Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Making A Murderer


Ted
 Share

Recommended Posts

Probably yeah. You had the Birmingham Six and others, but considering how the confession was the sole basis of the conviction and the fact it never, ever would have been admitted in a country with a proper legal system. Then there's Dassey's blatant lack of mental faculties too.

I think also the prosecution didn't see fit to use that same evidence in the a very trial, as avery had decent lawyers who would have exposed what a farce it was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think also the prosecution didn't see fit to use that same evidence in the a very trial, as avery had decent lawyers who would have exposed what a farce it was.

Whereas Dassey got that gurning shitweasel who practically did the prosecution's work for them. It just shows how fucked their legal system is. There's a bit in the excellent 'The Staircase' where the defendant, a very rich man himself, says he can't understand how poor people would be able to defend themselves at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were wrongfully convicted of a murder and served (let's say) 20 years before being proven to be innocent... then we all know there's no amount of money could ever return those years. In 'theory' the state / society owes you 20 years.

 

Then, you DO commit a murder, and you might even confess to it, then in theory, and with all emotions aside, there is an argument that you're owed those previous 20 years so call it quits.

 

Of course, that would never be allowed to happen, but it does make 'logical' sense. The victim's family and probably the rest of society would struggle to reconcile that you'd already paid the price. It would somehow feel like you'd got off with a murder, but why?

 

p.s. I think Avery probably did do it, but it's trickier with Dassey. Gut feeling is that is one seriously fucked up set of campers with a very small gene pool.

Also, documentaries like this are also prone to presenting evidence in a biased manner too. Just because it's a documentary, it's very easy to assume it's impartial and now revealing the 'real' truth. So much gets left out, even with a 10 hour documentary (where quite a lot of footage is interviews rather than examining the evidence). Still, it is / was a great documentary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

He should be a surprise special guest referee at Wrasslemania, team him up with Stone Cold and whack some poor fucker through a table.

 

Hell Yeah, who's the Dassie now ?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were wrongfully convicted of a murder and served (let's say) 20 years before being proven to be innocent... then we all know there's no amount of money could ever return those years. In 'theory' the state / society owes you 20 years.

 

Then, you DO commit a murder, and you might even confess to it, then in theory, and with all emotions aside, there is an argument that you're owed those previous 20 years so call it quits.

 

Of course, that would never be allowed to happen, but it does make 'logical' sense. The victim's family and probably the rest of society would struggle to reconcile that you'd already paid the price. It would somehow feel like you'd got off with a murder, but why?

 

p.s. I think Avery probably did do it, but it's trickier with Dassey. Gut feeling is that is one seriously fucked up set of campers with a very small gene pool.

Also, documentaries like this are also prone to presenting evidence in a biased manner too. Just because it's a documentary, it's very easy to assume it's impartial and now revealing the 'real' truth. So much gets left out, even with a 10 hour documentary (where quite a lot of footage is interviews rather than examining the evidence). Still, it is / was a great documentary.

I agree about documentary makers showing some 'bias' towards Avery's defence but I am nowhere near sure he did it. The movement of the remains and other questions make me want to consider other candidates too. The fact that most murders are committed by husbands,boyfriends,ex partners and so on,and the fact that any police force will know this,makes me want to hear the victim's ex boyfriend's alibi on and around the day of the murder.

The biggest factor in all this though is,of course,money or the case Avery was bringing against the local department. This would have devastated their jobs,pensions,resources and the whole justice system in the area. This is the biggest factor for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should probably now watch this while the information is still fresh in your head:

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2130321/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

 

The filmakers make no bones about who the real culprit was.

 

People who have watched these docs only should do a bit more digging.  There's plenty of reasons to believe these were guilty IMO. Obviously, no one can know for sure but I would caution against feeling too sorry for Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen it all but cannot remember all the details other than the case makes a mockery of 'reasonable doubt' and a 'justice' system. The case pretty much confirms why over 10% of the population have been in jail and financial means can help you avoid the most despicable crimes regardless of evidence or guilt. The case also makes me wonder how many innocent people are actually in jail while the guilty roam free.

To add to that point, I've just finished watching The Jinx, which completely backs your point. 30 years of avoiding justice because you're rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Jinx is brilliant.

 

I actually much preferred it to Making a Murderer. Making a Murder seemed a bit padded out towards the end, it didn't feel like it needed 10 hour long episodes, whereas The Jinx worked perfectly over it's six hour timeframe and had that incredible pay off as well.  

 

Plus Robert Durst is the creepiest man alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually much preferred it to Making a Murderer. Making a Murder seemed a bit padded out towards the end, it didn't feel like it needed 10 hour long episodes, whereas The Jinx worked perfectly over it's six hour timeframe and had that incredible pay off as well.

 

Plus Robert Durst is the creepiest man alive.

I'd love to have a danger pint with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually much preferred it to Making a Murderer. Making a Murder seemed a bit padded out towards the end, it didn't feel like it needed 10 hour long episodes, whereas The Jinx worked perfectly over it's six hour timeframe and had that incredible pay off as well.  

 

Plus Robert Durst is the creepiest man alive.

 

John du Pont runs him close.

 

The Team Foxcatcher documentary on Netflix is worth watching...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...