Making a Murderer - NetFlix series

[Ashasx]

re: EDTA

They mentioned that a negative result didn't rule out the existence of EDTA, just that the sample tested negative. Only if the sample tested positive would it return a significant result.

Negative result -> may or may not contain EDTA
Positive result -> contains EDTA

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by cDnStealth

What I find weird about the EDTA test is they never established that it actually worked. Shouldn't they have tested the vial? As far as I can tell they only tested three of six swabs taken from the RAV. Don't you need to establish a control?

They tested the vial. It came back positive for EDTA.

That said - this test is basically never used - only other time it was used by the FBI was the OJ Simpson trial - which seems odd. And the test isn't greatly proven to work as mentioned above. There's also questions on if the EDTA would still be present once the blood is out in the sun/etc.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by rubecube

For me, I kinda stopped believing him when the EDTA(?) test came back negative. I know his lawyers had a ready-made excuse for it, but it just seems to me that it would be insanely difficult to actually plan this thing down to the level of detail and execute it as flawlessly as they were accused of doing. Occam's razor and all.

Fair enough, theres lots of fishy shenanigans about, and I'm in no way certain that Avery did or didnt do it, but for someone who isnt the sharpest tool in the shed to commit a crime of this nature and leave behind no material evidence is ridiculously impressive.

I think Weitger says: He had 5 days to clean up.

Really? They searched his premises I think 8 times. Have you seen that place? Its like a scene straight out of 'Hoarders.' You'd think some DNA or blood would have crept in somewhere that Steve 'Walter White' Avery might have missed that the highly trained Crime Scene guys may have found a drop or two here or there.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

But this gets back to my point about you now needing more than one or two people to be involved in the cover-up, and there's no motive for the FBI to be involved in a cover-up.

Very true, I really don't think it was a case of cover-up beyond the Manitowoc County. I suspect that if anything it was the case people took Manitowoc County's word because why would they frame Steven Avery and came in with a defensive posture so may not have posture. Seems to happens a lot in US Police agencies where they protect clearly corrupt cops because they view it as their as an attack against them.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

Very true, I really don't think it was a case of cover-up beyond the Manitowoc County. I suspect that if anything it was the case people took Manitowoc County's word because why would they frame Steven Avery and came in with a defensive posture so may not have posture. Seems to happens a lot in US Police agencies where they protect clearly corrupt cops because they view it as their as an attack against them.

Well, theres also the consideration that he sued Manitowoc county for $36M (obviously a ridiculous figure), the county's insurance denied responsibility for any claim due to the gross negligence of the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department so that money then has to come out of the County's coffers which could conceivably mean lost jobs and services and by throwing him in jail they got that number down to $400K which was less than the state was offering.

[Gord_Wappel]

Originally Posted by Weitz

What was with Brendans lawyer Len?

Talk about a slimy lawyer.

All i could think of every time i saw him was William H. Macy's character in Fargo.

[Flabbibulin]

I have to admit that I am typically skeptical of these "wrongly accused" films, thanks to the rubbish you see in films like Hurricane, but there is certainly a lot of substance here.

I think that the links Troutman shared help validate the concern that this is more an advocacy film than unbiased documentary (although you could make that argument in any doc), but an examination of everything makes you wonder how there wasn't at least reasonable doubt at the trial.

[flizzenflozz]

Originally Posted by Gord_Wappel

All i could think of every time i saw him was William H. Macy's character in Fargo.

"I'm cooperatin' here..."(with the prosecution)

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Locke

Well, theres also the consideration that he sued Manitowoc county for $36M (obviously a ridiculous figure), the county's insurance denied responsibility for any claim due to the gross negligence of the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department so that money then has to come out of the County's coffers which could conceivably mean lost jobs and services and by throwing him in jail they got that number down to $400K which was less than the state was offering.

For 18 years false imprisonment I think that's actually a rather conservative figure.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Yamer

For 18 years false imprisonment I think that's actually a rather conservative figure.

Well according to the United States it isnt. They have a $5K/yr cap.

But in my own opinion I'd agree with you.

[Locke]

Also, I feel I should clarify: While I find it insane that these two got life in prison based on what we've seen I'm also not comfortable saying "Release them from jail!!!" based on watching a documentary.

[Hatter]

I'm fascinated by the role of media in the justice system. The documentary repeatedly touches on the impossibility of a fair trial due to intense media scrutiny, yet the documentary itself seems to have created a shift in public opinion in the case.

The internet tells me that the Wisconsin criminal justice system is incredibly open to media, allowing the opportunity for calculated media blitzes to have a massive impact on public opinion. Just as the press conferences held by the Wisconsin DAO essentially sunk Avery and Dassey in 2005/6, a well-produced documentary such as Making a Murderer would begin any hypothetical retrial with a massive uphill battle in public opinion for the Wisconsin DAO.

Could an average jurist exposed to MaM ever convict Avery or Dassey, in the same sense that an average jurist exposed to the lurid details in the DA's pre-trial press conferences could never aquit them?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by AC

He's very dim. He claims he likes his DA because they have they same favourite animal.

Its heart breaking.

Wrestlemania is on Sunday...

Yeah

yeah...

Agree with Locke though. Don't think either should be set free but a fair trial is needed, both of them got a fairly raw deal. The fact Brendan's confession was allowed is ridiculous.

[Jason14h]

Well this is the kind of behavior we want from Jury's!

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/05/medi...d=hp-stack-dom

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Well this is the kind of behavior we want from Jury's!

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/05/medi...d=hp-stack-dom

It's quite shocking.

Instead of spending the time to deliberate it seems as though the jurors came to a "compromise" for the sole purpose of getting things over with as quickly as possible.

Unfortunately that "compromise", in the state of Wisconsin, meant 60 years without parole. Like not having him convicted of extra counts was somehow a compromise for him?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Well this is the kind of behavior we want from Jury's!

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/05/medi...d=hp-stack-dom

Its a combination of a number of factors. The jury was selected from Manitowoc county, that was mistake #1, they were heavily tainted with both local and media influence from way, way before Day 1.

But to go even further, right after the closing arguments and 1 day into deliberations a juror was released due to a medical emergency. They elected to replace him with a backup juror and he was interviewed numerous times during the documentary and repeatedly states that most of the jury considered Avery guilty before the trial even began.

This is, IMO, a huge mistake on Avery's part. He was given 3 choices:

- Backup Juror
- Go with 11 jurors
- Call it Mistrial

I'd have screaming mistrial at the top of my lungs! He opts to replace the juror with a backup.

Now this is likely because despite calling it a mistrial Avery is still responsible for paying his legal team and he was very likely out of money, but still!

But that being said, there was way too much influence of the jury through the media.

[Ashasx]

I thought it was said in the documentary that at first count, 7 of the 12 jurors did not believe Avery was guilty, 3 were undecided, and 2 believed he was guilty.

It was those 2 that wouldn't budge for anything, and that stalemate eventually turned the rest of the jury.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Locke

Also, I feel I should clarify: While I find it insane that these two got life in prison based on what we've seen I'm also not comfortable saying "Release them from jail!!!" based on watching a documentary.

Brendan Dassey, yes release him immediately.

Steven Avery no. But give him a new trial.

From what I've seen, Dassey's lawyers dropped the ball in a major way and didn't properly pursue a single defence that would actually help Dassey. The only real evidence the state has against Dassey is the statement made by Kayla Avery. Even then, she didn't state that Dassey had participated in anything, only that he had seen her pinned up and the corpse in the fire. It's not illegal to witness someone committing a crime.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's quite shocking.

Instead of spending the time to deliberate it seems as though the jurors came to a "compromise" for the sole purpose of getting things over with as quickly as possible.

Unfortunately that "compromise", in the state of Wisconsin, meant 60 years without parole. Like not having him convicted of extra counts was somehow a compromise for him?

The Judge at the sentencing is dictating the alarming trend of escalation of Avery's crimes. From what I understand there were a couple of robberies, something involving a cat and then this. But the judge was talking as though Avery had committed the rape, assault and attempted murder that he was fully exonerated of.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

Brendan Dassey, yes release him immediately.

Steven Avery no. But give him a new trial.

From what I've seen, Dassey's lawyers dropped the ball in a major way and didn't properly pursue a single defence that would actually help Dassey. The only real evidence the state has against Dassey is the statement made by Kayla Avery. Even then, she didn't state that Dassey had participated in anything, only that he had seen her pinned up and the corpse in the fire. It's not illegal to witness someone committing a crime.

Yeah, I'd like to agree with that because watching Dassey's interrogation and cross-examination there is no way that kid should be in jail.

However, if you release Dassey then you have to admit that his coerced confession prompted the press conference that clouded the judgement of the jurors that convicted Avery and you pretty much have to let him go too.

I am not 100% sure that Avery didnt do it, theres a lot of coincidences here but what I can say is that there sure as hell, based on the documentary and the evidence they showed, there wouldnt be enough evidence for me to convict him either.

Honestly I feel that the inclusion of Dassey's original confession is what tipped the scales against Avery.