• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

'Making a Murderer' discussion. (Paging Shooshmoo)

Just finished. Unreal.

Anyone catch Teresa's brother writing her off as dead when he was being interviewed during the initial search? He paused and then said something like, "... We can move on with our lives......Hopefully with Teresa alive." That pause was uncomfortably long.
 
I also just finished. In my mind all of it comes down to the coerced confession. If 7 jurors wanted to acquit from the star with 3 to convict and 2 undecided the case wasn't great. I'm willing to bet that those 3 were heavily influenced by news coverage that included details from the "confession".
 
Just finished. The actions and representation by Len Kuchinsky was the most appalling and upsetting thing I may have ever seen. It's simply unconscionable. When they started showing the investigator interviewing Dassey I just assumed it was a demonstration they would want to show the jury how susceptible to suggestion Dassey was. The thought of the defense investigator coercing the very client he's working for into a confession so they can turn it over the police was so absurd that I couldn't believe it was actually happening. What's even more disgusting is that asshole Kuchinsky wasn't even out of the courthouse yet from arguing to a judge how Dassey's statements should be suppressed when he literally does the very same thing himself to his own client. How Kuchinsky has not been disbarred is also beyond me.

As for Avery, that was actually the second story for me. I'm not surprised he was convicted. Police misconduct defenses (even when it's as obvious and egregious as it was here) rarely plays well outside of major cities. I certainly think there was a ton of doubt and it should've been a not guilty, but I think the b.s. FBI expert (who shouldn't have been allowed to testify, imo) was the nail in the coffin.

Lastly, I hope this film puts to bed any argument over trials by jury v judges. What you saw in how State-friendly the judges are is the rule; not the exception. Again, you will probably find some liberal trial judges in big cities, but for the rest of the country they are by and large conservative. Granted, both Avery and Dassey were found guilty, but they at least had a chance. If they had to try those cases in front of those judges...they would have zero chance of prevailing.
 
Any chance Dassey gets another trial based on the publicity this has gotten?
 
I think it's a no brainer that Dassey should get another trial based on the law. I was amazed an appellate court didn't overturn it given the clear ineffective assistance of counsel. I'm hopeful they win in Federal Court, and I think they will.
 
Would it be feasible or useful to not have prosecutors and public defenders, but public attorneys that do both. Would that break down the us vs. them team mentality? Is that a stupid idea? #notalawyer
 
With lens investigator, thought it was funny in a so pathetic way he kept tearing up on the stand and said he was thinking back to Teresas flower or whatever it was. So comically bad
 
How the fuck does Steven Avery shoot Teresa in the garage and not leave a drop of DNA? He leaves bones in a fire pit, a key in his drawer, a shell casing in the garage, but not a single drop of blood?
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
Its the one piece of physical evidence that corroborates Dassey's story and could not have been tampered with. Its really important.
Click to expand...

Apparently the person at the state crime lab that found the DNA on the latch had been inspecting Steve Avery's car earlier the same day and did not change gloves before moving over to the RAV4.
 
Last edited:
Finished up. A few thoughts...

Obviously, this doc takes a skewed view. I tried to keep that in mind throughout. When they ended E4 with the blood vial, I thought holy shit. But they seemed to not emphasize that at the trial, which makes me wonder if they had a viable reason for there being a hole in the vial and the package being unsealed. It wouldn't surprise me if they did, but they didn't say either way.

There were way too many inconsistencies on the sheriff's department side of things. Oh the bonfire was 10 feet tall vs. 3 feet tall when they originally made the report. Why lie about something so worthless in the larger scheme of things? Whether he's burning shit from the scrapyard or a body, noting the height of the flames doesn't matter, nor does it tell you what he may have been burning. To lie about it is just folly.

Calling in the license plate is the thing that sticks with me the most for some reason. Why do that at all? Was a suitable explanation ever provided and then just omitted from the doc? It makes zero sense to me to call it in unless you are sitting there looking at the car.

The Dassey side of things was appalling. Not only did he have awful public defender representation with that blonde Rick Moranis dude, but his defenders later seemed to drop the ball in not playing the conversation with his mother after he "confessed." A new trial is absolutely warranted in that kid's case.

After binge watching this, I find myself talking like Wisconsin white trash.
 
Oh, and I also said when it happened that having the Dassey related stuff essentially dropped (except for the kidnapping charge they got dismissed in the end) before trial might come back to hurt them because all the stuff related to Dassey helped their corrupt cops theory. Avery's lawyers (who were clearly the sharpest tools in that county's shed) probably made a calculated decision to take that risk, however. Incidentally, the one lawyer of Avery's reminded me a lot of Marco Rubio in how he spoke and presented himself. He even had a little lisp.
 
Does the fact that SA is now in jail somehow eliminate his ability to pursue the civil rights case? He got screwed in 1985 and subsequently until 2003. That didn't all of a sudden not happen since he did something bad in 2004.
 
A high-profile Chicago Defense Attorney is taking on Avery's case.

Kathleen Zellner of The Law Firm of Kathleen Zellner and Associates, P.C. in Downers Grove, Illinois, announced in a press release Friday that the firm "will be assuming the full and complete representation of Steven Avery in all criminal matters."

Avery is the latest addition to Zellner's client list, which has included Ryan Ferguson, who was exonerated and later released from prison after being wrongfully convicted of murder. She was also an attorney to Mario Casciaro, who was released last September after successfully appealing his 26-year prison sentence for the murder of missing teen Brian Carrick.

The release also said that Zellner will be assisted by Tricia Bushnell, described as "local Wisconsin counsel."


http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55203379e4b08b1328203a7d/t/569040c4a976af0bfc47c5fd/1452294341525/KATHLEEN+ZELLNER+-+1.8.2016+PRESS+RELEASE.pdf
 
bmoneydeac said:
Does the fact that SA is now in jail somehow eliminate his ability to pursue the civil rights case? He got screwed in 1985 and subsequently until 2003. That didn't all of a sudden not happen since he did something bad in 2004.
Click to expand...

He settled that case though, remember? Only got $400k.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
How the fuck does Steven Avery shoot Teresa in the garage and not leave a drop of DNA? He leaves bones in a fire pit, a key in his drawer, a shell casing in the garage, but not a single drop of blood?
Click to expand...

The better question to me is how any evidence supports the info in Brendan's original confession.

Without that confession, I don't think either of the men are convicted... Yet in my mind, it is demonstrably false.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Calling in the license plate is the thing that sticks with me the most for some reason. Why do that at all? Was a suitable explanation ever provided and then just omitted from the doc? It makes zero sense to me to call it in unless you are sitting there looking at the car.
Click to expand...

This. I nearly shat my pants when they said that call was made on Nov 3. I would really like to have heard the explanation for that because I can't think of any that make sense as to why he would randomly call dispatch and ask them to run the plate.

Also, I know nothing of Wisconsin law, but the ruling forbidding the defense from arguing "third party liability" to me was mind boggling. I couldn't imagine trying a murder case and not being allowed to point the finger at other suspects.
 
Les Grossman said:
This. I nearly shat my pants when they said that call was made on Nov 3. I would really like to have heard the explanation for that because I can't think of any that make sense as to why he would randomly call dispatch and ask them to run the plate.

Also, I know nothing of Wisconsin law, but the ruling forbidding the defense from arguing "third party liability" to me was mind boggling. I couldn't imagine trying a murder case and not being allowed to point the finger at other suspects.
Click to expand...

Yea, most likely found it by illegally searching his property. Then, they led that civilian (her aunt?) right to where that car was. She was so lucky to just find it within 15 mins of searching that 40 acre junkyard or whatever (not really). I think they touched on this a little bit....

They obviously weren't supposed to be involved in the search, etc, so they did this to try and keep that thinly veiled illusion alive that they weren't involved.
 
waketastic said:
Yea, most likely found it by illegally searching his property. Then, they led that civilian (her aunt?) right to where that car was. She was so lucky to just find it within 15 mins of searching that 40 acre junkyard or whatever (not really). I think they touched on this a little bit....

They obviously weren't supposed to be involved in the search, etc, so they did this to try and keep that thinly veiled illusion alive that they weren't involved.
Click to expand...

This. I suspect that Sgt Colburn took it upon himself to conduct a warrantless search of the property. If he fessed up to that fact, that evidence is excluded at trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top