Making a Murderer (Netflix) - New info

Column_sl said:

I'll take this point by point because clearly you are reading whatever you want into what anyone says

Click to expand...

I'll explain that from my perspective this is how our interaction went:

Column_sl said:

...if everything in this Documentary is accurate and the Documentarian didn't edit out any key moments in that courtroom's history.

Click to expand...

So, I felt the reasonable response was to ask you to provide all the key moments and inaccuracies the documentary was leaving out.

And your response was:

Column_sl said:

You are asking me to take the Documentary at face value with no follow up research.

Click to expand...

I literally asked you a question about the follow up research you seem to indicate you would need to take the documentary seriously, and you claim I'm asking you to take the documentary seriously without any additional information.

I'm sorry if you think that qualifies as my "reading whatever you want into what anyone says" but literally, you said you'd have believed the documentary only if they'd included the things you seem to be indicating you know they left out, but can't be assed to actually research to see if they left anything out.

I guess I just didn't get what your point was other than everything is biased, man, and people can try to discuss something as much as they want but how can we ever truly know anything enough to discuss it, you dig?

its hard to give both the prosecution and defense equal time and perspective when the prosecution denied the filmmakers any interviews.

I literally asked you a question about the follow up research you seem to indicate you would need to take the documentary seriously, and you claim I'm asking you to take the documentary seriously without any additional information.

Click to expand...

Once again twisting, and taking out of context phrases to suit your agenda.

My original statement was clearly if I had to make a decision solely on what the Documentary presented me then this is the way that decision would fall.

I do not believe that there is anything hidden from us that was important, or anything the Documentarian presented us that was not accurate, However,,,,, There is no way for me to know this as fact because that would qualify me to do research outside the bounds of this one FilmMaker.

I have not done research to know if that is accurate so I need to qualify my opinion with the clause that " I believe this person is innocent based on this movie alone "if" everything in the movie is accurate ,and thier was nothing hidden from us"

If someone then says a month later btw they caught this filmmaker lying , then I have my out clause to reconsider that earlier opinion.

You are making it into this huge Conspiracy that because I can see the formula of a Biased Documentary then I must think the Film Maker must be nefarious ,and has purposely hidden important evidence from the audience.

It actually doesn't need to be like that. You can have a very biased Documentary with completely accurate information in it

Maester Chuk_sl said:

its hard to give both the prosecution and defense equal time and perspective when the prosecution denied the filmmakers any interviews.

Click to expand...

I went over this earlier, there are other ways to give the other side equal time that can be done without extensive interviews. Especially with people where everything they do is public record.

Even the victims family got almost 0 time in this Documentary outside of thier son talking in news footage to reporters. How about the other Family of the Averys that went against them in court. I actually wanted to see more interaction with the Father, and older son since it seemed that the wife was very pro active that both Steven, and her son were very innocent.

Did they ever interview the woman Steven ran off the road? I could of missed it, but I only remember them interviewing Steven about what happened that night.

Also I don't remember them ever saying anyone on the other side denied the filmmakers any interviews, I'm sure it happened, BUT I can not say that is the way that went down with everyone with the limited information I had on the other side.. They seem to want to talk to reporters quite frequently to their own embarrassment.

My understanding was that the victim's family refused to participate.

Khane_sl said:

Yea, it would be pretty crazy for a jury not to be instructed on certain things in this otherwise totally above board case. Brendan Dassey is sitting in a jail cell and you think THIS is too far fetched to be believable...

Click to expand...

I said it was too far fetched to be believable? Hmmm

chaos_sl said:

I don't know if they were or were not. I know that the moment in the documentary that you mentioned was a moment that the jury had been removed from the courtroom.

Click to expand...

Ya, I read that the first time you wrote it

Maester Chuk_sl said:

its hard to give both the prosecution and defense equal time and perspective when the prosecution denied the filmmakers any interviews.

Click to expand...

They might not have had interviews to go on, but even the in-court footage is highly slanted toward the defence

i dont understand why the filmmakers should go out of their way to dig up dirt on avery when the doc is intended to show how he was railroaded by the county. you can still be fair while having a bias. the prosecution had their chance to give their side of the case and declined. thats their bad. they cant complain after the doc comes out because it shows mostly one side

i dont understand why the filmmakers should go out of their way to dig up dirt on avery when the doc is intended to show how he was railroaded by the county

Click to expand...

That is exactly the point. They are not obligated to make an unbiased documentary when their goal is to campaign for a cause.

An Un biased Documentary is one that you are literally a fly on a wall with no agenda other then the intent to "Document" an event that is happening from as many sides as possible to make that Documentation as clear as possible to an Audience.

The problem is the term "Bias" people immediately give it a negative connotation.

An Example is King of Kong. We have all probly watched that film. Now you can claim that both people were coached into their roles of antagonist/protagonist, but literally the documentary crew is there to document the event from both players perspective.

Jive Turkey_sl said:

They might not have had interviews to go on, but even the in-court footage is highly slanted toward the defence

Click to expand...

The in-court footage was highly slanted toward the subject of the documentary. The documentary wasn't about how even the worst, most corrupt, underhanded prosecution and local law enforcement still sometimes do things right. What would you have included in the documentary that wasn't included? And how would that have further informed the audience of the subject at hand?

I mean, you've at least read and researched this case and greater situation. In a documentary that seemed to very clearly, to anyone with any competent level of comprehension seemed to be about failings of the justice system, what should they have presented that they didn't to those ends? Or better, what has anyone found was admitted that showed this story didn't actually have enough failings to be made the subject of a documentary?

It's not like a Million Little Pieces where we later found out that memoir was largely fabricated and then all one had left to discuss was the definitions and nature of creative nonfiction and what is truth and what is fiction. If there was some smoking gun out there that proved the documentary was unfairly one-sided and doesn't have merit to present the topics it did then wouldn't we have heard about that by now? Wouldn't someone have come forward with hard evidence presented in trial that proved beyond reasonable doubt Avery was the murderer and justified the jury's verdict and given everyone cause to slam the documentary as bias?

Instead, what we've gotten is a few people who will argue and dismiss the documentary and discussion under the guise everything is always inherently bias. And we've gotten a few people who will make their minds up about things after admitting they haven't seen the documentary or seeming to base what they know on assumptions of knowledge that they can't be bothered to research or verify. Kinda the same way multiple people at multiple stages seemed to do in this case that led to exposing so much that is wrong with the justice system in America.

edit: holy crap forum server is dying. double post and all.

Maester Chuk_sl said:

i dont understand why the filmmakers should go out of their way to dig up dirt on avery when the doc is intended to show how he was railroaded by the county. you can still be fair while having a bias. the prosecution had their chance to give their side of the case and declined. thats their bad. they cant complain after the doc comes out because it shows mostly one side

Click to expand...

And if they had done this, some of the same people would just come and say that proves how bias and manipulative they're being by trying to present an unsympathetic hero to con people into rooting for redemption.

In short, there is always a non-argument on an anti-subject that some people will argue just to be a part of a discussion.

of course, every documentary starts with an idea, a cause. i believe this started due to avery being exonerated the first time and the ensuing lawsuit that led to his arrest and later conviction of murder. that doesnt always mean the filmmakers are going to treat opposing positions unfairly. sure, you have the michael moores and d'souzas who have have an axe to grind and go out of their way to tinge things in their favor. but in this case there was no real narrative other than the documentation of the railroad of avery/dassey by the county. they gave the other side a chance to give their spin. which IMO is fair enough by the filmmakers.

Mmm this Documentary starts with laying all of the Averys past in front of the viewer, we don't get to the cause to much later.

And that falls in line of discredit your agenda first then use the 99% rest of the film swaying your audience back to your position. Michael Moore does this almost every film in a way more sarcastic way.

The key being the Film maker is the one discrediting so he knows exactly the way to destroy his earlier statements.

In short, there is always a non-argument on an anti-subject that some people will argue just to be a part of a discussion.

Click to expand...

The thing you are missing is this is not only a news story. This is a film series, and in that effect it is open to many discussions not only on what is in the film series itself ,but how it was made.

This is the TV/Film forum . If you want to start a thread about the case that only discusses it then feel free in the proper forum.

i was referring to why the documentary came to be made and the very first scenes are of avery coming home from prison after 18 years. so the narrative was spelled out in the first few minutes.

Ah, I thought you were referring to the trial people are debating right now in this thread.

That does not come along to much later.

The Documentary has many reasons to be made. 1) to show gross misconduct in our justice system 2) To exonerate Steven in the Public's eye, and 3) I believe this may be the most important one, that may lead to one day freeing Steven's nephew.

Thus falling out way out of the realm of just Documenting an event.

Column_sl said:

The thing you are missing is this is not only a news story. This is a film series, and in that effect it is open to many discussions not only on what is in the film series itself ,but how it was made.

This is the TV/Film forum . If you want to start a thread about the case that only discusses it then feel free in the proper forum.

Click to expand...

I have no problem discussing how a film is made. My personal annoyance is the people who think their ignorance of a subject somehow proves they're knowledgeable under some bullshit pseudo-philosophical guise. Like if you don't know something you're justified in being ignorant because nothing can be truly known. Yeah, philosophical bullshit that basically just means someone is an ignorant twat wanting to hear themselves talk or get hard riling up others.

Like saying saying documentaries are all bias, so they have to presume the jury had information we didn't get to justify their decision. When ironically that supposed logic actually flies in the fact of the very subject of the documentary regarding reasonable doubt. The documentary showed stuff directly from the case that most people seem to believe raises reasonable doubt, and with reasonable doubt you're not supposed to convict. So the fact the jury did and that people then take the stance there just must have been more evidence a bias documentary left out is amazing to me. It's a phenomenon directly supportive of the very point the documentary was making about people being self-serving and fallible and almost more irresponsible with power the more power they have. This sort of ignorance and false reasoning is exactly what the documentary documents, and in terrifying fashion, that is then reinforced and demonstrated in the discussions of the very subject.

So, no, I wouldn't want to discourage that discussion at all.

Like saying saying documentaries are all bias, so they have to presume the jury had information we didn't get to justify their decision.

Click to expand...

Actually that has nothing to do with all Documentaries being biased to different degrees. It can have all the evidence ,and still be edited to be skewed extremely Biased in the Film makers agenda.

You clearly are extremely ignorant on how films are made so I'll argue you all day on this topic.

What's funny is you are so out of ideas to argue about you literally took my out clause on a opinion I made to paint this whole picture that I'm implying the Film maker is conning us.

Of course I've never made that statement, only "If" other factual information should come to light that I am not aware of I have the right to revise that opinion.

My personal annoyance is the people who think their ignorance of a subject somehow proves they're knowledgeable under some bullshit pseudo-philosophical guise

Click to expand...

Which is pretty much a projection of yourself, because you can clearly tell you don't know the first thing about Film making yet you are trying to argue about it.

Cute tho. Projection is a hell of a thing

Column_sl said:

The Documentary has many reasons to be made..... 2) To exonerate Steven in the Public's eye....

Click to expand...

I would say you're backward engineering an agenda. You're watching something, noticing the reaction, and then presuming intention from the onset by the producers of something that caused the reaction. I'd like to see what evidence, fact or logic you have to attribute the public reaction you describe in number 2 with an intention of the film makers.

Could it be that that's simply the natural public reaction to the documenting of real life events? Could it be they were fair and accurate and that just happened to be the result?

What if, after exhausting all his appeals, Avery confessed. Do you think the film makers would have excluded that? The bias you cite and agenda you're attributing to the film makers would make one think such a smoking gun would have been excluded, because him confessing would have gone against their intentional agenda to exonerate Steven in the public eye.

Does anyone believe they would have failed to include a confession if they had access to one? I don't think anyone reasonable thinks they would have left that out. Because I don't think anyone reasonable thinks they had a per-defined agenda going into making the film. I think most people recognize the story went where it went because that was just how the story went, and if Avery WAS convicted of murder and the evidence was solid and actually supported that they would have still made the documentary, because it still would have been an engaging and interesting story.

Oh, but let me guess, we can't argue what didn't happen? But if we can't argue they wouldn't have excluded a confession because it didn't happen, then why argue them including what did happen is bias and pushing an agenda that can only be pointed to by retrospectively attributing intention out of a reaction. Especially when the people screaming bias and unfair admit any bias wouldn't actually change what everyone seems to agree are severe injustices. At that point, the only reason to keep claiming bias and unfairness is to invent controversy to support ones own self-serving bias or agenda.

I guess I'm a dick because, if nothing else, I'm not ready to give these two amateur film makers so much credit. To try to contend that 10 years ago they started a documentary with a set agenda.... Yeah, right. Or, maybe they're the real murderers and this is all a huge cover up, because they're just that fucking good at manipulating the public.

Column_sl said:

Actually that has nothing to do with all Documentaries being biased to different degrees. It can have all the evidence ,and still be edited to be skewed extremely Biased in the Film makers agenda.

You clearly are extremely ignorant on how films are made so I'll argue you all day on this topic.

What's funny is you are so out of ideas to argue about you literally took my out clause on a opinion I made to paint this whole picture that I'm implying the Film maker is conning us.

Of course I've never made that statement, only "If" other factual information should come to light that I am not aware of I have the right to revise that opinion.



Which is pretty much a projection of yourself, because you can clearly tell you don't know the first thing about Film making yet you are trying to argue about it.

Cute tho. Projection is a hell of a thing

Click to expand...

Ah, I get it. I'm just putting words in your mouth and am ignorant and I doesn't deserve a response to the actual subject because I'm the one not discussing it and you'll show me by only discussing the fact I'm not discussing the discussion and you're technically right anyway and I don't know anything about anything so I lose and you win.

Fuck me, I've been Columned!