Making a Murderer

I might go back to it but after an hour I definitely felt it was smoothing over a few things about him... there were moments when big red flags went up about him, and I expected to learn more about his personality, but straight away they threw the focus back on the police and prosecutors. Some times it was simple things like not making it clear what age he was when the cat thing happened. I assumed it was something a disturbed 12/13 year old would do, but they sort of dropped it in quietly that he was serving time for that when his first child was born. Then they dealt with him running the woman off the road without really asking the questions that arise - did he intend to threaten her life, did he do so without realising it, or is that not how it happened? Just...how did he explain running her off the road and pointing a gun at her? Instead it went straight to his defence's claim that the police had dealt with him harshly because the woman was close to an active officer. It's a bit of sleight of hand that you would expect from a defence case - I've no problem with that but it suggested to me I was probably watching a show that placed narrative above balance - I just know I wouldn't make 12 hours without getting frustrated. Basically, every little moment like that just made me trust them less, made me wonder if they were hiding something. Trying a bit too hard.

The other reason I gave it up is that to get a picture of how these things relate to him, to know what kind of guy he is, I'd want to know much more about his childhood and family (not happening), or at least how he coped with normal married life... but he's never had one - he's always been in jail, just back from jail, or going back to jail. I'm not saying that demonstrates any guilt - just that I've got nothing to go on. He himself says almost nothing, which could be due to his mental capabilities, or it could be a learned behaviour... his dad seemed the same, short on words and inexpressive....and part of me is thinking.....scrap metal guys in small towns sometimes have a reputation... this is a family that keeps to themselves.... the kid's two infractions are clearly linked to his problems fitting in (the cat thing seems like him trying to impress people, he even says it happened because he was hanging round with the wrong crowd, and the car thing is him not being able to deal with someone bad mouthing him to others). None of this proves anything - but they are questions I wanted to explore. I just know I'm not going to get any thing like that when the focus is always on the prosecution.

But I've absolutely no doubt the police were incompetent and with the prosecutor, lied left right and centre to protect themselves. Cowards, and slimy creeps.
 
Proelia said:
Leaves out loads of information the **** was as guilty as sin
Click to expand...
Even if that were true, this case is absolutely littered with reasonable doubt. It's all over the place and touches every single piece of physical evidence the prosecution had to offer. Unfortunately, this case highlights the limitations of the jury system (especially in small, backwards towns like this) but he'd have stood even less chance with that judge making the decision so I guess it's the lesser of two evils.

I found myself getting more and more angry as the show went on, culminating in the truly shocking behaviour of the police, investigators and even his own defence team in securing Brendan Dassey's confession. In fact, criminal charges should be brought against the main players involved in that, particularly Len Kachinsky, Michael O'Kelly, Tom Fassbender and Mark Wiegert. They broke laws left, right and centre to get that confession. How it was then admissable in court I will never know.

Even if they were both guilty, I'd still be utterly dismayed by the prosecution's behaviour in these two cases, because when such unlawful behaviour is just blindly accepted with a dismissive wave of the hand, the truly innocent stand absolutely no chance. And that's something that should scare everyone.
 
Brilliant. Now I need sleep and need to talk about this..
Bloody he'll, great documentary that I have blasted in last two days.
Highly recommend but I need sleep.
 
Dubai Blue said:
Even if that were true, this case is absolutely littered with reasonable doubt. It's all over the place and touches every single piece of physical evidence the prosecution had to offer. Unfortunately, this case highlights the limitations of the jury system (especially in small, backwards towns like this) but he'd have stood even less chance with that judge making the decision so I guess it's the lesser of two evils.

I found myself getting more and more angry as the show went on, culminating in the truly shocking behaviour of the police, investigators and even his own defence team in securing Brendan Dassey's confession. In fact, criminal charges should be brought against the main players involved in that, particularly Len Kachinsky, Michael O'Kelly, Tom Fassbender and Mark Wiegert. They broke laws left, right and centre to get that confession. How it was then admissable in court I will never know.

Even if they were both guilty, I'd still be utterly dismayed by the prosecution's behaviour in these two cases, because when such unlawful behaviour is just blindly accepted with a dismissive wave of the hand, the truly innocent stand absolutely no chance. And that's something that should scare everyone.
Click to expand...


Len Kachinsky pissed me off more than anyone. Should have been protecting the kid and the smug **** clearly didn't give a shit.
 
Just finished it.

The whole thing is just littered with lies and back handing. Quite how he was convicted with what was on the table will puzzle me until the day I die, and I actually think he killed her. It will puzzle me because if ever I found myself in a scenario like that and I was innocent, I'd stand no chance.

Any rational human being could see that no evidence at all places her at his house, and what they were using was a plant.

For me I think they had him killing her somewhere else but couldn't prove it so framed him.

The whole system was fucked throughout and there are a lot guilty people who walked away from it all.
 
I finished this one late last night and found it hard to get to sleep. I found myself involuntarily shouting "oh fuck off", "get fucked", "you' slimy c*nt*" at the tele in numerous parts.

Whilst it is no surprise that poor people in America (and pretty much everywhere) don't have equal access to justice, the sheer audacity of the local police has never been laid so bare.

the million and one issues with the case aside, I struggle to see why juries are selected from the county where the crime was committed or nearby ones. There is too much bias and in areas like rural Wisconsin it is almost too much for some to comprehend that the police would act this way. However, if the jurors were from elsewhere perhaps it would have been different.

It is also astounding that the judge who presides over the first trial also hears the appeal cases!

it is easy to say in hindsight but if anyone is in the same situation as Avery you would have to move away from the area. I would get the hell out of there and sue from afar.
I often wonder how Misskelly is being treated in West Memphis after the notoriety of their case.
 
It's such a well made doc as it has you going through all the emotions with each episode.

Sorry can't add spoiler button on tapatalk mobile??? So dong read on if you ain't watched it.

I remember episode 3/4 (I think)
I can't believe he has done it after all he been through and was pissed off with him.
Then as it moved on I personally think he ain't done it.
Them two bastard cops have something to do with it. I know it's made that way but feckin shifty fuckers.
 
Just finished the fourth hour, gripping as fuck!!

Brendan is the most interesting up too now, I'm confused as fuck as to whether which story he decides to tell is true! And if he's telling the truth about the bonfire, where the fuck did he get the other story from?!
 
Last edited:
Honestly can't decide one way or another. Loads of evidence planted, Colborn and Lenk are as guilty as sin and have done 'something.'

Just seen the episode where Colborn called in the reg of the missing Rav 4 when it was impossible as it was apparently at the salvage yard.

I can't see him doing it, he doesn't seem bright enough. And there was no blood in the bedroom.

Like others have said, there's no way near enough hard evidence to convict and how they dismissed some of the defences objections is unreal.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.