Making A Murderer (Netflix) (Spoilers) (1 Viewer)

[Moonlight]

kathleentzellner.com

Zellner today posted on her site a motion and supporting affidavit of a witness who saw Bobby Dassey and another man planting Teresa Halbach's car on Avery's property. Witness reported this to police at the time of the investigation but it was ignored.

If Dassey is guilty of the murder, a lot of pieces come together because Dassey was the star witness against Avery.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

kathleentzellner.com

Zellner today posted on her site a motion and supporting affidavit of a witness who saw Bobby Dassey and another man planting Teresa Halbach's car on Avery's property. Witness reported this to police at the time of the investigation but it was ignored.

If Dassey is guilty of the murder, a lot of pieces come together because Dassey was the star witness against Avery.

Hmmm. I'd guess the only way they can prove that would be to have the testimonial of the female officer that allegedly took the call from the new witness.  Sans that, I can't see that having much pull. But if they could prove it....  

 

[Moonlight]

This development and the request for a new trial may help influence the appeal. A decision should be coming out very soon on the appeal. Though this development is not included in the appeal it may create more doubt about the original conviction.

 

[shuke]

This is still a thing?

 

[Moonlight]

Zellner's appeal is taking a long time to be decided. Wisconsin lower court caused delay by shirking responsibilities regarding a previous remand by Appellate Court due to Zellner's efforts. Covid hasn't helped either.

 

[parrot]

kathleentzellner.com

Zellner today posted on her site a motion and supporting affidavit of a witness who saw Bobby Dassey and another man planting Teresa Halbach's car on Avery's property. Witness reported this to police at the time of the investigation but it was ignored.

If Dassey is guilty of the murder, a lot of pieces come together because Dassey was the star witness against Avery.

He also says he reported it to Steven’s lawyers after watching season 1 of Making a Murderer. It debuted more than five years ago. Wonder why Buting and Strang ignored it for 5 years? 
 

 

[Moonlight]

He also says he reported it to Steven’s lawyers after watching season 1 of Making a Murderer. It debuted more than five years ago. Wonder why Buting and Strang ignored it for 5 years? 
 

Was it reported to Buting and Strang or the appellate lawyers after the trial conviction? I think Avery was convicted in season 1.If I remember the appellate lawyers were a college law school project for wrongful convictions.

 

[parrot]

Was it reported to Buting and Strang or the appellate lawyers after the trial conviction? I think Avery was convicted in season 1.If I remember the appellate lawyers were a college law school project for wrongful convictions.

I think Brendan had a group like that working on his behalf but I don’t remember that for Steven. He may have had a public defender for his appeal though. Regardless, it’s hard to imagine why anyone in Steven’s corner would sit on it, particularly after MaM and all the publicity it received.

 

[mr. furley]

https://www.nbc26.com/news/local-news/court-nixes-new-trial-for-making-a-murderer-subject-avery

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Court of Appeal has rejected a request by "Making a Murderer" subject Steven Avery for a new trial.

Avery is serving a life sentence for the 2005 killing of photographer Teresa Halbach. The case was the focus of a popular Netflix series whose creators raised questions about the convictions of Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey.

Avery attorney Kathleen Zellner asked the court to consider claims ranging from insufficient scientific evidence to ineffective trial counsel.

But the appellate court on Wednesday denied her request. Avery's earlier appeals were also denied.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

If I'm ever the subject of a true crime documentary, it will be because I murdered a journalist who reported on a court decision without linking to the decision.  

https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=399779

For what it's worth, this decision is probably "correct" in that it follows the prevailing law concerning procedural bars to collateral attacks of convictions.  As such, it demonstrates just how hard it is to get post-conviction relief.  

 

[mr. furley]

If I'm ever the subject of a true crime documentary, it will be because I murdered a journalist who reported on a court decision without linking to the decision.  

https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=399779

For what it's worth, this decision is probably "correct" in that it follows the prevailing law concerning procedural bars to collateral attacks of convictions.  As such, it demonstrates just how hard it is to get post-conviction relief.  

pretty small fraction of the population wants to read the actual decision. most of which would go over our heads anyways.

if i wanted to read/hear thousands of words that could be summed in up in a single sentence instead i'd just listen to my wife.

 

[Zow]

pretty small fraction of the population wants to read the actual decision. most of which would go over our heads anyways.

if i wanted to read/hear thousands of words that could be summed in up in a single sentence instead i'd just listen to my wife.

Unfortunately, sometimes complicated/complex court decisions are not accurately summed up in a single sentence by a jouranlist without a law degree despite the journalist's best good faith efforts. 

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

If I'm ever the subject of a true crime documentary, it will be because I murdered a journalist who reported on a court decision without linking to the decision.  

https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=399779

For what it's worth, this decision is probably "correct" in that it follows the prevailing law concerning procedural bars to collateral attacks of convictions.  As such, it demonstrates just how hard it is to get post-conviction relief.  

Sigh. I guess I'm gonna read this damn thing too. I'll post some nuggets when I get time. 

 

[ghostguy123]

So is the intellectually disabled kid who clearly had nothing to do with the crime still in prison for life?

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

So is the intellectually disabled kid who clearly had nothing to do with the crime still in prison for life?

I had Chat GPT pulled up, so I asked it:

is Brendan from Making a Murderer still in prison?


Brendan Dassey, who was featured in the Netflix series "Making a Murderer," was sentenced to life in prison in 2007 for the murder of Teresa Halbach. In 2016, a federal judge overturned Dassey's conviction, ruling that his confession had been coerced. However, in 2017, an appeals court overturned the judge's ruling, and Dassey's conviction was reinstated. As of 2021 Dassey still in prison and his legal case is in process.

 

[ghostguy123]

I actually think Brendan is out of appeals and stuck for life. Very sad

 

[Wingnut]

So is the intellectually disabled kid who clearly had nothing to do with the crime still in prison for life?

I had Chat GPT pulled up, so I asked it:

is Brendan from Making a Murderer still in prison?

Siri or Alexa down?

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

So is the intellectually disabled kid who clearly had nothing to do with the crime still in prison for life?

I had Chat GPT pulled up, so I asked it:

is Brendan from Making a Murderer still in prison?

Siri or Alexa down?

was at the office, so web browser was easier and was curious what GPT would pull up in lieu of a Google search

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Another Avery appeal denied last week.

https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=900957

 

[ghostguy123]

Perhaps one of these presidents that are on a pardon frenzy could pardon Brendan.
Steven should be as well, but at least pardon the incredibly and painfully obvious innocent Brendan.

 

[Zow]

Postconviction relief work oftentimes feels like one is tilting at windmills.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Perhaps one of these presidents that are on a pardon frenzy could pardon Brendan.
Steven should be as well, but at least pardon the incredibly and painfully obvious innocent Brendan.

Set aside guilt for a second: would you want to live next door to Steven Avery?

 

[Captain Cranks]

Perhaps one of these presidents that are on a pardon frenzy could pardon Brendan.
Steven should be as well, but at least pardon the incredibly and painfully obvious innocent Brendan.

Set aside guilt for a second: would you want to live next door to Steven Avery?

Why not? We'd have a good time drinking beers around the burn pit.

 

[Gally]

Perhaps one of these presidents that are on a pardon frenzy could pardon Brendan.
Steven should be as well, but at least pardon the incredibly and painfully obvious innocent Brendan.

Set aside guilt for a second: would you want to live next door to Steven Avery?

The reason I might have apprehension would be more to do with the media circus that would follow him more than anything else. But I would also imagine the guy has changed being in prison for that long so who knows what he would really be like.

 

[Zow]

Perhaps one of these presidents that are on a pardon frenzy could pardon Brendan.
Steven should be as well, but at least pardon the incredibly and painfully obvious innocent Brendan.

Set aside guilt for a second: would you want to live next door to Steven Avery?

Reminds me of minutes 1:20 - 1:35 of this clip:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Perhaps one of these presidents that are on a pardon frenzy could pardon Brendan.
Steven should be as well, but at least pardon the incredibly and painfully obvious innocent Brendan.

Set aside guilt for a second: would you want to live next door to Steven Avery?

What a weird comment when we’re presumably discussing whether the dude should spend the rest of his life in a cage.

I have no issue with anyone thinking Avery probably did it. There's DNA evidence. I get it. I have a hard time clearing reasonable doubt when an investigation has that many holes and straight up **** ups, but I certainly don't have a strong conviction that he's clearly innocent. But to suggest that I should be OK with him being locked up the rest of his life even if he were innocent but nevertheless sketchy (as many wrongfully convicted people are) is weird.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Perhaps one of these presidents that are on a pardon frenzy could pardon Brendan.
Steven should be as well, but at least pardon the incredibly and painfully obvious innocent Brendan.

Set aside guilt for a second: would you want to live next door to Steven Avery?

What a weird comment when we’re presumably discussing whether the dude should spend the rest of his life in a cage.

I have no issue with anyone thinking Avery probably did it. There's DNA evidence. I get it. I have a hard time clearing reasonable doubt when an investigation has that many holes and straight up **** ups, but I certainly don't have a strong conviction that he's clearly innocent. But to suggest that I should be OK with him being locked up the rest of his life even if he were innocent but nevertheless sketchy (as many wrongfully convicted people are) is weird.

Who suggested that he be locked up the rest of his life? (Are you aiming that at me?)

I find the whole case and documentary fascinating. There is almost no doubt in my mind that he was framed. And almost no doubt in my mind that her ex-boyfriend committed the crime.

As context, I grew up 30 minutes from the crime scene. My cousin had to show officers his ID to get to/from work each day because he lives 1 mile from the salvage yard. My cousins know the whole Avery family. They all think he’s guilty for emotion-driven, legacy reasons (“dude has always been weird” type of comments from them).

Flip side, my FIL knows the judge and prosecutor. FIL was a judge 30 min away from where the case took place. As a believer in the justice system, FIL is of course convinced Avery was guilty.

Anyway, I’ve always found the case fascinating. The reason I asked the question that I did was after watching the documentary with my wife she said “oh, that poor guy, he clearly is innocent.” Then I asked if she (along with our then 5 year olds) would want to live next door to him and she gave the fastest “hell no” reply in history.

It’s a tough issue for many ex-cons, whether guilty or innocent. People don’t trust folks who have spent time in prison, especially for violent offenses.

 

[Gally]

I find the whole case and documentary fascinating. There is almost no doubt in my mind that he was framed. And almost no doubt in my mind that her ex-boyfriend committed the crime.

I feel the same way based on the doc. But I also know that was the point of the doc so I am sure it is skewed to make the viewers come to that conclusion. From the outside looking in there are so many shady things in that investigation that there would be plenty of things that would give me reasonable doubt (of course that is from the doc viewer perspective). Being on the jury would be a different story. They have a lot more limitations with regards to what is presented and maybe it doesn't provide the reasonable doubt.

But like you, it was a really fascinating documentary for sure.

 

[ghostguy123]

Perhaps one of these presidents that are on a pardon frenzy could pardon Brendan.
Steven should be as well, but at least pardon the incredibly and painfully obvious innocent Brendan.

Set aside guilt for a second: would you want to live next door to Steven Avery?

What a weird comment when we’re presumably discussing whether the dude should spend the rest of his life in a cage.

I have no issue with anyone thinking Avery probably did it. There's DNA evidence. I get it. I have a hard time clearing reasonable doubt when an investigation has that many holes and straight up **** ups, but I certainly don't have a strong conviction that he's clearly innocent. But to suggest that I should be OK with him being locked up the rest of his life even if he were innocent but nevertheless sketchy (as many wrongfully convicted people are) is weird.

Not gonna dredge up all of it, but one of the funniest parts was the key to the girls SUV was found in Avery's bedroom plain as day just lying on the floor, but was not found by the initial person who searched.
Also, the key was a spare key, only key on the ring, and didn't even have the girls DNA on it.....but had Avery's DNA? Also, what girl do you know (especially one who uses their car for work) only uses the spare key with nothing on the ring???

Unless of course Avery threw all the other stuff away, wiped THAT key clean, and kept it nice and ready to use sitting on the floor, while tossing a couple quick branches over the car to "hide" it.

Like, he's THAT dumb to leave that key lying around but was able to clean up a bloody brutal crime scene in the bedroom without even using cleaning materials, lol.

I agree with whoever said it was the ex boyfriend. I'd also have taken a much harder look at Brendan's brother.

 

[ghostguy123]

Perhaps one of these presidents that are on a pardon frenzy could pardon Brendan.
Steven should be as well, but at least pardon the incredibly and painfully obvious innocent Brendan.

Set aside guilt for a second: would you want to live next door to Steven Avery?

Yeah sure why not. We'd be drinking beers fixing my mower.

 

[ghostguy123]

I find the whole case and documentary fascinating. There is almost no doubt in my mind that he was framed. And almost no doubt in my mind that her ex-boyfriend committed the crime.

I feel the same way based on the doc. But I also know that was the point of the doc so I am sure it is skewed to make the viewers come to that conclusion. From the outside looking in there are so many shady things in that investigation that there would be plenty of things that would give me reasonable doubt (of course that is from the doc viewer perspective). Being on the jury would be a different story. They have a lot more limitations with regards to what is presented and maybe it doesn't provide the reasonable doubt.

But like you, it was a really fascinating documentary for sure.

Obviously the doc was biased, which is what helped it be so compelling.

However, I didn't need to look past the Brendan interview at his school to know that he had zero part in anything and has been in prison this whole time an innocent child, now man. That was infuriating, and made even worse that appeal after appeal were denied, and even when he was about to go free some politician axed it.

 

[Zow]

I find the whole case and documentary fascinating. There is almost no doubt in my mind that he was framed. And almost no doubt in my mind that her ex-boyfriend committed the crime.

I feel the same way based on the doc. But I also know that was the point of the doc so I am sure it is skewed to make the viewers come to that conclusion. From the outside looking in there are so many shady things in that investigation that there would be plenty of things that would give me reasonable doubt (of course that is from the doc viewer perspective). Being on the jury would be a different story. They have a lot more limitations with regards to what is presented and maybe it doesn't provide the reasonable doubt.

But like you, it was a really fascinating documentary for sure.

I appreciate this input. As somebody who has personally had his own cases regularly publicized from being in local papers to being in the national news, discussed on TV, and discussed on podcasts,* I want to make sure the point is made that unless somebody is directly involved with the case receiving case information secondhand (like through this doc) will almost certainly not provide the whole story. As such, I strongly encourage people to check themselves on making their own conclusions unless they've reviewed every police report, every pre-trial interview/deposition, watched every second of the trial, etc.

*I've been invited to do two documentaries about two major cases in my career but had to decline for ethical reasons.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I find the whole case and documentary fascinating. There is almost no doubt in my mind that he was framed. And almost no doubt in my mind that her ex-boyfriend committed the crime.

I feel the same way based on the doc. But I also know that was the point of the doc so I am sure it is skewed to make the viewers come to that conclusion. From the outside looking in there are so many shady things in that investigation that there would be plenty of things that would give me reasonable doubt (of course that is from the doc viewer perspective). Being on the jury would be a different story. They have a lot more limitations with regards to what is presented and maybe it doesn't provide the reasonable doubt.

But like you, it was a really fascinating documentary for sure.

I appreciate this input. As somebody who has personally had his own cases regularly publicized from being in local papers to being in the national news, discussed on TV, and discussed on podcasts,* I want to make sure the point is made that unless somebody is directly involved with the case receiving case information secondhand (like through this doc) will almost certainly not provide the whole story. As such, I strongly encourage people to check themselves on making their own conclusions unless they've reviewed every police report, every pre-trial interview/deposition, watched every second of the trial, etc.

*I've been invited to do two documentaries about two major cases in my career but had to decline for ethical reasons.

Very good points

 

[Gally]

As such, I strongly encourage people to check themselves on making their own conclusions unless they've reviewed every police report, every pre-trial interview/deposition, watched every second of the trial, etc.

This is one of the reasons that I think the OJ trial went the way it went. The public saw a lot more than what was permissible in the trial. The jury had a lot of evidence that wasn't allowed due to incompetent police work so they couldn't factor that in. I am not surprised that based on what was allowed and was presented that there was reasonable doubt. What the public sees is very different than what the jury sees.

I know this from experience as I was on a murder trial as a jury member (I was actually the foreman). It was a case of an illegal immigrant killing someone in their home. It had an odd twist in that the victim didn't die until a week after the beating and died due to a pulmonary embolism (not the beating itself). There were specific rules and jury instructions that we had to follow as to what instituted what was allowed to be considered for different charges.

I wasn't able to watch news or read up on the story obviously as the trial was going on but I had my wife record much of the coverage for me to watch after the fact. It was interesting to watch the coverage and get pieces that were allowed in court or flat out falsities that were reported. We ended up with a guilty verdict on all but one charge. That experience led me to the conclusion that unless you are in the courtroom getting the case presented to you, there is no way you can properly rule on a case because there are so many things that are or are not included that the general public just doesn't see. It was a great experience with regards to learning more about the legal system.

f I could be a professional juror I would do it in a heartbeat. It is such a fascinating process.

 

[Zow]

As such, I strongly encourage people to check themselves on making their own conclusions unless they've reviewed every police report, every pre-trial interview/deposition, watched every second of the trial, etc.

This is one of the reasons that I think the OJ trial went the way it went. The public saw a lot more than what was permissible in the trial. The jury had a lot of evidence that wasn't allowed due to incompetent police work so they couldn't factor that in. I am not surprised that based on what was allowed and was presented that there was reasonable doubt. What the public sees is very different than what the jury sees.

I know this from experience as I was on a murder trial as a jury member (I was actually the foreman). It was a case of an illegal immigrant killing someone in their home. It had an odd twist in that the victim didn't die until a week after the beating and died due to a pulmonary embolism (not the beating itself). There were specific rules and jury instructions that we had to follow as to what instituted what was allowed to be considered for different charges.

I wasn't able to watch news or read up on the story obviously as the trial was going on but I had my wife record much of the coverage for me to watch after the fact. It was interesting to watch the coverage and get pieces that were allowed in court or flat out falsities that were reported. We ended up with a guilty verdict on all but one charge. That experience led me to the conclusion that unless you are in the courtroom getting the case presented to you, there is no way you can properly rule on a case because there are so many things that are or are not included that the general public just doesn't see. It was a great experience with regards to learning more about the legal system.

f I could be a professional juror I would do it in a heartbeat. It is such a fascinating process.

I'm surprised to hear you got to learn the fact in bold. I don't see how one's legal status is relevant to whether one committed murder. I assume the defense attorney tried to keep this fact act (just seems so obvious that a motion in limine would have been filed).

 

[Gally]

I'm surprised to hear you got to learn the fact in bold. I don't see how one's legal status is relevant to whether one committed murder. I assume the defense attorney tried to keep this fact act (just seems so obvious that a motion in limine would have been filed).

It was a highly publicized case (in fact Trump mentioned this case as part of his first campaign) so it was a well known aspect of the case. I can't remember for sure if it was actually part of the trial. I can't say for sure that it was mentioned in the trial. But it was "public" knowledge.

ETA: It really had no bearing on the guilt/innocence because there was plenty of evidence that he beat the crap out of the victim.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I find the whole case and documentary fascinating. There is almost no doubt in my mind that he was framed. And almost no doubt in my mind that her ex-boyfriend committed the crime.

I feel the same way based on the doc. But I also know that was the point of the doc so I am sure it is skewed to make the viewers come to that conclusion. From the outside looking in there are so many shady things in that investigation that there would be plenty of things that would give me reasonable doubt (of course that is from the doc viewer perspective). Being on the jury would be a different story. They have a lot more limitations with regards to what is presented and maybe it doesn't provide the reasonable doubt.

But like you, it was a really fascinating documentary for sure.

I appreciate this input. As somebody who has personally had his own cases regularly publicized from being in local papers to being in the national news, discussed on TV, and discussed on podcasts,* I want to make sure the point is made that unless somebody is directly involved with the case receiving case information secondhand (like through this doc) will almost certainly not provide the whole story. As such, I strongly encourage people to check themselves on making their own conclusions unless they've reviewed every police report, every pre-trial interview/deposition, watched every second of the trial, etc.

*I've been invited to do two documentaries about two major cases in my career but had to decline for ethical reasons.

Last night my wife and I watched an episode of Homicide: Los Angeles which covered the Phil Specter case. It was amazing to me that the first trial wound up a hung jury but the doc was obviously heavily biased in the direction of the detectives so I'm sure key things were left out.