Making a Murderer

It is a shame for him is it not, i don't think i have met a person so dim and i don't say that maliciously. When the two detectives put words in his mouth and got a so called "confession" and he asked how long they would be because he needed to get back to school, ahh man.
If that did not set alarm bells with these so called impartial special detectives as to the mentality and cognitive ability of the person then they should not be in their job.
Any fool could note that "hey wait a second i could tell him to jump off a cliff and he would do it" they were at best inexplicably ignorant of his demeanor or worse actively ignoring it and even using it to illicit a false confession. The jury in Dassey's case especially should be ashamed of themselves.

I am going to go over the transcripts and stuff to see if the confession was as shown on the docu.
Some are saying he gave some details most would say he is to slow to come up with himself in a lie and that non blood dna was on the hood latch, how could he know to say that some are saying.
 
Last edited:
I'm only 4 episodes in but have tried to skim read only on posts on here as I like to keep an open mind and have no other comments that could sway me either way. I must say so far that the whole thing seems so much of a setup, it would be really difficult not to be. Had he came out of prison, moved away and not gone after the prosecution from the rape trial, I genuinely think he would be a free man now, but why should he? He proved with previous convictions he was happy to accept if he was guilty, he never backed down over 12 years when he could have pleaded guilty and more than likely got parole for the rape case.

I always fancied moving to America but things like this put me off as they are still very very backwards and old fashioned in certain states.

Another point to add, I doubt he will ever be a free man again, if he ever gets the chance of parole he will no doubt either have an accident beforehand, 'kill' an inmate or be shot for trying to grab a weapon in the court house, can see it coming a mile off. I don't truely believe the police/courts etc are anywhere near as bad in this country but I don't think they are 100% straight either.
 
Last edited:
Binge watched it after reading about it on here yesterday.
Remarkable program really and an unbelievable chain of events.
Like some ,I'm not convinced that he's not guilty but the actions of the police are so appalling that it's hard to trust any of the evidence at all.
It does seem that he was a bit of an unhinged individual to start with,to then spend 18 years in prison knowing that you'd not done the crime,there's no saying what sort of mental state he was in when he did get released.Maybe he was capable of killing someone then.
The other thought I had was given how bent Colburn and Lenk were,I don't think you can rule out them being involved in the murder and then setting up Avery......the bit where Colburn radioed in with the reg was very suspect.
 
lafitz2008 said:
Binge watched it after reading about it on here yesterday.
Remarkable program really and an unbelievable chain of events.
Like some ,I'm not convinced that he's not guilty but the actions of the police are so appalling that it's hard to trust any of the evidence at all.
It does seem that he was a bit of an unhinged individual to start with,to then spend 18 years in prison knowing that you'd not done the crime,there's no saying what sort of mental state he was in when he did get released.Maybe he was capable of killing someone then.
The other thought I had was given how bent Colburn and Lenk were,I don't think you can rule out them being involved in the murder and then setting up Avery......the bit where Colburn radioed in with the reg was very suspect.
Click to expand...

I reckon that four eyed **** did it, Colburn. He should've been out of a job 5 years earlier. Guilty as they come.

And Ken Kratz, his conduct towards domestic violence victims and alleged sex addiction, sum the man up. Sheer abuse of position on all grounds. His mind was made up on Steven Avery before the case was held in court, bent ****.

Kratz, Colburn, Petersen and Lenk. 4 main characters who stood out to me from the get go as showing clear corruption.

Len Kachinsky and his boss too, from a legal perspective they were inept. To plot what they did against Brendan Dassey, and hold interviewing without being present, they should've been removed from their roles when this all came to light in 2007 in court. I also saw that Kachinsky suffered from Leukaemia soon after this, but I believe is still in practice.
 
There are many things wrong here but my main concern is that the police had all of that time to search the house and garage but couldn't find anything. Then Colburn and Lenk went in and lo and behold there is a key sitting right in the open! And a bullet! What a coincidence.

As far as the nephew goes, that was pathetic how they coerced him. He'd have admitted to killing JFK if they wanted him to.
 
Proy said:
All the evidence (if you can call it that) was clearly fixed and should have, in essentially every part of the detail, exonerated him. Quite how the state even got it to court is just perplexing. I can only imagine that there were many threats and a lot of money involved in making it happen.

My opinion of him killing her is just a personal one. They're not the most regular family you would ever come across and certainly not whiter than white, and whilst that doesn't make him a murderer there is a part of me that believes he was either responsible or had some involvement somewhere/knew what happened.
Click to expand...

I think this was the likely reasoning behind the jurors eventual decision (albeit after some coercion between jurors, as the initial polling count was in favour of a not-guilty verdict).

If this was their reasoning, then a huge injustice has been served. The jurors are instructed to deliver a verdict based on the evidence introduced into the court and the facts of the case only. I often think it helps to reconsider the terminology of 'not-guilty' as 'not-proven'. When thought of in this way it perhaps gives a more accurate view of an acquittal. When we have a strong suspicion that somebody may have committed a crime, but the prosecutors have failed to convince us beyond reasonable doubt, a verdict of not-guilty is entirely correct. There's quite a common misunderstanding that if a juror gives a not-guilty verdict, they're suggesting that he/she 'didn't do it'.
 
steviemc said:
I think this was the likely reasoning behind the jurors eventual decision (albeit after some coercion between jurors, as the initial polling count was in favour of a not-guilty verdict).

If this was their reasoning, then a huge injustice has been served. The jurors are instructed to deliver a verdict based on the evidence introduced into the court and the facts of the case only. I often think it helps to reconsider the terminology of 'not-guilty' as 'not-proven'. When thought of in this way it perhaps gives a more accurate view of an acquittal. When we have a strong suspicion that somebody may have committed a crime, but the prosecutors have failed to convince us beyond reasonable doubt, a verdict of not-guilty is entirely correct. There's quite a common misunderstanding that if a juror gives a not-guilty verdict, they're suggesting that he/she 'didn't do it'.
Click to expand...
The way the vote changed during deliberation suggests that 4 of them were never going to change their minds and the rest just wanted to go home and viewed him as dodgy trailer trash anyway. It's one of the drawbacks of the jury system, unfortunately.

No matter how many times you explain this concept of "not proven" the vast majority of people still think in simple terms of innocent or guilty. You only have to read the comments under newspaper articles to realise that this is true in the UK too. It's alarming how so few people seem to appreciate how the justice system is actually meant to work.
 
It's a fascinating documentary, and I'm still unsure whether he was guilty or not. The police acted appallingly though and clearly planted evidence.
 
One of the best documentaries/series I've ever seen I think. Still not sure if he did it or not though either.

Not a great advert for the American criminal justice system, incredible what some of them got away with. Probably hundreds of other similar cases across the US every year.
 
Dubai Blue said:
The way the vote changed during deliberation suggests that 4 of them were never going to change their minds and the rest just wanted to go home and viewed him as dodgy trailer trash anyway. It's one of the drawbacks of the jury system, unfortunately.

No matter how many times you explain this concept of "not proven" the vast majority of people still think in simple terms of innocent or guilty. You only have to read the comments under newspaper articles to realise that this is true in the UK too. It's alarming how so few people seem to appreciate how the justice system is actually meant to work.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I prefer the system they have in Scotland where 3 verdicts can be arrived at - Guilty, Not Guilty, and Not Proven.

Going back to this case, despite the fact that Avery and Dassey clearly appear to have been stitched up a small part of me still thinks Avery might've done it (I'm pretty much convinced Dassey is entirely innocent). However, my gut feeling is that he is probably innocent and he has been framed. While there are some red flags about him and a few bits of "evidence" not mentioned in the series, there are far more red flags about the behaviour of the prosecution which, for me, tips it in the favour of him being innocent. While it seems totally far-fetched on the face of it that someone would go out and kill her just so that Avery could be framed, we have to remember that he was completely set up on the rape charge and as such I wouldn't put anything past certain people.
 
VinKom said:
One of the best documentaries/series I've ever seen I think. Still not sure if he did it or not though either.

Not a great advert for the American criminal justice system, incredible what some of them got away with. Probably hundreds of other similar cases across the US every year.
Click to expand...

Leaving aside how bent the trials of Avery and Dassey looked, it's still completely destroyed my trust in the American criminal justice system. The main reason for that is that the prosecutor can tell the whole world how he believes the accused committed the crime before the trial has even taken place. How the fuck can that be in any way considered fair? Far from innocent until proven guilty, it comes across as guilty until proven innocent. It's an utter disgrace.
 
M18CTID said:
This is exactly why I prefer the system they have in Scotland where 3 verdicts can be arrived at - Guilty, Not Guilty, and Not Proven.

Going back to this case, despite the fact that Avery and Dassey clearly appear to have been stitched up a small part of me still thinks Avery might've done it (I'm pretty much convinced Dassey is entirely innocent). However, my gut feeling is that he is probably innocent and he has been framed. While there are some red flags about him and a few bits of "evidence" not mentioned in the series, there are far more red flags about the behaviour of the prosecution which, for me, tips it in the favour of him being innocent. While it seems totally far-fetched on the face of it that someone would go out and kill her just so that Avery could be framed, we have to remember that he was completely set up on the rape charge and as such I wouldn't put anything past certain people.
Click to expand...
Is it not the same in England? I was found not proven.although was innocent and was hoping for not guilty.spoke to one of the jury a year later(didn't know her but she recognised me) she said that only 2 thought I had done it but not proven was easier option.
 
Not sure either way if he he is guilty or innocent l,but there is more than enough evidence to cause reasonable doubt in the jury's mind so he should have been acquitted. To have 7 say not guilty,3 guilty and 2 undecided at the start and that to turn to 12 guilty shows a weak and cowardly jury. To condemn a man to a life behind bars due to being fed up,tired,wanting to go home or whatever it was is just immoral to say the very least.
 
M18CTID said:
Leaving aside how bent the trials of Avery and Dassey looked, it's still completely destroyed my trust in the American criminal justice system. The main reason for that is that the prosecutor can tell the whole world how he believes the accused committed the crime before the trial has even taken place. How the fuck can that be in any way considered fair? Far from innocent until proven guilty, it comes across as guilty until proven innocent. It's an utter disgrace.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Just absolute disbelief the whole way through the series on what is going on.

I'm addicted to watching all the murder mystery and cold case type programmes from the states, and it's a recurring theme. Another thing I've noticed is that the American juries seem to struggle with the idea of reasonable doubt and are very guilty happy. If you are unfortunate enough to end up caught up in their justice system you are big, big trouble from the off regardless of your actual guilt status.
 
VinKom said:
Totally agree. Just absolute disbelief the whole way through the series on what is going on.

I'm addicted to watching all the murder mystery and cold case type programmes from the states, and it's a recurring theme. Another thing I've noticed is that the American juries seem to struggle with the idea of reasonable doubt and are very guilty happy. If you are unfortunate enough to end up caught up in their justice system you are big, big trouble from the off regardless of your actual guilt status.
Click to expand...

Have you seen any you recommend similar to this documentary mate?
 
VinKom said:
Totally agree. Just absolute disbelief the whole way through the series on what is going on.

I'm addicted to watching all the murder mystery and cold case type programmes from the states, and it's a recurring theme. Another thing I've noticed is that the American juries seem to struggle with the idea of reasonable doubt and are very guilty happy. If you are unfortunate enough to end up caught up in their justice system you are big, big trouble from the off regardless of your actual guilt status.
Click to expand...
There are a number of people here who think the police are infallible. To them being accused is the same as being guilty and that's the problem. I also don't understand how the prosecution can go after somebody who is obviously handicapped like the nephew is. It seems to me that they only care about winning and what their stats look like. They're happy when they get convictions with long sentences regardless of whether the person is guilty or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top