Making a Murderer on Netflix
- Thread starter shortbus
- Start date
I haven't seen it, but I know the gist of it.
Just yesterday, CNN rebroadcast a documentary type story they did on a guy in Texas who spent 25 yrs in prison for killing his wife. The prosecutor (who had gone on to become a judge) had withheld crucial evidence that would have likely exonerated the guy, if put before a jury. Even worse, it was evidence that could have likely lead police to the real killer, who we now know killed at least one other woman about a year later.
The DA had fought tooth and nail for over 6 yrs to avoid having a bandanna left about 100 ft away from the house of the victim, which appeared to have blood and hair attached tested for DNA. It was through DNA analysis, that showed the bandanna carried the blood of both the victim and the perp and removed all doubt about the innocence of the poor sap that spent 25 yrs in prison for something he didn't do.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/justice/exonerated-prisoner-update-michael-morton/
In all, between 1989 and 2012 at least 2,000+ innocent people have been exonerated after being convicted and held in prison for crimes they didn't commit. The number of actual innocents held in prison is almost certainly a hell of a lot higher, given that in many instances those items in evidence that can be tested for DNA/Blood evidence are often destroyed or "lost" in the years following their conviction. Again, the prosecutor and DA were sitting on evidence that could have revealed the identity of the actual killer and they fought for 6+ yrs to deny the guy's defense team the right to have the DNA testing done.
Bottom line (IMHO) there's a hell of a lot more lazy, incompetent and downright corrupt types in LE and the Prosecutor's office than most would likely believe. I had already changed my mind about capital punishment during my time in law school, but attending a private screening of the documentary A Thin Blue Line and meeting Randall Dale Adams, the subject of the movie who was another person wrongfully convicted, of the murder of a police officer in Dallas. His conviction was secured in large part by the DA's usage of perjured testimony (which he had to have known was perjured) and the withholding of crucial evidence, just cemented my opposition to the death penalty. In Adam's case, the DA was running for higher office and wanted the PR that would come from convicting a "cop killer." (Even when he almost certainly knew, the actual killer was a 16 yr old kid, who had given the hitch-hiking Adams a ride earlier in the day and provided the perjured testimony against Adams. But because he was a juvenile and wasn't subject to the death penalty, the DA basically framed the adult Adams to get the most widespread publicity he could.)
Just yesterday, CNN rebroadcast a documentary type story they did on a guy in Texas who spent 25 yrs in prison for killing his wife. The prosecutor (who had gone on to become a judge) had withheld crucial evidence that would have likely exonerated the guy, if put before a jury. Even worse, it was evidence that could have likely lead police to the real killer, who we now know killed at least one other woman about a year later.
The DA had fought tooth and nail for over 6 yrs to avoid having a bandanna left about 100 ft away from the house of the victim, which appeared to have blood and hair attached tested for DNA. It was through DNA analysis, that showed the bandanna carried the blood of both the victim and the perp and removed all doubt about the innocence of the poor sap that spent 25 yrs in prison for something he didn't do.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/justice/exonerated-prisoner-update-michael-morton/
In all, between 1989 and 2012 at least 2,000+ innocent people have been exonerated after being convicted and held in prison for crimes they didn't commit. The number of actual innocents held in prison is almost certainly a hell of a lot higher, given that in many instances those items in evidence that can be tested for DNA/Blood evidence are often destroyed or "lost" in the years following their conviction. Again, the prosecutor and DA were sitting on evidence that could have revealed the identity of the actual killer and they fought for 6+ yrs to deny the guy's defense team the right to have the DNA testing done.
Bottom line (IMHO) there's a hell of a lot more lazy, incompetent and downright corrupt types in LE and the Prosecutor's office than most would likely believe. I had already changed my mind about capital punishment during my time in law school, but attending a private screening of the documentary A Thin Blue Line and meeting Randall Dale Adams, the subject of the movie who was another person wrongfully convicted, of the murder of a police officer in Dallas. His conviction was secured in large part by the DA's usage of perjured testimony (which he had to have known was perjured) and the withholding of crucial evidence, just cemented my opposition to the death penalty. In Adam's case, the DA was running for higher office and wanted the PR that would come from convicting a "cop killer." (Even when he almost certainly knew, the actual killer was a 16 yr old kid, who had given the hitch-hiking Adams a ride earlier in the day and provided the perjured testimony against Adams. But because he was a juvenile and wasn't subject to the death penalty, the DA basically framed the adult Adams to get the most widespread publicity he could.)
Last edited:
Bus, just curious, admittedly I've not made it thru half of the episodes so far but do you think Steven Avery was guilty of the murder of Teresa Halbach?
So do prosecutors get a cash bonus for convictions? Or just reelected. Seems like they want the win...no matter how they get it. I think I would rather release a guilty person than convict an innocent one...but of course I would change my mind if the released guilty person killed my loved one.
As bad as the case was against Steven Avery, it was even worse against Brendan Dassey. Just awful, that poor kid.
CordellHall,
I guess it's possible that someone working in the DA's office could earn a performance bonus for the overall quality of their work, but nothing for the DA him/herself.
As the old saying goes, there's not a US Senator alive who probably doesn't fancy themselves as President some day,and I'm going to extend that to recognize - there's probably not a DA alive who doesn't fancy themselves Governor someday. Even if they're not specifically looking for higher office, with the power they wield, they can often make themselves "King Maker" and have a lot of sway considering that prosecutions and investigations are often under their complete control. (Son/Daughter of US or State Senator gets caught doing something and looking the other way OR in the alternative going public in a big way to bring heat on that politician could mean a couple of huge favors in return, as merely one example of how that could play out.)
When I see a DA touting their 100% conviction rate, it produces the opposite effect on me than what they intend. To me, that represents the fact that they only took the easiest cases and let their staff take the hard ones, or they agreed to settle the "tough" cases by taking a plea bargain rather than damage their precious record.
To understand just how far off the rails a DA can go, in order to win re-election, and help push themselves for higher office, I would say that Mike Nifong, the DA in the Duke Lacrosse rape case is a perfect example.
I guess it's possible that someone working in the DA's office could earn a performance bonus for the overall quality of their work, but nothing for the DA him/herself.
As the old saying goes, there's not a US Senator alive who probably doesn't fancy themselves as President some day,and I'm going to extend that to recognize - there's probably not a DA alive who doesn't fancy themselves Governor someday. Even if they're not specifically looking for higher office, with the power they wield, they can often make themselves "King Maker" and have a lot of sway considering that prosecutions and investigations are often under their complete control. (Son/Daughter of US or State Senator gets caught doing something and looking the other way OR in the alternative going public in a big way to bring heat on that politician could mean a couple of huge favors in return, as merely one example of how that could play out.)
When I see a DA touting their 100% conviction rate, it produces the opposite effect on me than what they intend. To me, that represents the fact that they only took the easiest cases and let their staff take the hard ones, or they agreed to settle the "tough" cases by taking a plea bargain rather than damage their precious record.
To understand just how far off the rails a DA can go, in order to win re-election, and help push themselves for higher office, I would say that Mike Nifong, the DA in the Duke Lacrosse rape case is a perfect example.
How that deputy isn't in prison for withholding information is a joke.
As for the DA, it's just comical that fat, doughy *** thought so highly of himself.
As for the DA, it's just comical that fat, doughy *** thought so highly of himself.
This was mentioned in the case...and I don't understand the reasoning. If Avery would have pleaded guilty...I think it was the rape case...he would have been up for parole. But since he would not plead guilty, he never gets parole. This seems designed to get a conviction instead of the truth.
Kind of a hijack, but I'm still surprised that Nifong thought he could get away with some of the stuff he did. Or, he was just really desperate, and knew he was making a huge "all in" gamble.
I am only through episode 4, and holy ****. Avery may or may not have been the killer, but aside from Avery's lawyers, the collective IQ in that county doesn't break 100. Dassey's appointed lawyer is so far beyond stupid/sleazy, i hope he got disbarred.
That lawyer is the biggest dipshit sleaze bag of the entire series. Every time he's on camera he's got the fake politician smile pasted on. You can tell he fancies himself as a big time lawyer...unfortunately he has a pea brain.
Rebutting a murderer
http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/c...7717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/
http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/c...7717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/
This is how I felt after watching the show. Something in my gut says it was the other nephew Bobby and the Scott guy.
I'm only two episodes in and there are already quite a few people that should be in jail. Or at least relieved of their duties. They make the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office look like consummate professionals.
After watching all the episodes, i have come to the conclusion that i really hope avery is guilty, because the level of misconduct by both manitowoc and calumet police and DA's offices is just beyond absurd. If he is innocent (leaning heavily that way), i hope it gets proven and that avery, despite being not great a person, was framed/innocent, i hope he owns that horrible state. So many "wow" moments.
Also, I want Dean Strang on my side if I am ever accused of anything.
Also, I want Dean Strang on my side if I am ever accused of anything.
Here's a big question I want to know on that.
They sent 3 swabs to be tested for EDTA. Supposedly, those swabs contained Avery's blood taken from the victim's car. But, do we know that is where the swabs came from? Did they also do DNA tests on the swabs to verify that the blood matched Avery? Or, is it possible that some cop pricked his finger and the swabs contained someone else's fresh blood with no EDTA?
Not sure. It would make sense to run dual tests on that. I just cannot fathom a way to develop a test that can carry high enough sensitivity and specificity results strong enough to put yourself and your laboratory's reputation on the line like that. I have developed a diagnostic test before, there is a ton of work involved in developing and challenging a new diagnostic test like that.