Making a Murderer (Netflix) - New info

Tenks_sl said:

I just finished up ep9/10 last night. I almost died laughing that he got a new girlfriend behind bars.

Click to expand...

Not sure if it was mentioned in this thread, but Dr. Phil had a special this past week on Steven Avery. Sadly, she is now his ex-fiance. Nothing to do with the case, though. She still firmly believes he's innocent.

And, by the way, the Dr. Phil special didn't really reveal anything new OTHER than the fact that Nancy Grace is an unreasonable bitch.

The Dr. Phil special was typical where he calls guests and then himself talks most of the time. Only really interesting part for me was Sheriff Petersen saying he knew about the 1995 information where they were told someone else could have committed the sexual assault and that despite being the original arresting officer he didn't follow up on it because it wasn't his department (not sure who was in charge of investigating such claims at the time, but if I recall that person was a name we've heard repeatedly connected to all this). Even ignoring the fact that sheriff office can't be so huge to have giant departments that don't communicate, he was a part of the original arrest. Then when the report was finally written in 2003 about the 95 incident Sheriff Petersen says he didn't see it, didn't hear about it, knew nothing about it, and that it wasn't in any safe of his, claiming it must have been in the other sheriff's safe because he wasn't the sheriff at the time despite the fact that yes he was.

I guess this will be interesting. Now that it's a national news story we'll see where the chips fall.

Khane_sl said:

I guess this will be interesting. Now that it's a national news story we'll see where the chips fall.

Click to expand...

On Dr. Phil Avery's lawyer released a statement about a new trial based on "new evidence". So, we'll see.

his new lawyer is that chick from The Innocence Project? the one with all the exonerations?

Maester Chuk_sl said:

his new lawyer is that chick from The Innocence Project? the one with all the exonerations?

Click to expand...

Yes and I read the wikipedia page on her and some of that shit (if true) sounds shady as fuck. Like all the people she was able to "convince" into changing their stories. That's literally in the synopses of some of her successful exonerations, that she was somehow able to convince key witnesses to change their story. At times years after the fact.

Shady vs Shady. The ultimate showdown. Should be good.

Well, i doubt she used La Cosa Nostra to get them to change their testimony. it must have been legit. besides, there really arent too many eyewitnesses in this case. the 2 most important Bobby Dassey and the stepfather lied on the stand, but the reason they did was to back each other up because one of them was up to no good. maybe the other with the 22 rifle just like SA's

Maester Chuk_sl said:

Well, i doubt she used La Cosa Nostra to get them to change their testimony. it must have been legit. besides, there really arent too many eyewitnesses in this case. the 2 most important Bobby Dassey and the stepfather lied on the stand, but the reason they did was to back each other up because one of them was up to no good. maybe the other with the 22 rifle just like SA's

Click to expand...

Taking it on faith that she just must be legit? With everything you've seen in this case from the prosecution's side you believe there aren't defense attorneys that employ sinister tactics as well? Why? This woman does not sound "legit" like some shining star of justice. She sounds, to me, like she fights fire with fire. Righteousness and virtue doesn't normally get shit done in this world.

Of course there's no proof of that so it's pointless speculation, but it's a little suspect at the very least that these people just decided to change their stories out of the goodness of their heart. And the fact that you (and I) believe the prosecution was able to coerce or otherwise persuade people to lie on the stand means a defense attorney would surely be able to do the same.

My guess without any research at all is that she wasn't convincing people to change their entire stories so much as them admitting doubt. Eye witness accounts are often very faulty, and it's standard practice for law enforcement or a prosecutor to push witnesses toward certainty. They're often pushing witnesses toward that certainty by implying or outright lying about what they "already know" and tell witnesses they just need them to corroborate those details. An extreme case can be seen with Brendan Dassey where they're pushing and coercing and filling in details and taking advantage of someone not smart enough to understand things like perjury or confessing to murder. My guess is most witnesses are coached or pushed to filling in little details they kinda think they know or suspect to make the prosecution stronger.

It seems to be a trend in exoneration cases and happens even in regular cases where justice is considered fair where witnesses later admit they weren't as confident or sure of their testimony as the prosecution made it seem. Add to that bad defense attorney's who don't take advantage of this on cross examination. And of course a lot of false imprisonment cases are of poor people with shitty attorneys. All in all I almost feel eyewitness testimony shouldn't even be allowed in many cases, especially these days when there is so much science and picture/video.

But again I don't think it's much shady going on when exonerations are helped by eye witnesses recanting or changing their story. They usually aren't changing it much more than having a good defense attorney cross examine and investigate them and expose how unsure and untrustworthy they actually were in the first place.

It's not even really worth discussing because there's no way to know. But let's not pretend it's a giant stretch to think a defense attorney might be a wolf.

Part of me hopes she is for the entertainment value, the bigger part of me says "This shit is crazy enough already, let's not make it any crazier"

Yeah, you're probably right, if we're going to blindly assume things by isolating a few words in a wikipedia entry we should probably assume a high profile defense attorney working for a high profile organization on high profile exoneration cases is, what, bribing or threatening eye witnesses to change their stories? Instead of just doing what the original defense attorney's didn't do by exposing doubts and questions in their testimony and finally having witnesses recant which isn't all that uncommon in exoneration cases, nor in general?

Yeah, there's no way to know, so let's not discuss it by assuming whatever presents the most compelling discussion point and discussing that until people counter the point and then let's claim it's not worth discussing by adding your parting discussion point.

There's no way to know a lot of things, but that doesn't mean the only or even best explanation is the most scandalous. My guess, in this case, is it's the simplest, most boring explanation that witnesses being coached and encouraged to testify on things they aren't actually sure about is pretty common, and shitty defense attorneys for poor clients allowing it to happen is pretty common, and exonerations based on further investigation and questioning into witness testimony and having them admit they weren't sure or recant is pretty common.

Remember how the victim of Avery's first false imprisonment falsely IDed Avery and later admitted she wasn't sure and only pointed to him because that's the direction the police seem to be leading her toward?

popsicledeath_sl said:

Yeah, you're probably right, if we're going to blindly assume things by isolating a few words in a wikipedia entry we should probably assume a high profile defense attorney working for a high profile organization on high profile exoneration cases is, what, bribing or threatening eye witnesses to change their stories? Instead of just doing what the original defense attorney's didn't do by exposing doubts and questions in their testimony and finally having witnesses recant which isn't all that uncommon in exoneration cases, nor in general?

Yeah, there's no way to know, so let's not discuss it by assuming whatever presents the most compelling discussion point and discussing that until people counter the point and then let's claim it's not worth discussing by adding your parting discussion point.

There's no way to know a lot of things, but that doesn't mean the only or even best explanation is the most scandalous. My guess, in this case, is it's the simplest, most boring explanation that witnesses being coached and encouraged to testify on things they aren't actually sure about is pretty common, and shitty defense attorneys for poor clients allowing it to happen is pretty common, and exonerations based on further investigation and questioning into witness testimony and having them admit they weren't sure or recant is pretty common.

Remember how the victim of Avery's first false imprisonment falsely IDed Avery and later admitted she wasn't sure and only pointed to him because that's the direction the police seem to be leading her toward?

Click to expand...

I didn't think you were so naive. That logic works both ways my friend.

Hey Cad, during the course of a criminal trial is it commonplace for a defense attorney to have 1 on 1 time with a prosecutor's witness to have a heart to heart about what the right thing to do is?

Dude, you've been watching too much TV where a secret witness is called at the last minute and the accuser confesses on the stand.

What you want is AOL search term: discovery.

And no, they don't usually have "1 on 1 time with a prosecutor's witness to have a heart to heart about what the right thing is to do is" exactly, so, good for you, you can pretend you're still right by using hyperbole and then claiming semantics.

popsicledeath_sl said:

Dude, you've been watching too much TV where a secret witness is called at the last minute and the accuser confesses on the stand.

What you want is AOL search term: discovery.

And no, they don't usually have "1 on 1 time with a prosecutor's witness to have a heart to heart about what the right thing is to do is" exactly, so, good for you, you can pretend you're still right by using hyperbole and then claiming semantics.

Click to expand...

It's entirely too easy to dismantle your arguments. Nice backpedal fool.

Lots of hypocritical feels data going on in this page. But good on Khane for maintaining consistency

Khane_sl said:

It's entirely too easy to dismantle your arguments. Nice backpedal fool.

Click to expand...

So easy you aren't even going to try and instead just claim I'm backpedaling and call me a fool.

I'm convinced you're well informed on legal processes!

By the way where did you hear Kathleen Zellner works for the innocence project because it doesn't seem that way at all:

http://www.kathleentzellner.com/overview/

The woman is impressive to say the least based on her track record. But who knows what tactics she employs to persuade people into doing shit like this:

Joseph Burrows spent nearly five years on death row until Zellner persuaded the real killer to confess at a post-conviction hearing.

And this:

Ryan Ferguson was arrested in 2004 for the 2001 murder of Columbia Tribune sports editor Kent Heitholt. He was convicted and sentenced to prison. He was released in November 2013 after Zellner and her firm convinced the only two witnesses against Ferguson

Jive Turkey_sl said:

Lots of hypocritical feels data going on in this page. But good on Khane for maintaining consistency

Click to expand...

I don't understand where you see hypocrisy but feels data is all we have in this case.

Khane_sl said:

By the way where did you hear Kathleen Zellner works for the innocence project because it doesn't seem that way at all:

http://www.kathleentzellner.com/overview/

The woman is impressive to say the least based on her track record. But who knows what tactics she employs to persuade people into doing shit like this:

Joseph Burrows spent nearly five years on death row until Zellner persuaded the real killer to confess at a post-conviction hearing.

And this:

Ryan Ferguson was arrested in 2004 for the 2001 murder of Columbia Tribune sports editor Kent Heitholt. He was convicted and sentenced to prison. He was released in November 2013 after Zellner and her firm convinced the only two witnesses against Ferguson

Click to expand...

Making a Murderer Subject Steven Avery Represented by Kathleen Zellner : People.com

Chicago lawyer Kathleen Zellner announced Friday that her firm would assume Avery's representation, along with Tricia Bushnell, the legal director of the Midwest Innocence Project.

Click to expand...

i thought they both were from the IP

Not sure who you're referring to with your 'you' but she's at least working with the Midwest Innocence Project.

Speaking very generally for the semantically impaired: cases get prosecuted relying on eye witness accounts far more often than they get exonerated or reversed in appeal relying on eye witness accounts.

I don't know the details of that one case, but generally if a case was overturned because of a recanting witness then the case didn't have much solid evidence in the first place and was probably on or over the threshold for reasonable doubt. It's not like a witness changes their story and a killer gets out of prison despite a video showing them murdering someone. It's more like they had a shaky case to begin with, and the case starts to unravel as witnesses are recanting, because it was never that strong to begin with.