We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Making A Murderer (Spoilers)

ATLGolfer said:
Likely a different standard that what I deal with. Take that for what it's worth.

For admissions in civil cases, though, you can challenge the competency of the person making the admission.

The documentary does not include all of the arguments raised for the motion to suppress the video admission of the nephew. I was surprised, though, that the judge allowed the admission for two reasons. First, the interrogating officer suggested a lot of the facts to admit (at least by what was shown on the documentary). Second, it seemed clear from the video that the nephew didn't have the mental capacity to understand what he was doing. For example, he asked if he would be able to return to school within an hour of the interview because he had a project due.

With all of that said, the legal standard could be completely different than what I work with.
Click to expand...

Legal standard or not. That kid had no clue which way was up and there was no physical evidence to support anything he said.
 
Howzat said:
Exactly. It has been kinda hard for me to watch. Seeing "the system" treat the learning disabled 16 yr old the way they did and it seems every questionable ruling go in favor of the prosecution really makes you feel like there are more issues in the system than anyone would like to admit.
Click to expand...

That's just the documentary making it seem that every ruling went against the defense, there were rulings that went against the state as well. There was compelling evidence not allowed at trial.

My mind is constantly evolving on the issue. I go back and forth on what I think happen. I still feel pretty confidently that he did it, but I do believe there may have been considerable police misconduct involved.
 
Wake said:
That's just the documentary making it seem that every ruling went against the defense, there were rulings that went against the state as well. There was compelling evidence not allowed at trial.

My mind is constantly evolving on the issue. I go back and forth on what I think happen. I still feel pretty confidently that he did it, but I do believe there may have been considerable police misconduct involved.
Click to expand...

I understand and have looked at some of the info available online as well. I agree no one knows what really occurred but I am just shocked they were able to convict him. With the info I have seen there is too much reasonable doubt in my mind at this point.
 
Howzat said:
Legal standard or not. That kid had no clue which way was up and there was no physical evidence to support anything he said.
Click to expand...


Completely agree.

I would love to see the legal briefs on this particular issue to know the legal precedent both sides were working with. Seems very difficult for me to think the judge would allow that admission. My jaw dropped when I watched his ruling.

There could be other evidence omitted from the documentary. But what was shown was pretty damning of the interrogating officers' conduct in that interview.
 
ATLGolfer said:
Likely a different standard that what I deal with. Take that for what it's worth.

For admissions in civil cases, though, you can challenge the competency of the person making the admission.

The documentary does not include all of the arguments raised for the motion to suppress the video admission of the nephew. I was surprised, though, that the judge allowed the admission for two reasons. First, the interrogating officer suggested a lot of the facts to admit (at least by what was shown on the documentary). Second, it seemed clear from the video that the nephew didn't have the mental capacity to understand what he was doing. For example, he asked if he would be able to return to school within an hour of the interview because he had a project due.

With all of that said, the legal standard could be completely different than what I work with.
Click to expand...

I would completely agree with what you said after I watched the portion of the interview shown in the documentary. When I went back and read the full interview transcript, it became very clear that he provided much of the information himself, with no force feeding like what was shown in the interview. Most of the details were provided only with questions like "so after he went into the room, what happened next". Also the expectation that he could go back to class makes much more sense in full context as well. He was first interviewed that day at the school, and very early in the interview asked if he would be done in time to turn in his project, and he was told that shouldn't be a problem, after that point he was transported from the school to the police station. He still obviously is slow to not realize that was not going to happen at the time, but he had already been told he COULD return to class.

His competency is still very much in question in my mind, but I was fairly certain he wasn't competent after seeing his interview on the show, not so sure now.

The full interview tapes and transcripts are available online, I recommend reading them.
 
ATLGolfer said:
Completely agree.

I would love to see the legal briefs on this particular issue to know the legal precedent both sides were working with. Seems very difficult for me to think the judge would allow that admission. My jaw dropped when I watched his ruling.

There could be other evidence omitted from the documentary. But what was shown was pretty damning of the interrogating officers' conduct in that interview.
Click to expand...

I certainly like having your perspective on the matter. My extent of ever being in a court room is for my company on both sides of small claims court issues. Even in those cases the strong bias of the people in a position of power can be evident. It is scary.
 
Wake said:
I would completely agree with what you said after I watched the portion of the interview shown in the documentary. When I went back and read the full interview transcript, it became very clear that he provided much of the information himself, with no force feeding like what was shown in the interview. Most of the details were provided only with questions like "so after he went into the room, what happened next". Also the expectation that he could go back to class makes much more sense in full context as well. He was first interviewed that day at the school, and very early in the interview asked if he would be done in time to turn in his project, and he was told that shouldn't be a problem, after that point he was transported from the school to the police station. He still obviously is slow to not realize that was not going to happen at the time, but he had already been told he COULD return to class.

His competency is still very much in question in my mind, but I was fairly certain he wasn't competent after seeing his interview on the show, not so sure now.

The full interview tapes and transcripts are available online, I recommend reading them.
Click to expand...


I'll search out that interview. I wondered about it after seeing the documentary.

Thanks for the head's up.
 
I will avoid beating a dead horse, but here is the visual for the purple top tube.

The vial comes empty, sealed, with a substance (in this case EDTA), and enough negative pressure to withdraw approximately 3 cc of blood. Notice the self healing rubber is unremarkable.
3d30d5cee778995d4ebb3436c3c7c8e1.jpg
8d5d58583142dc87cc2593fcbf572193.jpg


You fill a vial simply by sticking a syringe filled with blood through the sealed rubber stopper. The negative pressure in the vial extracts 3cc from the syringe.
https://vimeo.com/150823079

Vial will now have a hole in the sealed rubber stopper...
031bf45c8493523aa28558798e24839d.jpg


Having a hole in said EDTA rubber stopper does not mean that the sample had been tampered with, and it would be VERY hard to stick the exact same spot (I tried and failed a few times)

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
i listened to nancy grace give a telephone interview recently about how the documentary is a travesty of justice. she is such a gasbag.
 
c.a.eleric said:
i listened to nancy grace give a telephone interview recently about how the documentary is a travesty of justice. she is such a gasbag.
Click to expand...
You would think that she would just go away... especially after her Duke LaCrosse fiasco...

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
rallo said:
I will avoid beating a dead horse, but here is the visual for the purple top tube.

The vial comes empty, sealed, with a substance (in this case EDTA), and enough negative pressure to withdraw approximately 3 cc of blood. Notice the self healing rubber is unremarkable.
3d30d5cee778995d4ebb3436c3c7c8e1.jpg
8d5d58583142dc87cc2593fcbf572193.jpg


You fill a vial simply by sticking a syringe filled with blood through the sealed rubber stopper. The negative pressure in the vial extracts 3cc from the syringe.
https://vimeo.com/150823079

Vial will now have a hole in the sealed rubber stopper...
031bf45c8493523aa28558798e24839d.jpg


Having a hole in said EDTA rubber stopper does not mean that the sample had been tampered with, and it would be VERY hard to stick the exact same spot (I tried and failed a few times)

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
So to make sure I understand, you are saying the vial of blood was most likely not tampered with?
 
Wake said:
So to make sure I understand, you are saying the vial of blood was most likely not tampered with?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. It would be very difficult to either:
A. Stick the same hole
B. Breaks said seal, then reseal the container in a way that shows no tampering

I'm not saying this couldn't be done, but IMO it is not as likely as the defense would lead you to believe, and the presence of the hole in the top means nothing (contrary to the point of the defense lawyer... definitely not a "red banner day")

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
Wake said:
So to make sure I understand, you are saying the vial of blood was most likely not tampered with?
Click to expand...


Same question. The vial is filled via syringe, which would cause the hole in the top?

It did seem like the evidence packaging seal was broken (on both containers). But, that doesn't necessarily mean that the vial was tampered with.
 
rallo said:
Not necessarily. It would be very difficult to either:
A. Stick the same hole
B. Breaks said seal, then reseal the container in a way that shows no tampering

I'm not saying this couldn't be done, but IMO it is not as likely as the defense would lead you to believe, and the presence of the hole in the top means nothing (contrary to the point of the defense lawyer... definitely not a "red banner day")

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Right, I guess a better question to ask would be, nothing that they showed would lead you to believe the vial was tampered with.

And for the evidence tape not being on tact, it appeared to me there was only one date written on the tape, being the date it was drawn. So that would lead me to believe it was never resealed after being tested. I don't know if that is true or not.
 
ATLGolfer said:
Same question. The vial is filled via syringe, which would cause the hole in the top?
Click to expand...

Exactly, in order to fill said vial you must puncture the stopper with the syringe.
The box is a different story.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
Wake said:
Right, I guess a better question to ask would be, nothing that they showed would lead you to believe the vial was tampered with.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and I think this was the reason why the documentary didn't show the defense pursuing this further during the trial.

I think it is a little irresponsible of the documentary to display it as such a ground breaking revelation... makes you question the integrity of the whole effort... I'll bet it made for great TV though


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
rallo said:
Exactly, and I think this was the reason why the documentary didn't show the defense pursuing this further during the trial.

I think it is a little irresponsible of the documentary to display it as such a ground breaking revelation... makes you question the integrity of the whole effort... I'll bet it made for great TV though


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It's not documentary, more of a true crime drama. It's so one sided
 
Wake said:
It's not documentary, more of a true crime drama. It's so one sided
Click to expand...

Nobody would watch it otherwise. It's more interesting to set it up the way they did.
 
Just got through it. I really wish I had never watched it as ignorance is bliss. Guilty or innocent the system failed both Steven and Brendan. I hope Brendan's federal appeal comes through and he is granted a new trial.
 
Making A Murderer (Spoilers)

Howzat said:
Just got through it. I really wish I had never watched it as ignorance is bliss. Guilty or innocent the system failed both Steven and Brendan. I hope Brendan's federal appeal comes through and he is granted a new trial.
Click to expand...

Halfway through i was so angry and sad at the same time. I really wanted to just stop, but my curiousity got the best of me because I truly thought in the end they would not be convicted. Again not saying Steven is innocent, but just not enough to convict the way they did. My wife asked me if she should watch it & i told her unless she wants to be really frustrated and mad, dont do it.
 
Last edited:
looking back, steven is not the one i feel so badly for, it's brenden. my heart breaks for that poor kid.
 
mikeg_74 said:
What also sucks is before the one juror was dismissed for the family emergency they were 7-3 not guilty and 2 undecided... They had to start all over when the new alt juror was appointed
Click to expand...

Yep. And it makes sense the jurors felt threatened. Look at what happened to Avery's fiancé. She was forced out of town by the sheriffs office. If she was going to stay they were going to make her life miserable
 
Have you guys got to the sexting yet. haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top