Making a Murderer 2
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2016
- Messages
- 2,372
- Reaction score
- 250
- Handicap
- 15.9
No spoiler but I have come to the conclusion that people in Wisconsin say "Yeah" a lot. I am almost through and will be interested to see how many think Avery is innocent or guilty. I'll save my opinion until the no spoiler tag is removed.
Ha, I've noticed that from this series too. I really hope people don't think the Averys are fair representatives of Wisconsinites; they are... well... unique.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #54
mikedean441
6X HOF
All done. Not sure which is the biggest sham...the police in how it was all originally handled or the Wisconsin court systems and some of their reasonings
- Staff
- #57
I finished this one up on the flight home last weekend. For entertainment purposes I enjoyed it more than season 1 because I liked seeing Zellner's process on things. There is so much that seems to have been mishandled throughout. I was one that thought he was guilty after season 1, with some police help to make him look more guilty, but man after watching this one, my thoughts have really started to change.
mikedean441
6X HOF
I red an article yesterday that included some of the details that didn't make it into the show, it was interesting.
Such as they tried to recreate the whole car key falling off the bookshelf after it magically appeared many days after his trailer had been searched multiple time. Outcome was basically that no matter hwo much you shook the bookcase the key wouldn't have fallen off as the lanyard stopped it from moving...that kind of stuff.
Makes ya wonder how things would have played out had his original defense team done a better job and actually called experts to debunk the prosecutions claims
- Staff
- #59
I remember seeing that key video when it happened. Was pretty much zero chance it happened as it was said.
I think the original defense team was just hammered with things and didn't know exactly which way to look. Plus I think Kratz bullied them in to things, which was shown in part 2.
I'm still trying to watch this. It is just so slow and usually end of falling a sleep to it. I feel like they could cut each episode in 1/2. I really don't need to see what they order in the McDonald's drive thru. The characters have been developed by now. I think I'm through the first 5 now, hopefully it picks up a little bit or I'm tempted to just jump to the last episode.
I'm not quite done with Season 2, and I'll wait for the "no spoilers tag" to be removed before I add more, but, as a Wisconsin lawyer, this is the part of Season 2 with which I take the most issue.
Attorney Zellner has a job to do: Free Steven Avery. And she has limited grounds to do so. One ground--which is nearly impossible to prevail on--is to argue ineffective assistance of counsel. She absolutely should make this argument, and to Strang and Buting's credit they invite her to, so Avery gets the new trial he deserves (even if guilty). The "not enough experts" argument, though, is where Zellner stretches, and she knows it. Numbers-wise, there is always a disparity. Why? The State (taxpayers) pays for the prosecution's witnesses; the defendant pays for his or her own. And just because the defense didn't call certain witnesses, doesn't mean they didn't hire them. In fact, it is often the case that a party will retain an expert as a "consultant" to obtain his/her opinion, and if that opinion comes back harmful (here, e.g., is consistent with the state's expert), then they will never disclose that expert. That very well may be the case here, but we will never know because that information is privileged.
Unlike Dassey, Avery actually had two of the best defense attorneys in the State who performed admirably. Their examination and opening/closing techniques were nearly flawless. And let's not forget that their work--and how they exposed inconsistencies at trial--is part of the reason why viewers of Season 1 felt Avery was screwed in the first place. Now, as any trial attorney would tell you, with the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight (here 11 years and two seasons of a documentary), we would all change something about how we approached each trial. I have no doubt Strang and Buting would admit the same. There are things they could have done better.
All that said, Avery and Dassey have exceptional attorneys handling the case now. I am particularly impressed with the group at Northwestern. And my favorite part of this entire series is, no matter what you think happened, Making a Murderer has exposed so many flaws with the system itself. That is my biggest takeaway.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #62
No Spoilers tag has been removed. Discuss away.
we loved s1. s2, not so much.
the dassey storyline of s2 is riveting. his attorneys came across as very caring and knowledgeable and thorough. the documentary is made in a way that the process is the villain, and is outraging that he is still in prison with seemingly no hope.
the avery stuff was interesting, but without any finality it fell flat for us. probably on purpose, but avery's storyline did not have the heart and travesty-of-justice angle that dassey did, so it came across as more of a celebrity grab than anything else. it also seemed much less cohesive, more hastilty storyboarded than s1.
it's a fine watch, but not to the level of s1.
the dassey storyline of s2 is riveting. his attorneys came across as very caring and knowledgeable and thorough. the documentary is made in a way that the process is the villain, and is outraging that he is still in prison with seemingly no hope.
the avery stuff was interesting, but without any finality it fell flat for us. probably on purpose, but avery's storyline did not have the heart and travesty-of-justice angle that dassey did, so it came across as more of a celebrity grab than anything else. it also seemed much less cohesive, more hastilty storyboarded than s1.
it's a fine watch, but not to the level of s1.
The Dassey saga is quite heartbreaking. I have not gotten to the episode revealing the en banc court's decision, but the yo-yoing of emotions that family must have went through is very sad.
To me, and I'm not sure in what order, but what disheartens me the most about the series are (1) Manitowoc County's blatant corruption, (2) Kratz's repeated unethical behavior (which includes his infamous press conference), and (3) the Dassey confession--of a low-IQ 16 yro without counsel or a parent present. That the physical evidence actually disproves key components of Dassey's "confession" absolutely supports his attorney's argument that it was the result of suggestion. It was coerced.
Lions81
Well-known member
Here is the 7th Circuit's Opinion on Dassey.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...C:16-3397:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:2074184:S:0
In June the Supreme Court declined to take his case. More likely than not that his case is over. I have no idea if he is guilty or not, but I do know that the judicial system really let him down.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...C:16-3397:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:2074184:S:0
In June the Supreme Court declined to take his case. More likely than not that his case is over. I have no idea if he is guilty or not, but I do know that the judicial system really let him down.
kratz really came off looking bad.
in the excerpts from the in banc review that were played, it seemed to me that the majority arguments were made to establish a precedent that protected the "wiggle room" available to interrogators in future situations, rather than protecting the rights of this one boy with his individualized limitations. like there was a conscious decision to mitigate future issues, instead of providing justice in the present case. dassey was collateral damage, sentenced to rot in prison to protect the greater good.
s1 had me convinced of the corruption. but s2 is where it seemed like maybe the documentarians were stretching and trying to craft a narrative that wasn't fully supported by facts. circumstantial? sure. but the number of people who had to be involved to perpetrate the framing is just too far-fetched.
Thanks! I will give this a read tonight. As Dassey's attorneys noted, Judge Rovner's opinion was beautifully written and reasoned. I am very curious to read this opinion.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Lions81
Well-known member
The dissent is a very good read and pretty much sums up my opinion.
ozzman
Well-known member
Nirider ran into a buzzsaw in that en banc hearing, and I'm sure it was edited in her favor. Those judges had their minds made up prior to the hearing, and she couldn't get out of her own way without stumbling and getting flustered. Feel bad for Brendan, the system really let him down.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Big SoIL
Well-known member
I’m with you guys on Dassey, I just can’t hardly fathom how that confession has stood up over the years and all the way up the the states Supreme Court. At this point I can only really see them being exonerated if they find out there’s actually another murderer.
Zellner brought up some interesting evidence from her experts, but to me some of her theories came across a little far fetched. To me it would be pretty shocking if they turned out to be the truth, having said that, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was someone else but that the murder wasn’t quite the elaborate coverup that she has suggested.
Zellner brought up some interesting evidence from her experts, but to me some of her theories came across a little far fetched. To me it would be pretty shocking if they turned out to be the truth, having said that, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was someone else but that the murder wasn’t quite the elaborate coverup that she has suggested.
Just finished the last ep this morning. I'm torn. I for sure feel like the investigators took advantage of Dassey, but I don't necessarily think he's innocent of the crime. I for sure feel like the County was somehow involved with taking Avery down, but I don't necessarily think he's innocent of the crime either.
Zellner did a great job in establishing doubt, but her new suspects don't make me say "yep. she nailed it." We'll probably never know the full truth, but it's hard to say the crimes were committed without a shadow of a doubt and to me that says they should probably be released.
And Ken Kratz is a turd
Zellner did a great job in establishing doubt, but her new suspects don't make me say "yep. she nailed it." We'll probably never know the full truth, but it's hard to say the crimes were committed without a shadow of a doubt and to me that says they should probably be released.
And Ken Kratz is a turd
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #73
You nailed exactly how I feel.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #75
To me Dassey more so than Avery, but there are like 36 million reasons to make you at least second guess, especially with Kratz involved from day 1.
Early on, Avery's attorney seemed hell bent on a truth seeking mission and pointed out that if he is guilty, he will not be happy he hired her. Yet the rest of the episodes it was time spent trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
I liked Dassey's team, I call her Knight Rider, but I thought she was outclassed at the hearing. She seemed too emotional and not together with the thoughts.