Making a Murderer (Netflix) - New info

google it. It's not the fairness he thinks is artificial, but the public sentiment via various types of media. Which it seems is what a_skeleton_03 was getting at

So public sentiment is somehow the documentary makers fault? And that doesn't match at all what you originally said. You were fishing.

Khane_sl said:

So public sentiment is somehow the documentary makers fault? And that doesn't match at all what you originally said. You were fishing.

Click to expand...

I was posting it for a_skeleton_03's benefit as it was pretty much his point for the last 5 posts. And is public sentiment the documentary's fault? I don't know, but they spent a chunk of the first episode blaming daytime crime shows for the pretrial sentiment. It's two sides of the same coin.

And how is that fishing? Unless the public is pulling their sentiment out of their own asses, of course it's from the limited experience of the case as shown in the documentary.

And an unbiased documentary doesn't end with an unrelated harassment charge for the DA

Jive Turkey_sl said:

...the experience of the trial in the documentary as "artificial and distorting"....

Click to expand...

Jive Turkey_sl said:

It's not the fairness he thinks is artificial, but the public sentiment via various types of media.

Click to expand...

Ummm, so, the experience of the trial was artificial and distorted, or the public sentiment in response to the documentary?

So, he thinks the depiction of the trial was fair, but the public reaction to the documentary is artificial and distorting?

I'm trying to understand, but sometimes I find it's hard to follow the points you're making.

popsicledeath_sl said:

Ummm, so, the experience of the trial was artificial and distorted, or the public sentiment in response to the documentary?

So, he thinks the depiction of the trial was fair, but the public reaction to the documentary is artificial and distorting?

I'm trying to understand, but sometimes I find it's hard to follow the points you're making.

Click to expand...

That didn't take long, did it?

Public sentiment and the experience of the documentary are inextricably linked. In the same way pretrial public sentiment and the experience of Hard Copy or whatever they call the daytime crime shows were inextricably linked. He's saying that both of those are distorted. People wanted to murder him before and they want to jerk him off now. He's acknowledging that it's largely an artifact of how the various types of media are portraying things. Which says a whole lot more than a defence lawyer saying a documentary closely following the defence's case was fair

Jive Turkey_sl said:

He's saying that both of those are distorted. People wanted to murder him before and they want to jerk him off now. He's acknowledging that it's largely an artifact of how the various types of media are portraying things.

Click to expand...

Do you believe this to be the case?

a_skeleton_03_sl said:

I haven't changed my stance one iota.

Click to expand...

Maybe you will when you actually see the documentary, eh?

popsicledeath_sl said:

Do you believe this to be the case?

Click to expand...

To a degree, yes. But I also believe the pre-trial sentiment certainly seemed to have beenmuchmore distorted the other way. And I'll even concede that part of the reason for him saying this could be a reminder to himself that public sentiment doesn't mean jack shit if he believes in what he's doing. But I think it's certainly also an acknowledgment of the same idea a_skeleton_03 is trying to get across.
Look, at the end of the documentary I was like "what the fuck??". And I still am for how blatant some of the misconduct was. But some of the 'outrage' (I'm using that term lightly here) at the idea of an innocent man being sent to jail for life has been tempered a bit withsomeof the info I've learned since. That doesn't take away from the planting of evidence and the fact that he should've been cleared of the charges on those grounds alone. I'm only going beyond that and asking if there is a chance he might be guilty of murdering that girl anyway. In which case I'd feel bad for the justice system, but not for him personally. And when I take away some of the obvious plants - the key, the blood in the car, the bullet - I still think there might be enough there to think he might've done it (this doesn't mean I agree with the outcome of the trial). Hardly a reason to pile on, but whatever

a_skeleton_03_sl said:

It is their fault when they have an obvious agenda to push. I haven't changed my stance one iota.

Click to expand...

It's impossible to make a documentary withoutsomebias. As soon as you decide what to point your camera at and what not to, you've skewed things no matter how slight. The filmmakers here tipped their hand a little bit at the end with the DA harassment charge which was irrelevant to everything that had taken place prior. But at the same time, some of the mishandling of the case being shown could not have been anything other than what we see on screen.

Jive Turkey_sl said:

It's impossible to make a documentary withoutsomebias. As soon as you decide what to point your camera at and what not to, you've skewed things no matter how slight. The filmmakers here tipped their hand a little bit at the end with the DA harassment charge which was irrelevant to everything that had taken place prior. But at the same time, some of the mishandling of the case being shown could not have been anything other than what we see on screen.

Click to expand...

So in a documentary about corruption in the legal process, you think it is irrelevant to highlight that the prosecuting DA turned out to be totally corrupt? Or is your assertion that he only became corrupt after the two trials in question?

LiquidDeath_sl said:

So in a documentary about corruption in the legal process, you think it is irrelevant to highlight that the prosecuting DA turned out to be totally corrupt? Or is your assertion that he only became corrupt after the two trials in question?

Click to expand...

Well when anyone brings up what a shitbag Avery was before the murder, you guys get all upset and say it's irrelevant (which is absolutely the right call). A little consistency would be nice.
And I could be wrong here, but was there any direct evidence in the documentary to imply Kratz was in on the corruption?

Jive Turkey_sl said:

but was there any direct evidence in the documentary to imply Kratz was in on the corruption?

Click to expand...

Are you sure we're talking about the same documentary here?

But I think they are referring to the texting scandal where he was abusing his power as a DA to "gain the favor" of women, to put it politely.

Khane_sl said:

Are you sure we're talking about the same documentary here?

But I think they are referring to the texting scandal where he was abusing his power as a DA to "gain the favor" of women, to put it politely.

Click to expand...

I meant in regard to the Avery case. It's pretty strongly implied that the two officers were responsible for planting evidence. But apart from guilt by association, what else do you have on Kratz? This is a genuine question; there could be a detail I've forgotten. Obviously he was pretty tenacious in going for a guilty verdict, but that's his job

Jive, are you being obtuse? Did you watch the documentary? Or are you just plain stupid?

Kratz is the man who said that the Manitowoc police would not be involved in a public press conference. He is also the special prosecutor for the case. Do you know how the legal system works and how the police force investigating a crime and the DA responsible for prosecuting it work together? Are you inferring he had no idea who was conducting interviews, who was gathering evidence, and who was involved in his case? Are you saying he wouldn't need that information because those people would never be called to the stand in the trial? Are you implying he would just go in blindly to a trial that clearly had so much at stake for him and the county involved?

Jive Turkey_sl said:

To a degree, yes. But I also believe the pre-trial sentiment certainly seemed to have beenmuchmore distorted the other way. And I'll even concede that part of the reason for him saying this could be a reminder to himself that public sentiment doesn't mean jack shit if he believes in what he's doing. But I think it's certainly also an acknowledgment of the same idea a_skeleton_03 is trying to get across.
Look, at the end of the documentary I was like "what the fuck??". And I still am for how blatant some of the misconduct was. But some of the 'outrage' (I'm using that term lightly here) at the idea of an innocent man being sent to jail for life has been tempered a bit withsomeof the info I've learned since. That doesn't take away from the planting of evidence and the fact that he should've been cleared of the charges on those grounds alone. I'm only going beyond that and asking if there is a chance he might be guilty of murdering that girl anyway. In which case I'd feel bad for the justice system, but not for him personally. And when I take away some of the obvious plants - the key, the blood in the car, the bullet - I still think there might be enough there to think he might've done it (this doesn't mean I agree with the outcome of the trial). Hardly a reason to pile on, but whatever

Click to expand...

So you think the defense (spelled with an s) was lying when they mentioned in the documentary how, what was it, of the 250 jury questionnaires all but one potential juror said they'd already decided he was guilty?

Keeping in mind much of the pretrial bias and media circus was fueled by the prosecutor and sheriff press conferences and releases that later proved to be outright false or at least really fucking dubious and based on the coerced confession of a mentally deficient minor.

I didn't really see much outrage in the documentary? In fact, at times I was expecting and almost hoping someone would get on their high horse, and instead they just kept presenting public records and interviewing those involved, including the defense attorneys that I don't think anyone sane at any point would say were sleazy, ignorant or even particularly bias outside of simply doing their job and crying foul when shit sure seemed pretty foul.

The absurd thing is pages ago I was expressing how shitty much of the public reaction to the documentaries are, how how it was an equal but opposite evil as the pre-trial public witchunt, but you were probably too busy calling me a retard to notice.

The documentary largely presented examples of the erosion of rights like to a fair trial, presumption of innocence, and how raising reasonable doubts about a lot of the investigation and prosecution somehow didn't translate to reasonable doubt by that of a jury. If you or a_skeleton_03 or anyone else want to dismiss that as bias and misguided public outrcy, well, I guess that's your decision, but for most people it's deserving of outcry.

When evidence time and again seems suspect, that should raise doubts, and a jury shouldn't convict when there are such blatant and prolific instances that raise reasonable doubts. Yet still, people are dismiss the documentary as bias, poo-poo the grave injustice that occurred in that trial, and instead of being scared at the glaring deficiencies the documentary shows... you'd rather put together a bunch of tainted evidence and junk investigating so you can titillate yourself with thoughts and theories on how a man could have tortured, raped and killed a woman.

You don't seem to understand why the logical, reasonable and important discussion is how our justice system has a plethora of measures to ensure every citizen, including you, gets a fair and just trial. And what about when that doesn't happen? What about when it's not just whispers about corrupt cops and an unfair system but a systematically demonstrated failure of a citizens civil and legal rights on just about every level, every step of the way, TWICE? When presented with that, what do you do? Be dismissive of all that in favor of discussing the juicy details and pretending you're the judge, jury and executioner who gets to play God with a man's life by entertaining and indulging yourself with notions of his guilty.

You're saying yes, there was misconduct and injustice and foul play and corruption and malicious intent on the part of those in power we're taunt to trust and respect and TWO men's lives have been effectively terminated because of it, and what's stopping that from happening to any one of us... but instead of thinking about that or doing something about that you'd rather sit back, no, not sit back but actively dismiss those injustices and speak against those having the important discussion, so you can instead indulge yourself in every detail of a disgusting crime and titillate yourself with whether or not he really did it, and how, and why.

You're literally dismissing the documentary's portrayal of a bias media circus and mob mentality pre-trial because in your mind it justifies you submerging yourself in all those same grisly details and horror stories being spun so you can fantasize about the rape and murder of a woman and play out megalomania delusions of convicting the man who you aren't tasked with judging.

Steven Avery had people who were supposed to judge him fairly and justly. And instead he got a bunch of sick fucks like you to undertake a huge miscarriage of justice for their own selfish and disgusting reasons.

The thing I'm most amazing is how fucking ironic it is that you don't seem to realize you're the exact type of worthless piece of shit the documentary provides it's terrifying commentary about.You're not only missing the point of the documentary entirely, but are playing out the exact disgusting and terrifying bias you cite in dismissing the documentary. You not only miss the point, which is bad enough, but then unwittingly play out the same disgusting bias and human failings that led to that injustice. Seriously, you're not only missing the important conversation, but you're everything that's wrong with the American justice system, and more notably humanity as a whole.

LiquidDeath_sl said:

So in a documentary about corruption in the legal process, you think it is irrelevant to highlight that the prosecuting DA turned out to be totally corrupt? Or is your assertion that he only became corrupt after the two trials in question?

Click to expand...

Have to remember that for some people the documentary was actually just a viewer-drive 48 hours mystery where they're supposed to claim they know who killed the girl at every commercial cliffhanger.

Khane_sl said:

Jive, are you being obtuse? Did you watch the documentary? Or are you just plain stupid?

Kratz is the man who said that the Manitowoc police would not be involved in a public press conference. He is also the special prosecutor for the case. Do you know how the legal system works and how the police force investigating a crime and the DA responsible for prosecuting it work together? Are you inferring he had no idea who was conducting interviews, who was gathering evidence, and who was involved in his case? Are you saying he wouldn't need that information because those people would never be called to the stand in the trial? Are you implying he would just go in blindly to a trial that clearly had so much at stake for him and the county involved?

Click to expand...

You guys really have a hard time talking without getting all fucking uppity (can't wait to see someone quote this along with my post to popsicledeath below). Ya, I'm sure he was aware who was working on the investigation and in that, he was wrong. But so did everyone else. And you're still implying a man with no previous bone to pick with Avery was instrumental in planting evidence and you have no evidence for that yourself. Is it unrealistic to think much of the corruption occurred at the field level? Your demand for concrete evidence really dries up when it's inconvenient

popsicledeath_sl said:

Have to remember that for some people the documentary was actually just a viewer-drive 48 hours mystery where they're supposed to claim they know who killed the girl at every commercial cliffhanger.

Click to expand...

Can we stop pretending this was a high concept documentary about the idea of corruption? Yes, in a broad sense it was about corruption, but more specifically, it was about corruption as it relates to Steven Avery. The filmmakers clearly wanted to paint Avery as innocent or they wouldn't have left out some of the evidence (DNA on the hood, for example). If they wanted to make a broad documentary about corruption, they could have included several cases in different counties all across the country. They didn't. This is just as much *if not more* a story of the Steven Avery trial as it is about the ethereal idea of corruption. As it stands, we don't know if the police force of that county has acted in a corrupt manner before or since Steven Avery.because that's not what they were trying to fucking show

And for, what, the 10th time? I'M NOT FUCKING SAYING I KNOW WHO KILLED HER. How do you not understand that yet? Jesus fucking christ. Does your dad have low sperm count? There's no way you could've been the fastest in a regular sized load