mentioning missed evidence and people just blindly believe him now.

Like the supposed evidence of Avery's sweat found under the hood of her car. As a trial lawyer he doesn't even know sweat DNA isn't even a thing. Or maybe he does know and he's just an immoral prick spreading misinformation.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2016/01/one-of-the-trial-attorneys-for-making-a-murder-subject-steven-avery-called-out-former-district-attorneyken-kratzfor-con.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like how Ken Kratz, who everyone agrees is an immoral prick, came out after the documentary mentioning missed evidence and people just blindly believe him now.

Like the supposed evidence of Avery's sweat found under the hood of her car. As a trial lawyer he doesn't even know sweat DNA isn't even a thing. Or maybe he does know and he's just an immoral prick spreading misinformation.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2016/01/one-of-the-trial-attorneys-for-making-a-murder-subject-steven-avery-called-out-former-district-attorneyken-kratzfor-con.html
I continue to hear people say that they've been reading about all the evidence left out of the documentary and that it somehow further corroborates the prosecution's theories.

This, while seemingly ignoring Sgt. Colborn calling in the plate number and vehicle several days before it was found, an opening in Avery's blood samples, an inconsistent statement from someone with a low function IQ, and on and on and on.

I just still can't wrap my mind around how the jurors couldn't find a reasonable doubt.

 
I like how Ken Kratz, who everyone agrees is an immoral prick, came out after the documentary mentioning missed evidence and people just blindly believe him now.

Like the supposed evidence of Avery's sweat found under the hood of her car. As a trial lawyer he doesn't even know sweat DNA isn't even a thing. Or maybe he does know and he's just an immoral prick spreading misinformation.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2016/01/one-of-the-trial-attorneys-for-making-a-murder-subject-steven-avery-called-out-former-district-attorneyken-kratzfor-con.html
I continue to hear people say that they've been reading about all the evidence left out of the documentary and that it somehow further corroborates the prosecution's theories.

This, while seemingly ignoring Sgt. Colborn calling in the plate number and vehicle several days before it was found, an opening in Avery's blood samples, an inconsistent statement from someone with a low function IQ, and on and on and on.

I just still can't wrap my mind around how the jurors couldn't find a reasonable doubt.
It hurts my brain. When they found out about Colborn calling in the plate number, I could hardly keep watching. It made me sick.

 
Steven Avery's lawyer says new evidence gives the 'Making a Murderer' convict an 'airtight alibi'

051115_missing_vmed_1p.grid-4x2.jpg


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guy did it. Should he have been convicted? I don't know. But a lot was left out of the "documentary" that was seen by and may have shaped the jury's verdict.

I'll admit that during the watching, I was outraged and even considered for a moment that he might be innocent. Subsequent research makes me think he did it (not sure if there was a enough to convict).

What is very clear from the documentary is that our system is good, but only if you have the resources to hire good attorneys. We seriously need to invest in providing for a better defense bar.

 
I agree with those that believe there was police misconduct. Doesn't mean they weren't framing the guilty party. Not that that is a valid justification.

I don't credit anything that the nephew put forth.

 
Back
Top