Making a Murderer

[Sloppy Joe]

I just finished episode 4, in a row. I can't stop. This might be an all nighter. A
Only 6 hours left. I think I can do it. Shit is simply riveting

6 hours in, 1:30am, 4 hours left. Making a pot of coffee

I'd call it a night.

Loved it but should have been only ~7 episodes. Dragged a bit for me toward the end.

[jsearles22]

Just saw the verdict. A few notes and I'll likely expound later.

How the fuck do they have a "15 year olds don't listen" news conference with gruesome details, but at trial say she wasn't killed in the house but in the garage? Fucking seriously?

No one ever addresses why her blood is in the car? Shot in the garage and burned in the pit. No reason to be in the car.

I'm leaning towards the both sides are guilty camp. He may have done it and the cops just "helped" it along. I'm not discounting a full blown conspiracy either though. I don't know.

I do still have 2 hours left too.....

[handicapme]

I think both are guilty, however with that said at the minimum both cases should have been a mistrial but in any real court both ahould have been throw out or at least had multiple pieces of evidence thrown out. It was an obvious setup unfortunately. Great fucking series, netflix nailed this.

Also LOL at "The Prize". I lol'd soooo hard at those texts.

[El Gallo]

Wow, apparently a juror feared for their life.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/entertainm...FlowFB_CHBrand

[DRK Star]

"The juror contacted us directly ... and went on to describe the jurors ultimately trading votes in the jury room and explicitly discussing, 'If you vote guilty on this count, I will vote not guilty on this count,'" Ricciardi said.


I havent watched this show yet, but is there anything about this entire situation that seems legit? Allegedly shady cops planting evidence, jurors threatened, jurors trading votes....how the hell havent they strongly considered a retrial by now?

[El Gallo]

Watch the series... you will understand

[DRK Star]

I dont have Netflix but I saw it on a streaming site. It looked like it was 10-12 episodes. Are ALL of those episodes about this one case people are all talking about, or are there multiple cases?

[tyde]

on episode 5 now

this prosecutor should be fucking raped in prison

the entire series is a huge slam dunk, proving that cops and the criminal justice system in general is a complete farce

[El Gallo]

I dont have Netflix but I saw it on a streaming site. It looked like it was 10-12 episodes. Are ALL of those episodes about this one case people are all talking about, or are there multiple cases?

10 one hour episodes... when you get to episode 5 come back here and post

[DRK Star]

proving that cops and the criminal justice system in general is a complete farce

Yep....this ONE CASE, from Manitowoc Wisconsin, definitely proves that the criminal justice system is a complete farce.


I wont even argue with you there, Marty.

[NaturalBornHustler]

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...=NYDailyNewsTw

‘Making of a Murderer’ juror thinks Steven Avery was framed in 2005 murder case, filmmakers say (VIDEO)

A juror who helped convict Steven Avery doesn’t think the “Making of a Murderer” subject did it, the series’ makers said Tuesday.

The juror from the 2005 Wisconsin case at the center of Netflix’s latest hit told filmmakers Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi “they believe Steven Avery was not proven guilty,” Ricciardi said on NBC’s “Today” show.

"They believe Steven was framed by law enforcement and that he deserves a new trial, and if he receives a new trial, in their opinion it should take place far away from Wisconsin," Ricciardi said.

Avery, 53, walked free after 18 years behind bars on a rape conviction that was disproven by DNA evidence before he got convicted and sentenced to life in jail for the murder of 25-year-old Teresa Halbach in 2005.

The 10-part Netflix series has provoked hundreds of thousands of people to demand a pardon for Avery and his teenage nephew Brendan Dassey. The juror, who wasn’t named by Demos or Ricciardi, worried a mistrial could endanger whoever was revealed as the cause of it, Demos said.

The prosecutor in the 2005 case, Ken Kratz, has taken the series to task for evidence he said Demos and Ricciardi left out. But Ricciardi said that the juror referred to verdicts in the case as a “compromise” rather than the final word on it.

“That was the actual word the juror used and went on to describe the jurors ultimately trading votes in the jury room and explicitly discussing, ‘If you vote guilty on this count, I will vote not guilty on this count,’” Ricciardi said. “So that was a significant revelation.”

The jury believed split decisions would lead to appeals courts weighing in on it, according to Demos.

“They thought that Steven would get a new trial, that was sort of their plan,” Demos said. “But, obviously, it didn’t work out that way.”

Follow on Twitter @tobysalkc

This is big, big, big news. Jury misconduct is probably about the only way he can get a new trial. And if this isn't juror misconduct I don't know what the hell is.

[DRK Star]

Tyde: stfu cop lover


Dont you go red-repping me, Wizzard of Wordpress. You are the one who made the dumb comment.

[jsearles22]

Tyde: stfu cop lover


Dont you go red-repping me, Wizzard of Wordpress. You are the one who made the dumb comment.

Trying to comment with any veracity on a show you haven't watched is pretty faggot. Download the show and watch it. I did it all in one sitting, instead of sleeping last night. Yeah, it's that good. I assume, given your police thoughts and opinions you'll actually be as riveted as the rest of us

[DRK Star]

agreed

I realized that quickly. Was hoping someone could give me a quick comment, and from that, I could decide if I wanted to invest 10 focused hours into watching it.

Gallo told me to watch the first 5 and come back. Im going to do my best, but I wont be at full 100% attention (will have it on while I am on the computer).

[MumblesBadly]

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...=NYDailyNewsTw

‘Making of a Murderer’ juror thinks Steven Avery was framed in 2005 murder case, filmmakers say (VIDEO)

A juror who helped convict Steven Avery doesn’t think the “Making of a Murderer” subject did it, the series’ makers said Tuesday.

The juror from the 2005 Wisconsin case at the center of Netflix’s latest hit told filmmakers Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi “they believe Steven Avery was not proven guilty,” Ricciardi said on NBC’s “Today” show.

"They believe Steven was framed by law enforcement and that he deserves a new trial, and if he receives a new trial, in their opinion it should take place far away from Wisconsin," Ricciardi said.

Avery, 53, walked free after 18 years behind bars on a rape conviction that was disproven by DNA evidence before he got convicted and sentenced to life in jail for the murder of 25-year-old Teresa Halbach in 2005.

The 10-part Netflix series has provoked hundreds of thousands of people to demand a pardon for Avery and his teenage nephew Brendan Dassey. The juror, who wasn’t named by Demos or Ricciardi, worried a mistrial could endanger whoever was revealed as the cause of it, Demos said.

The prosecutor in the 2005 case, Ken Kratz, has taken the series to task for evidence he said Demos and Ricciardi left out. But Ricciardi said that the juror referred to verdicts in the case as a “compromise” rather than the final word on it.

“That was the actual word the juror used and went on to describe the jurors ultimately trading votes in the jury room and explicitly discussing, ‘If you vote guilty on this count, I will vote not guilty on this count,’” Ricciardi said. “So that was a significant revelation.”

The jury believed split decisions would lead to appeals courts weighing in on it, according to Demos.

“They thought that Steven would get a new trial, that was sort of their plan,” Demos said. “But, obviously, it didn’t work out that way.”

Follow on Twitter @tobysalkc

This is big, big, big news. Jury misconduct is probably about the only way he can get a new trial. And if this isn't juror misconduct I don't know what the hell is.

At best, it's probably a multi-step process that could drag for a few years, and would require that the juror give a deposition, in which he/she identifies other jurors who intimidated. So, while it cracks open a window for justice to be served, it is still a very long and uncertain way from hearsay statements presented the series makers to a new trial being required.

[Muck Ficon]

agreed

I realized that quickly. Was hoping someone could give me a quick comment, and from that, I could decide if I wanted to invest 10 focused hours into watching it.

Gallo told me to watch the first 5 and come back. Im going to do my best, but I wont be at full 100% attention (will have it on while I am on the computer).

Don't watch it. Don't come back and post about it. We already know your opinion. Nothing is going to change it. Stick with the other thread.

[jsearles22]

agreed

I realized that quickly. Was hoping someone could give me a quick comment, and from that, I could decide if I wanted to invest 10 focused hours into watching it.

Gallo told me to watch the first 5 and come back. Im going to do my best, but I wont be at full 100% attention (will have it on while I am on the computer).

Don't watch it. Don't come back and post about it. We already know your opinion. Nothing is going to change it. Stick with the other thread.

LOL, its funny because its true. Regardless of overwhelming facts DRK would never concede that the police likely planted some evidence.

[MumblesBadly]

Don't watch it. Don't come back and post about it. We already know your opinion. Nothing is going to change it. Stick with the other thread.

LOL, its funny because its true. Regardless of overwhelming facts DRK would never concede that the police likely planted some evidence.

Typical psychological reaction when being confronted with evidence inconsistent with a strong existing belief.

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.[1][2]

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency (dissonance) tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance—as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it.[1]

[IAmProfessionalTalk]

Some awesome WTF moments:

-- Patrolman called the tag # on the Rav4 in 3 days before it was "found" in their 40 acre salvage yard?

-- Rav4 was "found" 10 minutes into the search of the 40 acre salvage yard by the only person on the search team with a camera?

-- The county "recommended" the search party ask the Avery's for permission to search the salvage yard.

-- Who was calling her before and harassing her? The guy that testified to that was a defense witness, yet no follow up on who the incoming calls were from?

-- Blood test has never been used at trial, other than OJ? Test sucks so bad its not even used any more? Can't believe they didn't get a new trial based on this.

-- It was never suggested she of ran off the road and died, the patrolman found her, and it all went from there?

-- One burn site with her bones 3 miles from the burn site at the salvage yard?

Anyways, unless you are little bo peep, this is pretty standard behavior from LE. Go see Waco A New Revelation, The West Memphis Three docs, Murder on a Sunday Morning, etc, etc.

Paypal some money to the Innocence Project is about all u can do.

So shocked 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty convicted him. He should of taken a shot and let the judge decide the case.

I like your thinking here and would only add that the Rav4 wasn't banged up so fatal accident seems pretty unlikely.

Innocence Project left him high and dry on the murder rap, even deleting mention of him from the website, so fuck them.

As mentioned in the series, only 1 potential juror in the entire pool wasn't already aware of media coverage (and prosecutor's masturbation torture fantasies.) During deliberations, they started out with a vote of 7-5 not guilty.

[DRK Star]

Muck and Searles,

You guys are actually fools for stating that. Im quite open minded. I dont like generalizing and stating things blindly, so I actually do try to get facts first. Ive already seen enough people posting about how it looks like they very likely planted evidence. Why would I side with them if they did that? I havent seen a single post about those cops sounding like they did a good job, here or on other boards/social media. Ive done NOTHING to cover up police misconduct and repeatedly (if you were paying attention) stated that cops doing something wrong should DEFINITELY be prosecuted.

I already posted today with Gallo about that Cleveland Kid getting shot. IMO, there was wrong doing on both sides. The driver of that cop car really fucked up.


You guys making that statement show ignorance on your parts. And Muck, you need to watch that video I posted in the other thread before you make any further comments.