(Spoilers)Making a Murderer - for those who have watched all 10

[laoislad]

Any jury trial where the crime is covered in the media beforehand is flawed in my opinion. You are really relying on average joes like ourselves being completely ignorant of the crime until they hear the evidence in court. In a big crime, this very rarely happens and the jury *has* to have some residual opinion going into the case.

Look at Joe O'Reilly here. Now I'm sure he's guilty, but after the Late Late Show, and all the press coverage up to and including his arrest, how would you find 12 people that didn't have an opinion about the case.

And if there's one thing this board has shown me over the years, it's that people steadfastly hold onto their original opinions on stuff, even if they only have partial facts or even incorrect supposition beforehand. People become emotionally invested in not being 'wrong'.

If there was to be a re trial the same could now be said about a jury believing he is innocent before the retrial starts because of the Netflix documentry.
It will be very hard to find any jurors now who haven't heard about this and already formed an opinion about this case.

[stew]

I have watched the first 2 episodes and  will now park it. Not that I have anytime for Stew's fanaticism on this particular issue  but I can't trust the portrayal of the facts as depicted and have plenty of other things to do.
if they decide to do one on Leonard Peltier, then I would be interested but in all probability, pigs would learn to fly before that happens.

My fanaticism?

I lived in the area. I have met some of the principals involved and unlike yourself I have known about Avery for 20 years, I also have an opinion on the subject and I am going to share them since this is a discussion board.

[Syferus]

Any jury trial where the crime is covered in the media beforehand is flawed in my opinion. You are really relying on average joes like ourselves being completely ignorant of the crime until they hear the evidence in court. In a big crime, this very rarely happens and the jury *has* to have some residual opinion going into the case.

Look at Joe O'Reilly here. Now I'm sure he's guilty, but after the Late Late Show, and all the press coverage up to and including his arrest, how would you find 12 people that didn't have an opinion about the case.

And if there's one thing this board has shown me over the years, it's that people steadfastly hold onto their original opinions on stuff, even if they only have partial facts or even incorrect supposition beforehand. People become emotionally invested in not being 'wrong'.

If there was to be a re trial the same could now be said about a jury believing he is innocent before the retrial starts because of the Netflix documentry.
It will be very hard to find any jurors now who haven't heard about this and already formed an opinion about this case.

It would be very easy. Netflix show isn't pulling massive ratings. As long as they go outside Wisconsin it will be easy to get a bunch of non-biased jurors.

[stew]

It was fox last night on the orielly show. Meygan Kelly show.,it was on this morning on NBC and CBS,  it is a huge story all over the country.

[Syferus]

It was fox last night on the orielly show. Meygan Kelly show.,it was on this morning on NBC and CBS,  it is a huge story all over the country.

But the discussion is the questionable conviction, not Avery's unquestionable innocence. Far, far easier to get a fair retrial now than it was to get a fair original trial in Wisconsin the first time around.

[imtommygunn]

Just finished watching it.Really great show .
Not convinced he is innocent but based on what I watched can't see how he could be convicted either.
Is it Bobby who was Brendans brother?  There was something about him and his dad(step dad maybe)  that just didn't seem right.  They were the two who said they went hunting but had all their times wrong,?
Brendan obviously deserves a re trial and is most likely innocent.
It's pretty obvious the Police planted the key and blood imo, whether this was to frame Steven or just to make sure he was caught because they knew he was guilty I dunno.

I would agree. I thought brendan's brother was very dubious.

It showed a lot wrong and really was quite sickening in places.
- people are clearly guilty till proven innocent
- the media greatly skew trials these days
- cops or da are more interested in a result than the truth and justice
- there is a huge outcry when people are picked out on the colour of their skin but this stinks of starting off with people being picked ou based on "social class"

The saddest thing about it was that the fact a woman was brutally murdered seemed a little peripheral.

The show was very slanted and I wouldn't be entirely convinced he is 100% innocent but due to how questionable a lot of the evidence and how much of it was basically just a hunt to pin avery it should have been thrown out.

[Smokin Joe]

Looks like some real stuff is beginning to happen: http://wbay.com/2016/01/08/illinois-...n-averys-case/

Zellner is quoted as saying: "whoever deleted Teresa Halbach('s) cellphone calls is either the murderer or part of coverup".

So I'd guess we might see expect some progress in relation to this.

[Arthur_Friend]

http://m.yelp.co.uk/biz/kratz-law-firm-west-bend

[David McKeown]

Just finished the show there and found it very intriguing.  Far too biased for me to form any rational opinion on the guilt or innocence of either men but the one thing that truly shocked me was the brass neck of the Manitowoc sheriff department during the trials particularly Colborn who despite being accused of being dirty and planting evidence was regularly seen on screen accompanying both men in and out of prison.  Surely in the circumstances someone else should have been doing that job.

[Syferus]

Just finished the show there and found it very intriguing.  Far too biased for me to form any rational opinion on the guilt or innocence of either men but the one thing that truly shocked me was the brass neck of the Manitowoc sheriff department during the trials particularly Colborn who despite being accused of being dirty and planting evidence was regularly seen on screen accompanying both men in and out of prison.  Surely in the circumstances someone else should have been doing that job.

Very easy to tell Dassey isn't guilty. Blindingly so.

[fearbrags]

''
""Why? if I was on a jury I was have to consider that at the time of the start of the trial he is innocent until proven guilty. Bring on a jury is serious business, it is one thing to sit her at my desk and talk to you lot, quite another when a man's life is on the line, I would be fair.""

In fairness to You Stew I think you are ok, at least you changed your mind quiet a bit  after watching the documentary
I would say we would agree that the way Dassey got treated was terribly and the very severe sentence  and the investigation of his first lawyer  showed a  lack of empathy from the judge

[imtommygunn]

The thing that was clear was that the prosecution wanted a result, in either case, however right or wrong that result may be.

You would wonder if judges work the same way.

[Puckoon]

Just finished this evening. The story portrayed by the documentary is pretty one sided. Clearly given the closing remarks by the judge who sentenced Avery, the viewers of the documentary are either not given access to some of the evidence presented against him, or the judge is also part of a conspiracy. I have to believe that it's the former.

The conduct of the investigation however is shockingly flawed at best. Choosing to ignore the contamination of a control DNA sample in a bench top research test would not be accepted in a review journal, allowing it to be record in a trial for a mans freedom is insane.

Found the treatment and conviction of Dassy to be hard going, brutal stuff there.

[stew]

The thing that was clear was that the prosecution wanted a result, in either case, however right or wrong that result may be.

You would wonder if judges work the same way.

You mean like every trial in the history of trials, the prosecution wanted a result? Wtf!

It is their job to get a result man dear!

[stew]

''
""Why? if I was on a jury I was have to consider that at the time of the start of the trial he is innocent until proven guilty. Bring on a jury is serious business, it is one thing to sit her at my desk and talk to you lot, quite another when a man's life is on the line, I would be fair.""

In fairness to You Stew I think you are ok, at least you changed your mind quiet a bit  after watching the documentary
I would say we would agree that the way Dassey got treated was terribly and the very severe sentence  and the investigation of his first lawyer  showed a  lack of empathy from the judge

I think Dassey knows what went on, he most assuredly knows what a **** his uncle is, should he be in prison at the minute, no! He should get a re-trial immediately, as for Avery, they should throw away the key, a horrible bastard who killed TH with malice of forethought, he was obsessed with her, the phone evidence, blood, sweat, you name it!