Making Of A Murderer

[stompinlines]

Wow.
Mind blown. Im only into it 3 episodes.
I highly recommend this documentary on Netflix.
Its hard not to google this one.

[warthog]

Prosecutor, who is now a private attorney, is getting absolutely raped on Yelp. He may also be getting death threats. There are 2 sides to every story, and this one supposedly only tells one very lopsided view. That is what I've heard at least. I will probably watch it soon.

[stompinlines]

Id be interested to hear your take after watching this insane series.

[digitaldeath]

check out thread in PR 'who killed theresa halbach"

[creaky fossil]

A prosecutor who lies to make him/herself seem the best choice for a higher political rank, and doesn't care what is the result for the person ensnared by the lie?

I'm pretty sure that's Standard Operating Procedure in nearly every Prosecutor's office, whether local state or federal.

[TheDon]

I am in the middle of episode 8, I'm totally feeling mind-f#%ked! I feel sick thinking about Steve. How can a jury blatantly ignore facts? I get this is a one sided opinion but holy balls!

[stompinlines]

I found this to be Kratz's most impressive work.

In October 2009, a 26-year-old domestic violence victim, whose case against her boyfriend Kratz was prosecuting, filed a police report in Kaukauna, Wisconsin alleging that Kratz had sent her 30 sexually coercive text messages over the span of three days.[11] She said that she felt that he was trying to coerce her into a sexual relationship and that if she refused, the case against her boyfriend would be dismissed.[12] The report was referred to the state's Division of Criminal Investigation. During the DCI investigation, two more women came forward accusing Kratz of harassing and intimidating them.[13] At the time, Kratz was serving as chairman of the Wisconsin Crime Victims' Rights Board.[1]

Kratz resigned in October of 2010 after governor Jim Doyle sought his removal.[14][3] After his accuser filed a federal civil suit against him Kratz settled out of court in 2013.[15][16]In June 2014, his law license was suspended for four months by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. During the disciplinary hearing, Kratz admitted abusing prescription drugs and being treated for sexual addiction.[5][1]

[dgilligan02]

I think we're on episode 7 or 8 right now...I get it that's it's a TV show but holy smokes it is pretty infuriating.

[DeathVan]

So DD has a good point:

Who the fuck did kill Theresa Halbach?
-if it wasn't that Duo of Dullards

I think it was that Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey combo.
They are both oily as fuck in my opinion.

@stompin
I can't believe you would bust on "Stache" Kratz's slick moves
-Porky's a playa!

[Bromontana]

I think it was that Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey combo.
They are both oily as fuck in my opinion.

Here's where my head asplodes... we know the local PD is not trustworthy, same 2 pigs from prior case found the key evidence in 2005 case. I buy the argument Scott & Bobby are more likely culprits than SA & the kid. What doesn't fit is the unknowns around the death. It's pretty easy if you have access to SA's gun, which was under 5-0 control for a full week, to shoot a dead person and claim that's the cause of death.

So if SA did it with the kid, wtf is up with the absence of physical evidence? The key was found in plain sight by a known corrupt cop on the 3rd sweep of SA's house, wtf? No victim DNA in the house, in the garage, etc. It seems more likely she was killed off site and brought back on to SA's property.

The cops who found the evidence in his 2005 murder case were deposed for SA's civil suit against Manitoefuck <1 month before the crime took place. They were being questioned on their improper handling/criminal activity in the 1985 conviction. Talk about a really inconvenient and unfair setup for SA/BM. BM's attorney urged him to keep admitting shit and go for guilty... when there's no physical evidence linking him to the fucking crime! wut teh fvck

[Lev]

On episode 4. Pretty well done, we're enjoying it. Feel like they're gonna pull me in a few directions for/against Avery. Keep seeing spoilers that it's not accurately portrayed. The nephew is a dumbfuck btw

[TheDon]

I think we're on episode 7 or 8 right now...I get it that's it's a TV show but holy smokes it is pretty infuriating.

Infuriating for sure! Holy balls!

[muted]

I've only seen three episodes, but what bugs me is the title of the series. It's not ambiguous, it says 'Making of a Murderer' with Avery pictured as a kid and adult. Why would the filmmakers pick that title if Avery didn't do it?

Rhetorical question for now, I need to watch the rest.

[Dhelihiker]

I turned on Ep 1 at 6:00pm

I had to stop at 10:00pm mid ep 4.

So far it makes me hate cops even more and I want to go to Manitowoc to people watch. Holy stupid people with bad hair.

[davieboot]

I've only seen three episodes, but what bugs me is the title of the series. It's not ambiguous, it says 'Making of a Murderer' with Avery pictured as a kid and adult. Why would the filmmakers pick that title if Avery didn't do it?

Rhetorical question for now, I need to watch the rest.

I'm going to take a stab at it anyway. I think the filmmakers started off with the assumption that Avery committed the murder, and the title was implying that locking him away for the earlier crime, which he didn't commit, turned him into a more violent person. But then they realized that there was a better (more engaging?) story was there, but they already had a catchy title that sort of fit with the frame-job scenario.

[Ski to Be]

The whole thing stinks. SA is on the cusp of receiving the biggest chunk of money he has ever seen. Why would he murder that girl? The defense attorney working with the cops to railroad a confession out of a clearly learning disabled kid was appalling. I would love to hear some maggots lawyers thoughts on this. What a stark contrast it was from the state appointed attorney that SA had in his first trial compared to the second defense team. 2 of the jurors in the second trial were friends or directly related to the sheriff's office. One dissenter came out as being scared of the consequences if they decided not guilty in that small town. I bet there are thousands of Africa American folks watching this that aren't shocked at all and probably know someone this happened to.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[GeezerSteve]

Why would the filmmakers pick that title if Avery didn't do it?

Because the cops made him into a murderer.

I would love to hear some maggots lawyers thoughts on this.

I'll comment after I've seen the entire series. We're on E7. I'm not a criminal attorney, but I am an experienced trial attorney, and I understand evidence and what it takes to overcome the state's burden of proof.

[stompinlines]

http://www.twincities.com/ci_2937568...y-files-appeal

http://www.bustle.com/articles/13499...-crucial-skill

[grskier]

The more I think on his, the more I think he was framed for a murder he committed.

[TheDon]

The more I think on his, the more I think he was framed for a murder he committed.

Really? How so? I get he was framed, how did you come to the conclusion he did it?

[GeezerSteve]

We've seen the 9th episode, thus aware of the outcome, and I've supplemented by reading the articles which purport to present the prosecutor's claims that he had evidence that was not mentioned in the documentary. Is that all he's got? I don't see how any jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on what I've seen, the evidence much more strongly supported that the cops framed him than it supported a finding of guilt, an observation that necessarily compels a not guilty verdict.

Recent news that the jury originally polled 7 not guilty at the commencement of deliberations, and that one bully juror kept pushing guilt until those 7 eventually folded. What happens in jury rooms is scary. I know from personal experience, having talked to jurors after a jury trials I have tried.

Wife is angry as hell. I tell her small town cops and prosecutors railroading poor whites and minorities is commonplace, that this is just one story of injustice among thousands, and the difference is that this abomination of justice is being exposed to the public in a big way while, by contrast, most are swept under the rug while the falsely convicted rot in prison.

The prosecutors manipulating the retarded nephew into confessing is exemplary of common practice. American prisons have thousands of inmates from whom false confessions were extracted.

Dunno if the feds are going to look into this, but they should. This local cop/prosecutor RRing is the kind of local govt abuse the Post-Civil War statutes, e.g., 42 USC 1983, are intended to address. Anyone who thinks local power is always better ought to learn the history of the feds exposing local govt abuse.

One of SA's defense attorneys nailed it when he talked about "unwarranted certitude." It took only one, maybe two, cops to frame SA, but the others and the neighbor county prosecutor went along with unwarranted certitude because the culture is more about who's side are you on than a search for the truth. This is the point of failure inherent in an adversarial system.

[Lev]

And we're done with the series. One of the more satisfying things was seeing Kratz go down for being a douche bag. That guy's voice screamed child molester, pill popper, scumbag. He had it coming.

Actually thought SA's lawyers were pretty good. Surprised the jury went the way it did.

Maybe someone can explain this one. How was SA found guilty on the first count of murder, but not guilty on the second count of bodily mutilation? It's like saying we think you killed her, but someone else mutilated the body. And then Dassey, who is really more of an accomplice by trial, ends up being found guilty for bodily mutilation. Doesn't make sense to me.

[WMD]

I've got to check this show out. My brother is the guy who led the team who got Avery exonerated from his original conviction. He was devastated when Avery was accused and then convicted of this murder, because he had helped put him back on the street to possibly commit this crime. At the time, when little was known about the second case, I remember my brother commenting that even if Avery turned out to have committed this murder, he was not guilty of the original crime and you can't keep someone locked up because they might commit a crime sometime. I'll have to check in with him and get his thoughts now. http://m.host.madison.com/wsj/news/l...56096709c.html

[Bronco]

Maybe someone can explain this one. How was SA found guilty on the first count of murder, but not guilty on the second count of bodily mutilation? It's like saying we think you killed her, but someone else mutilated the body. And then Dassey, who is really more of an accomplice by trial, ends up being found guilty for bodily mutilation. Doesn't make sense to me.

Not a lawyer but did have a 4 week jury stint once. I believe a jury can find evidence of guilt on one charge but not enough evidence on another.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Maybe someone can explain this one. How was SA found guilty on the first count of murder, but not guilty on the second count of bodily mutilation? It's like saying we think you killed her, but someone else mutilated the body. And then Dassey, who is really more of an accomplice by trial, ends up being found guilty for bodily mutilation. Doesn't make sense to me.

It's because SA was charged with the mutilation based on BD's testimony that was ultimately not allowed in SA's trial I believe. BD was found guilty because he confessed to a crime that the police told him to confess to.