51 replies to this topic

[The Epic]

I'm surprised nobody has made a topic about this yet!

 

Has anybody watched it? I'm 8 episodes in, and I have a lot of opinions to share. LOL

[BobPhelan]

Looking forward to checking it out, heard a lot about it. Too busy rewatching GoT with my wife watching for the first time.

[Mike in STL]

I'm surprised nobody has made a topic about this yet!
 
Has anybody watched it? I'm 8 episodes in, and I have a lot of opinions to share. LOL

I mentioned it in the TV Talk thread and no one commented. Finished it this weekend. I have a lot of opinions too, but don't want to spoil it for others.

[tennOsfan]

I'm unsure if I want to watch it, but I may out of curiosity of whether it appears to be a hack job by an agenda-driven producer.

[The Epic]

I'm unsure if I want to watch it, but I may out of curiosity of whether it appears to be a hack job by an agenda-driven producer.

 

Is it biased? Absolutely.

 

Is it a hack job? Absolutely not. This was fantastically done, IMO.

[McNulty]

Here's an opinion: Wisconsin sucks

[Mike in STL]

I'm surprised nobody has made a topic about this yet!
 
Has anybody watched it? I'm 8 episodes in, and I have a lot of opinions to share. LOL

So....do you think he did it? Do you think his nephew helped?

[The Epic]

So....do you think he did it? Do you think his nephew helped?

 

1) Yes, but I don't think there's enough proof to convict him. I think he did it, AND he was framed (as in, the cops set it up so that he couldn't get away with it, once they found out that they didn't have any sort of smoking gun).

 

2) Probably not, but even if he was, dude, that whole situation is just so sad, and so anger-inducing. The whole police force should be ashamed of what these guys did.

[Icterus galbula]

Yeah that kid got completely railroaded. Had no idea what he was involved in. Heartbreaking.

[Mike in STL]

1) Yes, but I don't think there's enough proof to convict him. I think he did it, AND he was framed (as in, the cops set it up so that he couldn't get away with it, once they found out that they didn't have any sort of smoking gun).
 
2) Probably not, but even if he was, dude, that whole situation is just so sad, and so anger-inducing. The whole police force should be ashamed of what these guys did.

Totally agree. There is enough there to say he may have did it. But there is a lot more there to say it was a set up. However, those defense lawyers For Steven were really, really good. They had great arguments, boat load of evidence, while the States argument was "cops are supposed to be good people, right? We trust them, don't we?"

Also agree. Pretty upseting what happened to Brendon. His public defender should be just as ashamed as the police.

There's some new news that recently came out about this case which is why it's such a hit right now.

[The Epic]

The biggest thing I've gotten out of all of this is that a guy like Ken Kratz can be a lawyer.

 

This is the equivalent of "Ron Jeremy is in porn". YOU CAN BE ANYTHING MAN!

[tennOsfan]

I watched the first episode last night. I come in with an open mind.

 

1. The early stuff about him running his cousin off the road and pulling the gun - who gives a flip what the cousin had said or not said about him? He can't do what he did, and you can't mitigate such an act. Yet his public defender whines, his family whines. That really sent me into a tizzy.

 

2. Cases based on eyewitness identification are fraught with error. Trouble is, no one realized how bad it was until DNA evidence was perfected. As a prosecutor, I've seen cases get misidentified. I wouldn't base a prosecution solely on identification of a perpetrator when that perpetrator was a stranger.

 

3. From what I saw on that episode, I certainly tend to believe there was wrongdoing on the part of the cops and possibly the DA in prosecuting him for the attempted rape.

 

4. I really enjoyed the footage of his welcome home and the white trash female relative showing up with a t-shirt with "BUD LIGHT" in huge letters. Classy.

[RShack]

"Liberty and justice for all"... even those whose kin wear BUD LIGHT t-shirts  

[tennOsfan]

I'm thru four episodes. I'll withhold judgment on guilt of all parties because I keep getting exposed to new info. Wild case. Glad it ain't mine.

I will make two observations that will not change: (1) the kid's first lawyer is a clown. Making a statement to the media that his client had been paired with "evil incarnate" prior to even meeting the client? Unbelievable. He was ready to sell that kid out from the get go. Gives the legal profession a bad name, and (2) the DA put on the murder case is equally a joke. His statements to the media prior to trial were highly unethical and misleading. He should be disbarred for what I saw, making such a big deal out of the kids statement, "if you have a child age 15 or younger, get them away from the tv ..."

Those two made me want to throw up.

[Mike in STL]

I'm thru four episodes. I'll withhold judgment on guilt of all parties because I keep getting exposed to new info. Wild case. Glad it ain't mine.


I will make two observations that will not change: (1) the kid's first lawyer is a clown. Making a statement to the media that his client had been paired with "evil incarnate" prior to even meeting the client? Unbelievable. He was ready to sell that kid out from the get go. Gives the legal profession a bad name, and (2) the DA put on the murder case is equally a joke. His statements to the media prior to trial were highly unethical and misleading. He should be disbarred for what I saw, making such a big deal out of the kids statement, "if you a child age 15 or younger, get them away from the tv ..."


Those two made me want to throw up.

Oh. There will be more that will make you want to throw up.

[tennOsfan]

I'm finished with the series, and I read the appellate opinions on both defendants.

 

1. The DA's comments following Massey's statement were irresponsible and unethical. They were designed to improperly influence public opinion and hence the jury pool. That sickens me.

 

2. Massey's first attorney was beyond incompetent. Just terrible all around. A danger to anyone thinking he's a real lawyer.

 

3. The local sheriff's department had no business having any of their personnel present during the search of the Avery property. If they're giving the case over to another department to avoid an appearance of impropriety, then why the hell are their investigators rooting around in Avery's home? That's indescribably stupid.

 

4. Why the hell was the Avery jury picked from the county where the crime occurred, yet they bus them to another county to hold the trial? And then there's nothing in the appellate opinion says nothing about the trial court erring in not changing the venire. In the program, the defense attorneys are leafing thru the juror questionnaires and pointing out that only one out of the batch says he might be guilty. Ok. Sounds like a damned good basis to change the venire, eh? Something's missing. Either those lawyers misrepresented on camera what they were seeing in the questionnaires, or they were incompetent in framing the issue for the court. Considering how competent they appeared to me, I'd bet on the former.

 

5. Based on what was shown during the series through eight episodes, I probably had a reasonable doubt about the whole thing (mind you, I'm not a juror in his trial - I'm just basing my opinion on the full 10 episodes). But Episode 9 convinced me they were both guilty. The little cousin of Massey tipped me over. She acknowledged seeing Massey upset at a birthday party, to the point where she tried to reach out to him. She said he acknowledged he was upset about Steven's situation. She acknowledged telling him that he could confide in her. But ... then she has amnesia about anything he said, and when confronted with her statement to police, she starts welling up and says she made that stuff up. Why? Don't know. Bull. Fact is, she was disturbed by what she heard; she confided it to a school counselor; then she acknowledged it to the cops. Then, the cops rightfully haul Massey back in and do what they have to do to make him open up and divulge the horrible images that have caused him to have a changed demeanor and loss of weight since the woman's death. He's guilty. So is his uncle.

 

As a whole, the filmmakers had an agenda to bring distrust to our criminal justice system, or at least Wisconsin's. It doesn't help that the DA was a slimeball, otherwise maybe we'd have a respectable voice to vouch for the legitimacy of the process. The system might've messed up the first time with Steven Avery because science hadn't caught up with the demands for justice, but I believe the system got it right the second time around.

[Mike in STL]

I'm finished with the series, and I read the appellate opinions on both defendants.

1. The DA's comments following Massey's statement were irresponsible and unethical. They were designed to improperly influence public opinion and hence the jury pool. That sickens me.

2. Massey's first attorney was beyond incompetent. Just terrible all around. A danger to anyone thinking he's a real lawyer.

3. The local sheriff's department had no business having any of their personnel present during the search of the Avery property. If they're giving the case over to another department to avoid an appearance of impropriety, then why the hell are their investigators rooting around in Avery's home? That's indescribably stupid.

4. Why the hell was the Avery jury picked from the county where the crime occurred, yet they bus them to another county to hold the trial? And then there's nothing in the appellate opinion says nothing about the trial court erring in not changing the venire. In the program, the defense attorneys are leafing thru the juror questionnaires and pointing out that only one out of the batch says he might be guilty. Ok. Sounds like a damned good basis to change the venire, eh? Something's missing. Either those lawyers misrepresented on camera what they were seeing in the questionnaires, or they were incompetent in framing the issue for the court. Considering how competent they appeared to me, I'd bet on the former.

5. Based on what was shown during the series through eight episodes, I probably had a reasonable doubt about the whole thing (mind you, I'm not a juror in his trial - I'm just basing my opinion on the full 10 episodes). But Episode 9 convinced me they were both guilty. The little cousin of Massey tipped me over. She acknowledged seeing Massey upset at a birthday party, to the point where she tried to reach out to him. She said he acknowledged he was upset about Steven's situation. She acknowledged telling him that he could confide in her. But ... then she has amnesia about anything he said, and when confronted with her statement to police, she starts welling up and says she made that stuff up. Why? Don't know. Bull. Fact is, she was disturbed by what she heard; she confided it to a school counselor; then she acknowledged it to the cops. Then, the cops rightfully haul Massey back in and do what they have to do to make him open up and divulge the horrible images that have caused him to have a changed demeanor and loss of weight since the woman's death. He's guilty. So is his uncle.

As a whole, the filmmakers had an agenda to bring distrust to our criminal justice system, or at least Wisconsin's. It doesn't help that the DA was a slimeball, otherwise maybe we'd have a respectable voice to vouch for the legitimacy of the process. The system might've messed up the first time with Steven Avery because science hadn't caught up with the demands for justice, but I believe the system got it right the second time around.

I appreciate a guy with you're background giving his opinion. Wouldn't the county's involvement who were not supposed to be involved fall under some kind of illegal search? The search that found the key to the toyata 8 days after the searches started. Wouldn't any evidence like that be inadmissible, as damming as is could be to their case?

I tend to think if everything happened that they said happend, they would have found a lot more evidence. Chains with DNA on them that they tied up Tracy with. Rope fibers left behind that they tied her up with. Blood, other fluids from where they cut her throat and raped her in the bedroom. Her DNA on the bed.

Basically, they aren't clean enough, smart enough, savvy enough people to hide or get rid of so much of the missing evidence.

Now where I do think they slipped up with Brendan. When he took the stand and one of the questions was supposed to expose his IQ level. He didn't know the difference between feet and yards. A low IQ helps their case that he was coerced. Then when they asked why he said in such detail what happened in the bedroom, he said he got it from the book, Kiss the Girls.

Now we're supposed to believe that a 16 year old is so dumb he doesn't know the difference in feet and yards, but that he also reads novels and remembered intricate details of this particular one? A novel not even part of a school curriculum like Catcher in the Rye or something, That's where I thought something was rotten in Denmark and maybe they did do all those things.

The only thing I disagree with is your thought that they got it right the second time around. Maybe they did. But The 10th episode showed where at least Brendan had his Constitutional rights violated because he wasn't represented properly. But the kid still can't get a re-trial because the same judges who heard the cases won't change their opinions, because basically they don't contribute to society. They aren't doctors, or teachers, or farmers. They run a dump. Litterally and figureatively. The risk of them being free isn't worth it, so why bother hearing their case again?

Am I off base at all here?

Edit: One other note. The needle prick in the vial of, Stevens blood. That one I can't get my head around.

[tennOsfan]

I appreciate a guy with you're background giving his opinion. Wouldn't the county's involvement who were not supposed to be involved fall under some kind of illegal search? The search that found the key to the toyata 8 days after the searches started. Wouldn't any evidence like that be inadmissible, as damming as is could be to their case?

I tend to think if everything happened that they said happend, they would have found a lot more evidence. Chains with DNA on them that they tied up Tracy with. Rope fibers left behind that they tied her up with. Blood, other fluids from where they cut her throat and raped her in the bedroom. Her DNA on the bed.

Basically, they aren't clean enough, smart enough, savvy enough people to hide or get rid of so much of the missing evidence.

Now where I do think they slipped up with Brendan. When he took the stand and one of the questions was supposed to expose his IQ level. He didn't know the difference between feet and yards. A low IQ helps their case that he was coerced. Then when they asked why he said in such detail what happened in the bedroom, he said he got it from the book, Kiss the Girls.

Now we're supposed to believe that a 16 year old is so dumb he doesn't know the difference in feet and yards, but that he also reads novels and remembered intricate details of this particular one? A novel not even part of a school curriculum like Catcher in the Rye or something, That's where I thought something was rotten in Denmark and maybe they did do all those things.

The only thing I disagree with is your thought that they got it right the second time around. Maybe they did. But The 10th episode showed where at least Brendan had his Constitutional rights violated because he wasn't represented properly. But the kid still can't get a re-trial because the same judges who heard the cases won't change their opinions, because basically they don't contribute to society. They aren't doctors, or teachers, or farmers. They run a dump. Litterally and figureatively. The risk of them being free isn't worth it, so why bother hearing their case again?

Am I off base at all here?

Edit: One other note. The needle prick in the vial of, Stevens blood. That one I can't get my head around.

1. The entry by those officers won't make the search illegal. The matters covered by search warrants is probable cause for the search, permission to search certain things where stuff would be reasonably found, and the place to be searched. The search warrant doesn't cover WHO is included in the search team. However, their presence would go to the weight of the evidence and be a jury issue. The jury can consider any motive of the officers to plant evidence.

 

2. You'd be surprised how easy it is to clean a scene. Or to not be able to find the evidence you seek. We just prosecuted a grisly murder where they bleached and cleaned and cut up the carpet, and there wasn't a drop of the victim's blood found. And there was no question it happened where it was described. And those people were as dumb as the Averys. And really, as difficult as the kid's interrogation was, it can be hard to glean a full accounting of the whole episode. He could've grudgingly agreed with officer's assertions rather than tell worse facts. That's not uncommon.

 

3. I thought the book reference was pretty unbelievable. Had he said he saw it in a movie, maybe, but that kid ain't reading no book he don't have to. That's just common sense, and his explanation was preposterous. I agree.

 

4. That first lawyer stunk to high heaven, but he contributed nothing to all the other damning evidence - the weight loss, the mood changes, the statement to his little cousin, his eventual admissions. And really, the cop's interrogation of him didn't come close to meeting standards of coercion. They didn't seem to get rough with him at all. Just challenged his truthfulness. Then, you have him telling his mom what he did on that jail call. No lawyers or investigators were part of that call. Just him saying whatever he wished. Where the lawyer was ineffective was his inability or disregard of counseling the kid in a way that brought out a truthful account without coercing him, an account that if he turned state's evidence would have gotten him out of prison much earlier. Sure, the lawyer got the offer, but he has to be an effective counselor to his client. I doubt he ever spent the time with the kid to build his trust and find ways to make him understand a jury wouldn't believe his denials.

[tennOsfan]

And to be fair, had I sat on Avery's jury, I'd have had a horrible time deciding what to do. Having the benefit of watching the kid's stuff gave me more insight as an observer, but that wasn't privy to that jury. Certainly, there's some suspicious things about the proof in Avery's case, but the fact is, the woman's trail ended up right at his trailer.

 

However, in giving his statement, Avery provided no info about what happened to her, the fire, why her vehicle was there, etc. He couldn't answer those questions because a truthful reply would have incriminated himself. And he sat there with the detectives as long as he did because he was likely curious about what they had on him (when you wonder why guilty people subject themselves to interrogations when they know full well their rights to terminate the interview, it's because they're dying of curiosity about what the police know -- sort of like playing poker when you'd really really really like to know what hand the other side has before you decide how to play yours). 

[Mike in STL]

And to be fair, had I sat on Avery's jury, I'd have had a horrible time deciding what to do. Having the benefit of watching the kid's stuff gave me more insight as an observer, but that wasn't privy to that jury. Certainly, there's some suspicious things about the proof in Avery's case, but the fact is, the woman's trail ended up right at his trailer.
 
However, in giving his statement, Avery provided no info about what happened to her, the fire, why her vehicle was there, etc. He couldn't answer those questions because a truthful reply would have incriminated himself. And he sat there with the detectives as long as he did because he was likely curious about what they had on him (when you wonder why guilty people subject themselves to interrogations when they know full well their rights to terminate the interview, it's because they're dying of curiosity about what the police know -- sort of like playing poker when you'd really really really like to know what hand the other side has before you decide how to play yours). 

This news came out after the documentary was released. Not sure if you heard, but the case keeps getting weierder. Curious about your thoughts on it...

http://www.people.co...trial?v=desktop