I just finished watching this series last night, shortly after I noticed this (potential spoiler) had appeared on twitter. It certainly adds credence to their documentary if it is infact honest.
(In the video attached to the tweet, one of the creators of the documentary claims they have since been contacted by one of the jurors from Steven Avery's trial, who stated they felt he was innocent however voted guilty as they feared for their personal safety.)
(In the video attached to the tweet, one of the creators of the documentary claims they have since been contacted by one of the jurors from Steven Avery's trial, who stated they felt he was innocent however voted guilty as they feared for their personal safety.)
Wow, that's not a statement to take lightly. Arguably, if a juror comes forward with something like that, it's time to empanel a Federal grand jury to investigate the judge and prosecutor.
As I understand it (and I've only briefly skimmed this story) there has been some scepticism of the juror though, as it seems he's been attempting to make money from his story.
The whole thing reeks of media manipulation on the one side, and botched police work on the other, with everybody in it for themselves. Looks like a dystopian novel's version of justice.
What happened to Brenden Dassey was so egregious that I feel comfortable describing anyone who helped put him in jail as either hopelessly corrupt or stupid. (Or both.) Ken Kratz included.
So I'm disinclined to believe Mr. Kratz when it comes to the Avery case...
They are only human. Check out "Mistakes were made (but not by me)" -- great book about the impact of cognitive dissonance! They likely got a feeling and stopped being completely rational. They wanted to prove themselves right and avoid the psychological injury of admitting a mistake--for some people, their entire identities are tied to them being great at their job, so that particular psychological injury is existentially scary.
That is definitely a potential reason for people in positions of authority to act illogically and unfairly, but we never should allow that to be used as an excuse. We hold civil servants to a higher bar because they wield so much power yet are expected to be restrained in how they use it.
I do tend to agree perhaps that there are more likely explanations for their actions than stupidity or corruption (as the GP suggested), but we should be wary when it comes to looking for signs of the latter, as a skilled corrupt civil servant / politician will always hide their malfeasance under the guise of slowness, stupidity, miscommunication, etc.
Agreed. I hate the system and how badly it seems to be functioning for so many disadvantaged people. I just wanted to share that lovely book. It kind of humanizes the people who are "terrible" by giving color to why they kind of turn to the dark side. Most/all think they're correct and holy (just like most/all of the dark side does)...
I think that cuts both ways though. The "confession" is a joke but his performance on the stand isn't convincing either. Whatever he says at any point can't be taken to be the truth.
> but his performance on the stand isn't convincing either.
His IQ is around 70. That's borderline learning disabled. Of course his performance isn't convincing - he's traumatised by the process, doesn't understand what's happening, and is easily manipulable.
Indeed but he can be manipulated by his family and his lawyers just as easily as by the investigators. He simply can't be relied upon so you have to look at the evidence instead.
Based on that I don't think he's guilty, there is really nothing to tie him to the crime and to believe he would be able to clean up any traces is just ridiculous.
Him being on the stand was one of the most suspenseful parts of the show for me, since I was wondering if the prosecutor was going to make him start doing a false confession again.
"The gun was confiscated when officers searched his trailer on Nov. 5, 2005, and the bullet was found in the garage in March 2006, Mr. Kratz said.
'If they planted it, how did they get a bullet that was shot from Avery’s gun before Nov. 5?' he said."
To me the fact that the police had the gun for more than 5 months before the bullet was found only reinforces the theory that the bullet may have been discharged and planted by the police.
This is reinforced by lack of a bullet hole, or blood splatter in the garage where the prosecution claims he shot her.
2 points from the defense that had a "checkmate" feel to them when first presented in the show, but were then never brought up again. Anyone have a pointer to details/followup/refutation on these? (Spoiler alert, obviously)
- Colburn calling in the plates/make/model/year for the victim's car 2 days before it was found
- Victim's voice mail was checked at 8am the day after she was supposedly killed
Actually, I never understood the big deal about the plates. Why couldn't it have just been the victim's family telling him the plate number, and him calling it in to verify?
The most frustrating bit to me was the EDTA business, and how the lack of proof that it came out of the vial somehow made irrelevant the tampered evidence package that the syringe-sized hole in the tube.
The package being tampered with was problematic, but the hole is made when the container is filled with blood not when removing the blood. If you're removing blood, you just take the lid off.
During the inspection of said package by the defense attorneys, they mention having asked the staff whether a hole in the lid should be expected, to which they replied "we don't do that". This was the "Okay, this documentary is over now. Next scene will show the judge dismissing the case based on newly discovered evidence, right? RIGHT?"-moment for me. Not so much.
To be fair, that wasn't the only scene where I felt that way ...
They never specify what he asked them, so it's hard to know.. He might have asked if they use a syringe to access the blood in the vial, which they wouldn't since you can just remove the rubber stopper and have complete (undetectable) access.
Hard to find good pictures, but you can see here: http://i.imgur.com/mhdkpui.jpg some vacutainers (newer, but they work the same) that have been filled, complete with puncture holes. That's just how you fill them.
It's a lot more compelling that the evidence box has been tampered with, in my opinion. You can find a few phlebotomists confirming this in the makingamurderer subreddit, if you look around.
100% speculation on my part...but what would some type of radio communication have went out giving the license plate and make/model for the car associated with a missing person?
If so, Colburn could have wrote these down and was simply calling in to ensure he got it right.
"Colburn calling in the plates/make/model/year for the victim's car 2 days before it was found". Should be usual when someone disappears.
"Victim's voice mail was checked at 8am the day after she was supposedly killed". By who? The family? The murder?
The series did not show the past of Avery before this affaire. Specially when he burns alive a cat while laughing. Maybe there would be less watchers to believe in his innocence!
I am currently writing on this affaire and read of lot of documents, and I have no doubt he is guilty. For the other idiot, Dassey, it is less sure.
I think that he was a teenager when he burned a cat alive. Usually teenagers make stupid things. I know people that make things like that and worse in their youth and they aren't murderers.
He is not a teenager when he bought a pair of handcuffs and iron legs. "This was to try something new with my wife" he said, laughting. His wife is jailed at the time. What a good surprise for her, when she is released. Not to mention the project of a torture room he described to his inmates.
I have a simple question: according to the prosecution, where was Teresa murdered? In the garage by being shot or on the bed after a violent rape ? In Stevens case it seems to be the former, in Brendan's case the latter. There's virtually no evidence for either hypothesis.
> There's virtually no evidence for either hypothesis.
Indeed, there's even evidence against them. Why on earth was so much of her blood in the back of her vehicle if it wasn't used at all during the crime?
exactly - the options are - shot in the garage with a miracle cleanup (with only blood on the bullet, but no splatters in garage) - killed on the bed with no blood evidence at all. In both cases supposedly dragged to the car (why?), to be then dragged out of the same car back to a burning pit, where only bones from part of her body are found.
the case as presented truly defies any credibility or logical sense.
She was strangled on the bed according to Dassey. Then they put her in the car and go to the garage. In the garage Avery shoot her several time, in the head and then the body. This is confirmed by the evidence (holes in her skull). Then Avery and Dassey cleaned the floor with bleach and gazoline.
All the reports along these lines seem to stem from what this prosecutor has said. It would be more credible if other officials or trial participants weighed in.
The omitted evidence he raised seem to me to fall under 2 categories:
1. Evidence that was very ambiguous (eg. the accused calling the victim's cellphone... suspicious until you remember he was doing business with her)
2. Physical evidence closely related to physical evidence that was included. My problem here is that if you think some of the physical evidence was tampered with or planted, then there's no reason to believe the other evidence is authentic. And if you don't believe it was planted, then you don't need any other evidence.
To me, the thread of certainty primarily weaves through the assessment of the bone fragment, and the bullet that was eventually found and whose analysis was contaminated. Shaky.
It strikes me as relevant, but it is rarely mentioned that Steven Avery's civil case for his first wrongful prosecution against the police and town was denied coverage by the insurance companies. This means the individuals involved in his first wrongful conviction (and who were implicated by the documentary for wrongdoing in the second conviction) could have been found personally financially liable. That would be a powerful incentive for most people.
Yes, and it is shocking that supposedly the Manitowoc County Police wasn't allowed to be part of the investigation and they were everywhere during the searches and so on...
I wanted to try this out but I haven't yet forgiven Serial for completely wasting my time on a similar sounding premise. Is this better? Before I watch it does it actually dig up new evidence or just rehash a cold case?
You get to see a 16 year old person with low IQ (about 70, so borderline learning disabled) get interrogated several times, by different people, without a lawyer or parent present.
Some of that interrogation is clearly designed to get him to confess to a crime, and doesn't seem to care whether the confession is true or false.
Some of that interrogation appears to be better designed, and seems to want to get truth rather than a confession, but after several hours they get frustrated that they're not getting a confession so they change tactics. (And I think their frustration is because he'd confessed the day before, so why isn't he confessing now, and the thought that maybe he's innocent doesn't seem to occur to them.)
When there's a miscarriage of justice people often say "but why did he confess?"
This documentary is now my example of why people confess to crimes they did not commit.
There are some frustrating bits about it. The other person was wrongly convicted of a violent crime, was cleared by very good, solid, DNA evidence. We hear a few times from law enforcement who doubt the exoneration and the DNA evidence, and there's a lack of challenge of those attitudes. It's a bit like watching a slow motion train wreck - "what the fuck is that lawyer doing?!?" (the lawyer for the young person makes a comment to the media that pretty much torpedoes his client's case). There's some stuff around plea bargains that isn't explored as much as it could be. A bunch of people accept plea bargains not because they're guilty but because they don't want the extra penalties from a risky court case. And it's a bit long - 10 programmes could have been edited down to 5 without losing any information.
It'll frustrate you the same way Serial did in that it's not all tied up with a bow at the end. But I did find it more engaging than Serial, while also much more disturbing since parts of it are some completely beyond the pale, much more so than in the Syed case.
It's not really so much the question of who did the crimes it's more an eye-opnener into how the police, legal and court system misbehaved every step of the way because right or wrong they were certain they had their man.
Normally not really as US law mandates that the the defendant should be judged in the state and district where they crime has been committed.
The US/State attorney might step in if there is enough proof for misconduct especially if the DA cannot be trusted to handle the case impartially.
Other than that the normal appeal process is still accessible they can appeal to Courts of Appeals which is split to 12 regional circuits so this would technically allow you to get judged "out of state" not sure how far it is, or if you can appeal to be judged in another circuit.
Normally there isn't a way for people to be judged out of state mostly because they are judged according to state and local laws which can't be upheld by a different court unless the case is federal and then they go through the federal court system.
And there isn't really another way for this process to work the defendant can't be expected to be able to choose where they'll be tried because it basically allows them to choose how they will be sentenced or even if they have committed a crime in the first place.
I'm not sure if this will go to another "trial" if there will be clear evidence of prosecutorial misconduct they might hold another one, but they did deny an appeal in 2008.
That said apparently the DA did act appropriately as there was a clear case of conflict of interest they've delegated the case to the adjacent district which handled the prosecution and most of the investigation.
From what I've read about the case this isn't just a clear cut case the documentary did present quite a bit of evidence but it was very cherry picked I'm not entirely sold what actually happened.
My biggest grief with this documentary isn't that it drives and agenda is that it does it on an "active case" this is a sad story indeed but this should've been done on a different case perhaps I would assume that there are plenty of miscarriage of justice cases that are over which could've been used.
I hope there will be an investigation in this manner but even the most biased news coverage of any criminal case doesn't formulate and opinion of the matter as much as this docu did, and this can poison any potential future investigation or trial for better or for worse.
But the prosecutors also manipulated the public opinion with that public conferences about that what Brendan and Steven supposedly made to the victim, only based in a doubtful and manipulated confession of Brendan.
Again not claiming that this was handled even remotely appropriately but 2 wrongs do not make it right.
I wouldn't want the media being used to institute an opinion within the general public regardless if they are doing it for the prosecution or the defense.
If anything should be taken from this and from many other public cases is that we really need much more stricter ethical guidelines about how criminal and civil cases are handled by the media. When the media can be used as a tool to affect public opinion it can be used to affect potential outcome of trials and that's very bad place to be.
Heck even pre-trial coverage can change the outcome of many cases then the media reports that they caught a guy and builds a case that they are guilty people would put less effort into doing due diligence the police might not chase up on additional leads, people who might have had details are not less likely to come forward because they caught the guy so why should they bother and some of the witnesses that already came forward will start rehashing what they've seen on the news even if only unconsciously.
Heck at this point you might be able to actually get out of guilty verdict by getting some PR company to spam as much misinformation about the incident as possible poisoning all the witnesses it only takes a handful of inaccuracies between the initial statement and the trail deposition for the defense to rip the witnesses apart.
My reaction was probably one that is a lot more relevant to the Hacker News community: between that and the incessant news about shootings (either by the Police on African American, or by toddlers), the alarming ratio of car accidents that cannot be prevented by driving safely (namely, the amount or rear-ending at red-lights that the Google Car is victim of), there is no way I’d like to work in the US. Seeing how bigoted so many jurors appear to be, how indefensible are some of the lawyers… that makes it all too likely that you go from commuting to a great job to a hell hole with no recourse. Any private option (say, for health-related issues) is too likely to be tied to employment, and getting fired after the incident and left in the cold sounds also too likely.
Investors should really start considering the consequence those events have on their companies’ ability to attract talent.
You're cherry-picking some of the worst the US has to offer and painting the entire country with that brush. Which is an intellectually dishonest thing to do. Or, at least, intellectually lazy.
I am commenting news and its impact on my personal decision that I believe are representative for a large section of the Hacker News community.
I would like to be cherry-picking, but a large minority of friends who have lived in the US have similarly frightening story of abuse of power, or excessive force.
One thing that also makes me less likely to come to the US is to be physically confronted to people as curt, visibly aggressive and lacking self-criticism as you. I do believe that that prosecutor’s attitude and your response share something, visibly more common in the US: something that is often described as having a “cow-boy attitude”.
I actually mostly followed the US news, check the New York Times: Trump daily dose of blatant racist, Obama apparently the only one who wants to curb gun violence, some cop murdered a African-American women and gets away with a slap on the wrist, a story about systemic rape from a football team at a major US university…
Then, please go and insult the editor-in-chief of the New York Times — not me.
What I cherry-picked was how my brother left the US after an arrest in the nearby house involved law-enforcement firing 12,000 rounds at a single crouching suspect, and they had to leave because his wife and two kids couldn’t sleep after that; how the CEO of the start-up I was working for was mugged; how my closest friend was victim of an extreme-rendition at the border after he showed a hand-written letter by the Dean of Harvard inviting him to teach; how my manager had his passport confiscated… I know work with a team that is partially in Chicago: do I need to say more?
The twelve people the closest to me who went to the US all had beyond traumatic experiences. Imagining anything involving a prosecutor like the one portrayed there just sends shivers through my spine.
Sounds like the same sort of flawed conclusion that we Americans can be all too guilty of when thinking of other countries (like, that all French people are rude, all middle easterners hate Americans, etc). Even with everything you say above, car accidents are extremely rare, being harassed by police is extremely rare, etc. None of that stuff is anywhere close to "all too likely".
Do you think that I know (well) people that have being through painful enough experience personally to refuse to stay and work in the US?
If you guess less than a dozen, you are far below: TSA abuse, Police escalation, legal problems related to a health-related debt… I’m happy for you that you apparently haven’t. I cannot exclude it myself.
I never cease to be amazed at how ready people are to believe a single narrative, and once it's set in their mind, disregard all conflicting information. Good old confirmation bias.
It seems to me that the Ockham's Razor approach to this whole mess is to conclude that Steven Avery killed her and then ditched her car and maybe her remains somewhere else, and then the cops were worried he'd get away with it so they planted it all back on his property.
My understanding is that this is a documentary on the failings of judicial process in Wisconsin. I mean: it is not very entertaining, far less so than fictions on Netflix.
If you take away the main case (admittedly murkier), there is nothing more cringe-inducing that the details about the nephew’s case. It is just painful to listen to; everything about it talks about how a mentally handicapped relative, who had nothing to do with the case, was (on camera) abused by authority figures, and then wronged at every step of the judicial process. This is the least entertaining thing that I have seen all week (and I watched videos on how to set-up Docker), by far. It seems to me that this part is a highly relevant documentary on key failings of the process for younger or uneducated people. That kind of description cannot be satisfied by fiction. That kind of description is necessary to set up and improve the judicial process.
https://twitter.com/TODAYshow/status/684373410038718464
(In the video attached to the tweet, one of the creators of the documentary claims they have since been contacted by one of the jurors from Steven Avery's trial, who stated they felt he was innocent however voted guilty as they feared for their personal safety.)