What was the most recent documentary you watched on TV?

[Spexxvet]

On episode 7 of Making a Murderer - a Netflix original.

Highly recommend

[Clodfobble]

Oh man, so compelling and so fucking depressing.

[DanaC]

Not reallyadocumentary but close enough:p

Don't know if this is playable outside the UK.I hope sobecause it made me laugh and I think it might be of interest toa non brit.

Couldn't find ep1 on the toob, so here's ep2 (am currently watching ...well,listening to this ep..as I post this.I shall go back and watch the rest now:P)

[fargon]

I just watched that and, there are just too many rules. And people seem to take things too seriously.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

On episode 7 of Making a Murderer - a Netflix original.

Highly recommend

Oh, and! After you finish the whole thing, make sure you read the online writeups about the evidence shown at trial that they did not include in the documentary. And then you'll just curl up in a ball on the floor because you won't have any idea what is real anymore.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Oh, and! After you finish the whole thing, make sure you read the online writeups about the evidence shown at trial that they did not include in the documentary. And then you'll just curl up in a ball on the floor because you won't have any idea what is real anymore.

I'm not convinced he's innocent, but the case needs more, and unbiased, investigation, at least.

Kratz struck me as a sleazeball, which he turned out to be and I wouldn't trust Lenk as far as I can throw him.

[Clodfobble]

Did you finish it? I want to ask you what you thought about a spoiler from a late episode...

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Did you finish it? I want to ask you what you thought about a spoiler from a late episode...

Yeah, finished Monday evening. Started on Friday or Saturday AM.

Ask away!

[Clodfobble]

Okay, so I have this theory. The only good and smart people in the whole thing were Stephen Avery's trial lawyers, right? The shorter one with the full head of hair seemed to be slightly more in charge. And he said two things that really caught my attention, only because he proved himself in other places to be SO VERY careful with his words, as lawyers must be.

1.) In the closing arguments, they got into a weird back and forth where the prosecution was basically like, "Why would the police pick Avery out of nowhere to frame him?" And the defense responded with the logical argument that of course the police are not inherently evil, and they would only plant evidence if they believed him to be guilty and wanted a slam dunk, but that doesn't actually make him guilty... Except what he said was, "The police don't frame innocent people." And then he sort of elaborated into the point he actually meant. But that seemed like a really boneheaded verbal slip for a defense lawyer, to me.

2.) In the post trial discussion with all five lawyers in the room, he was the one who said that on some level he hopes that Avery did really do it, because otherwise the system is so depressingly broken, etc. Again, a relevant point, but not really the way one's own lawyer best phrases it.

Conclusion: I think he knew/believed Avery was guilty, or at least a terrible person (did you find the not-presented-in-the-documentary stuff online about Avery molesting Brendan Dassey when he was younger?) and didn't actually slip up at all, but instead showed the excellent, excellent control of language that he had in the rest of the series to very subtly make sure that he lost the case in the end.

[Clodfobble]

The question being, I guess, does that strike you as plausible?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Okay, so I have this theory. The only good and smart people in the whole thing were Stephen Avery's trial lawyers, right? The shorter one with the full head of hair seemed to be slightly more in charge. And he said two things that really caught my attention, only because he proved himself in other places to be SO VERY careful with his words, as lawyers must be.

1.) In the closing arguments, they got into a weird back and forth where the prosecution was basically like, "Why would the police pick Avery out of nowhere to frame him?" And the defense responded with the logical argument that of course the police are not inherently evil, and they would only plant evidence if they believed him to be guilty and wanted a slam dunk, but that doesn't actually make him guilty... Except what he said was, "The police don't frame innocent people." And then he sort of elaborated into the point he actually meant. But that seemed like a really boneheaded verbal slip for a defense lawyer, to me.

2.) In the post trial discussion with all five lawyers in the room, he was the one who said that on some level he hopes that Avery did really do it, because otherwise the system is so depressingly broken, etc. Again, a relevant point, but not really the way one's own lawyer best phrases it.

Conclusion: I think he knew/believed Avery was guilty, or at least a terrible person (did you find the not-presented-in-the-documentary stuff online about Avery molesting Brendan Dassey when he was younger?) and didn't actually slip up at all, but instead showed the excellent, excellent control of language that he had in the rest of the series to very subtly make sure that he lost the case in the end.

I don't remember his exact words in the closing arguments, but what I took away was "The police don't frame people they believe to be innocent."

I was shocked when he said he almost hopes Steven is guilty, but I think he was trying to salvage something, anything, from the whole mess. He got choked up, which I think added to his show of frustrated indignation.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

The question being, I guess, does that strike you as plausible?

I guess it's plausible, but I think he truly believed that Avery was mistreated.

I read a couple of articles about the "ignored" evidence. Unfortunately, it all appears to me to be hearsay. It would be nice if someone did the kind of investigation into those accusations as they did in the series. Still, if he was an evil guy early in his life, it doesn't mean he killed Halbach, any more than it meant he raped Beernsten in 1985. There was no indication, even by the cops, that he did anything bad after getting out of jail for the rape.

I think the most damning evidence against the cops is the tampering of the vial of Avery's blood that was in the police evidence room, in police custody.

[fargon]

Keryx has been watching The Making of a Murderer, on Netflix. She can only watch 2 episodes at a time, because it pisses her off.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I read a couple of articles about the "ignored" evidence. Unfortunately, it all appears to me to be hearsay.

Some, yeah, but one of the pieces of evidence was non-blood Avery DNA underneath the hood of Halbach's car (Brendan said they pulled out the battery cable after moving her vehicle,) and another was the fact that Avery had one week earlier purchased handcuffs and leg irons like the kind Brendan described. (Avery claimed they were for sex play with his girlfriend Jodi.)

I definitely believe the cops planted numerous pieces of evidence against him, and completely railroaded the kid. I also don't know for certain that he's innocent--but reasonable doubt is reasonable doubt, and there's plenty of that.

The thing I kept screaming at the screen was why in the hell they couldn't get the phone records--Brendan claimed to have received and answered multiple phone calls that evening when he was supposed to have been helping Avery dispose of the body. Does Wisconsin not have modern phone technology? Were the friends who called him not willing to testify that they had spoken with him?

[Spexxvet]

I don't trust anything Brendan said. The interrogators fed him everything they wanted him to say. He could have said something about the hood latch, and the cops, who had full access to Avery's house, could have swabbed sweat and placed it on the latch. Avery had a cut on his finger. How could blood not have been on the latch? When the cops found the handcuffs, they could have easily gotten Brendan to say how they were used. They got him to say that he slit her throat on the bed, yet there was no blood evidence.

I know he has a 70 IQ, but he doesn't seem stupid enough to leave her car on his property when he has a car smasher at hand. He can't be smart enough to clean up all the (alleged) blood from the bedroom and garage, but leave a smear in the car. Can he?

Re the phone. Maybe it was a cell phone and they figured he would have had it with him, so it wouldn't place him at home, and thought he could talk calmly while he was raping and murdering. Just spit balling.

Come to think of it, they had phone records showing that Avery called Halbach, even that he used *67, so they definitely have the technology. Strange that neither prosecution nor defense determined Brendan's records to be useful.

I'd like the cops to take polygraph tests.

[Clodfobble]

That's true, it probably was a cellphone, I didn't think about that.