|
It's important to remember this is a very one sided documentary that pushes you to think one way from the first episode onwards, and therefore is geared to ensure nothing really challenges the hero/villain characters. Like 'King of Kong' but a lot more serious. That being said, holy poo poo. The crazy thing is they undoubtedly went into this expecting him to have a public defender, and it's only because he's been fighting for settlement is he able to secure the work of a team of pretty awesome lawyers. If he had a public defender, none of the investigation would've taken place and it would've been an open and shut case. They might not have even dragged the kid into it (can't remember where that part lies in the timeline compared to when Stephen hires his guys). Anyway, if you liked that then watch this. Was mentioned in the thread earlier, but it's very good (made in 2000 and fairly low budget, but fits in with this spate of 'true crazy crimes you've never heard of' documentaries we're getting). Murder on a Sunday Morning https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWwf-uHrCIA It has a happier ending, I promise. But holy poo poo. The whole time it's a split between 'this kid is either an amazing liar or this police department is horribly corrupt'. EL BROMANCE fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Dec 29, 2015 |
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
One of the bits that got me was when you heard the phone call revealing that neither kid nor mother knows what 'inconsistent' means. I think it just rubbed it in that they just didn't have a chance. Also, was it the prosecution or the defence that asked him 'what the hell kind of book has these kind of crimes in?' and Brendan has an answer? I kind of punched the air a little bit then, as it gave some hope.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
MrCodeDude posted:This was a terribly depressing scene, but I took from it that while Brendan didn't know what the word meant, his mom wasn't sure what it meant as it pertained to his case. That is, she knew the definition, but wasn't sure how him giving inconsistent statements would affect his and/or Steve's criminal cases. I'll have to find the scene and watch again, it's certainly possible. I'm sure at that point she knows he's told them different stuff though, so she should've picked up on what they meant if she knew its definition. It's also sad that the police essentially treated the boy's mother like she was getting in their way, and was just a pain in the rear end. You could bet a million dollars of their kid was in that kind of trouble, they would be all over it themselves. It's interesting to think about putting the sheriffs dept/DAs into categories. I think it splits down to incompetent people, those who've been in an abusive system so long they don't realise what assholes they've become, and those who are genuinely evil.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
Wasn't that a judge?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
Never forget this:EL BROMANCE posted:It's important to remember this is a very one sided documentary that pushes you to think one way from the first episode onwards, and therefore is geared to ensure nothing really challenges the hero/villain characters. Like 'King of Kong' but a lot more serious. It is not in the filmmakers interest to include things like that accusation. You're supposed to be on his side, and throwing things like that challenges that. It's not unbiased filmmaking, it's designed to emotionally manipulate you against the state.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
If you click my quote you'll see I go on to say that, but let's not use the documentary as historical reference as to the guys character.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Yeah, sorry I wasn't meaning to infer that people were doing that here but reiterating that using a single source to make up a full mind about something isn't generally a great idea. I can completely understand the role of the filmmakers, who have put 10 years into something. They want their film to show a massive miscarriage of justice and therefore they had to show that in the best way they could, even if it meant leaving relevant information on the cutting room floor. They've also become close to the people involved over the ten year period I'm sure, and I can understand it being hard to then put something out that portrays them in a negative light - especially given that's all people around them want to do. They don't come across as a 'bad' family per se, but they're uneducated and insular. The letter between Len and McKelly is nasty as hell, but there's probably some truth in it too. It doesn't make their actions any more warranted however, and there's a clear distinction between the educated and powerful state against an odd family that are disliked by their peers. You can't point the blame at the Avery's as much because their behaviour is completed reflective of their environment. The film hints that Steven has major issues, and an 18 year stint away probably hasn't helped matters, but it's so hellbent on showing him as innocent that it hurts the overall message when you dig deeper and find out more about them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
The Google search suggestion of 'Steven Avery Board Game' sounded exciting, until clicking it revealed a boardgames designer named Steven Avery. I was looking forward to playing an adapted version of Monopoly with a space saying "Go Directly to Jail. Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect $36m".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Anon are generally full of poo poo because there's no central authority. They said they'd take on the Mexican gangs, and ran off scared and crying. Then they said they'd take on ISIS which has done precisely nothing. They unmasked some klans people but it was simply down to them messaging people on Facebook using a code that I doubt was particularly secretive, and there's dispute about how legit some of the names are. A bunch of them had klan poo poo all over their page anyway, so we're hardly hiding. Less talk, more action. And no more lovely videos.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
I just put on Dead Zachary, as I've heard for years it's very good. He drove a Toyota RAV4 and was shot with .22 caliber rounds. I don't think I've heard of the RAV4 before, don't think I'll be shortlisting if any time soon.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
He was wearing the off cuts from fingerless gloves. This allowed him to bleed all over the car without leaving any fingerprints.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Glenn_Beckett posted:So, out of curiosity, why does the entire internet think a guy who objectively obviously murdered a person didn't murder a person? The point is that the state appears unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did, and that the entire investigation was based around proving someone who had a lawsuit against people involved in the case was guilty, by any means necessary. Whether he committed the crime is somewhat irrelevant. The main things that caused a hiccup is that he had enough money from settlements to hire a lawyer who didn't think he was scum, and had a film crew following him for 10 years.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Glenn_Beckett posted:Oh, so a prosecution. Did you not feel some kind of connection with all the people with an IQ of 70?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Bug Bill Murray posted:Stop responding to bad trolling My comment still stands.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 12:23
|
|
|
Ok how about this: Avery has been an enemy of the town for many years, and his release from prison for the rape charges look bad. More than looking bad, there's enough evidence for him to claim against a lot of people who are either still active, or influential. A murder happens where Avery is the lead suspect. They genuinely, truly believe he is guilty of this. However, evidence isn't exactly forthcoming, and this guy has famously had an overturned case, so this one has to be overwhelmingly against him. He's only likely to be able to procure a public defender who likely has a ton of cases to deal with, and on first inspection appears guilty as hell. Does said defender look into the nooks and crannies, or does he prepare a basic defense that's probably based around a plea deal.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Also, what's the deal with the Kiss the Girls book he mentioned? Ive never seen it, but it was also made into a film. More likely he watched that than read a book, to be honest.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Catsplosion posted:I honestly dont get how people can still see Steven as guilty. I think if he was involved, it was under fairly different circumstances to the way that was portrayed. I'm guessing 'lie detectors' are just for tv show paternity tests and cop dramas, yeah? I'd be interested to know what the results of it would be on everyone involved though. Cops and accused.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Kingtheninja posted:Whatever happened with the blood vial? I remember having an oh poo poo moment when that showed up at the end of episode 4, but didn't really see it come into play during the trial. I thought that was a shocking piece of evidence. The cops asked the FBI to revive a testing method to show that the agent used to keep the blood fresh in the vial wasn't at the crime scene, and they were able to do this. The defence then brought in an expect who corroborated 'yeah that doesn't really mean poo poo, but they weren't asked to find it. They were asked to not find it and they succeeded at that'.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
Retail Slave posted:I'm from Wisconsin, but some of the accents in this series drive me bonkers. Especially the phone conversations. THA TITTY THRILLER posted:Don't be strange. You two will either love, or hate, this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRguRPcGMQA
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
I'm not sure you could consider anyone in the Avery family a reliable witness.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Schurik posted:"But mom, I can't watch Wrestlemania tomorrow if i go to jail for life for admitting to rape and murder" Brandon Dassey's room is currently a dumping ground for VHS recordings of WWE PPVs. Royal Rumble is next Sunday? Better tape it for when he gets out. If only they knew about the WWE Network for only 9.99.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
It was Ken Kratz, deleting his "romantic" messages from her inbox.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:All in all, the documentary is not about whether he did it or not, it's about how law enforcement and prosecution deprived him of a fair trial through incompetent and/or malicious actions. If it was cut better then yes, I agree. The documentary as we got it is more of an attempt to paint someone as innocent while also presenting the miscarriage of justice. Whether it's because they got too close, or they thought it would be a more thrilling and exciting watch? Who knows. It's probably one of those though. I'd prefer if we got something that didn't guide the viewers decision of Avery's level of guilt from the word go. Hell you have people in this thread saying other named people in the show are guilty of the crime based on a few minutes of purposely chosen clips from the trial, which is absolutely absurd.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Sarah Bellum posted:I suspect that those who believe the documentary was pushing the idea that Avery is complete innocent are the same who think he's guilty and say things like "well, the right person is in jail so the ends justify the means". It's not a whodunnit, it's a damning indictment of a broken system. You should be appalled at the means. Not at all, I have no decision as to the mans guilt because the trial is a write off and the documentary has its own agenda. If you can't see the documentary is obviously pushing a big story over the facts then all I can say is watch more documentaries about things that are properly documented elsewhere and you'll start seeing the signs. A good place to start is The King of Kong. Very entertaining stuff, but it's not particularly truthful. When you have only one source of information it's important to constantly question it, regardless as to whether you're enjoying it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:To those people that claim this documentary is one-sided, which it is, and have general criticsms of it...did you still enjoy it and would recommend it to others to watch? I have trouble reading those critical of the doc itself and am not sure if those still enjoyed watching it. Yes, it's still a good watch and there's still a lot that will annoy you (in the intended way). I thought The Jinx was better personally, but there's a lot to recommend regardless of how I felt about the approach.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Yes, but there's also the obvious intent to skew proceedings in order to form a set narrative and opinion to appeal to the viewer which this clearly does. The prosecutors play the role of the bad guys, Avery plays the hero when it clearly isn't as black and white as that. You can't get so close to one side of the case over the course of 10 years and present something that resembles a lack of bias, and they don't really attempt to. Why would they? They have an in, and they clearly hope there will be more to film in the future and they don't want to burn those bridges.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Cast Iron Brick posted:Except that you're confounding "hero" here to mean "Innocent" rather than what the documentary and evidence shows. A wrongfully convicted victim of a mishandled court case. But you're making my argument for me if you're saying that the documentary is trying to push the concept that he's innocent. I don't mean hero in the literal sense, but the fact it's made out that one side is right and one side is wrong. Is the court case mishandled? Yes, there's plenty to show that and I don't think any neutral party would argue that. Is Avery shown in favourable terms? Yes, virtually everyone who talks about him outside of the prosecution from when the trial starts is generally in favour of him beyond clips shown from the media (which are juxtaposed to highlight the problems). The show pushes that Avery is at least most likely innocent, if not completely backing that. Is Avery innocent? Maybe. Only he knows that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Yes I pretty much entirely agree with that, but I feel the filmmakers purposely push you to believe he's innocent as it makes it more black and white if the scandal extends to that degree. Some people will agree with the 'ends justifies the means' that the police likely went with. It makes for good TV too. It's done for a number of reasons as discussed before, but it's absolutely their intent.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:I'm way back on pg 1 while I watch ep 2, but so far I'm really enjoying this show, though not as much as The Jinx There's a good reason for that: The Jinx was better.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:Why do you think it was a better documentary? It was shorter  But no, I found it just worked that little bit better on almost all levels, and while both shows made you angry - that final episode of The Jinx is just amazing. The closest MaM comes is the blood tube evidence, but we all know how that played out. You also have the fascinating element where everything screams that this guy is guilty, and yet here he is on camera willing to talk. It's fascinating stuff. Just because I've mainly been pointing out things about MaM I don't like in the last few pages - that's just me noting things about it that I think stop something that's very good from being great. I welcome more of this kind of stuff over the next few years, but I'm weary of the cheap and poorly made cashins.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
If anything, this kinda made me remember to watch that 'Don't talk to the police' video on YouTube, which was enjoyable. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to talk to the members of my extended family who are police now, but luckily there's enough members of the extended family who are lawyers so I guess as long as everyone is in the room for Thanksgiving, it should go pleasantly and I won't implicate myself in a murder or anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
MrBuddyLee posted:If you take the Avery blood in the RAV4 as legit, you lock him up. Because he maintains that he was never in or near her car. There's no other explanation for how his blood got in there besides "he got framed" or "he did it". I agree, a thorough and independent test needs to be done on the blood there. Regardless of the incredibly dubious way the prosecution approached the case, if your interest is purely "is Avery innocent or guilty?" then that blood sample is the key.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
Jokes on him, his room at home is completely full of WWE VHS tapes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 22:17
|
|