Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't have any faith in someone that doesn't testify on their own behalf. You are being charged with murder, it doesn't get any worse than that.

Did he testify in the rape case?

You clearly have no clue how the legal system or reality work

Um...yeah I do know how reality works, which isn't always the same as how the legal system works. I do understand why a defendant might not want to or his/her attorney may not want it, but I can still not like it. I am not an outlier, "Polling data indicate that approximately half of all Americans believe that a defendant who does not testify in his or her own defense is guilty. Survey by Fox News and Opinion Dynamics, February 12–13, 2002. Retrieved April 25, 2008 from the iPOLL Databank, The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut."

He couldn't have been impeached with the rape charge because he was proven to be factually innocent. His other crimes, breaking & entering weren't that big of a deal. The animal abuse, I think he had only been charged with, no trial yet so don't think that could have been used against him. The Supreme determined, relatively recently, that defendants could be sworn in and testify on their own behalf because to “testify on one’s behalf is ‘[a right] . . . that is essential to due process of law in a fair adversary process." Essential to due process of the law, good enough reason for him to testify to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does everyone make of the young female cousin? She was very convincing on the stand that she'd made up the story, but how would she know to give some of those details if Dassey hadn't told her?

I believe her statement to police was made after a lot of the information was made public via Kratz's press conference. Not 100% sure but I think that's what I remember from the doc.

I'm fairly certain this isn't the case. I'm getting all the details confused now and would have to go back to see, but I think she told the school counselor. The school counselor then called the police, who then did a follow up interview with Dassey. It was during this follow up they got his confession.

One specific detail was that Dassey said he saw body parts in the fire. Dassey didn't tell them this until the follow up interview.

Yes, but the "body parts in the fire" was all over the news way prior to this. Not a far leap.

We just watched this episode last night. The prosecution pulled out Kayla's statement to the police, and she admitted that she made it up, having seen the details on television. She (said she) didn't do it to get Brendan in trouble, but thought what she'd seen on tv must be the truth, even if he wasn't admitting it.

They also played a clip of one of Brendan's "confessions" where it seemed like they pushed him to say he saw body parts in the fire. "What did you see in the fire, Brendan?" "A cabinet and tires and stuff." "Were there body parts in the fire?" "...There were garbage bags, so maybe..." "What body parts did you see in the fire, Brendan?" "...Toes..."

The whole thing makes me ill. Especially that O'Kelly guy who told him exactly what to confess in writing, emailed Brendan's (then) lawyer that all of the Avery family should be wiped out, and then cried on the stand. Ugh.

That was one of the most bizarre things I've seen someone on a witness stand do. Start crying for the victim even though you were supposed to be working for the defendant? WTF. If ever there was a case for several examples of conflict of interest, the Dassey/Avery cases would be it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those crying that the documentary is so one-sided and biased... documentaries are typically made to serve one side of an argument or the other. This is not new news.

Please watch something by Ken Burns. This is not the case.

Ken Burns is an artist- art is subjective- the end

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does everyone make of the young female cousin? She was very convincing on the stand that she'd made up the story, but how would she know to give some of those details if Dassey hadn't told her?

I believe her statement to police was made after a lot of the information was made public via Kratz's press conference. Not 100% sure but I think that's what I remember from the doc.

I'm fairly certain this isn't the case. I'm getting all the details confused now and would have to go back to see, but I think she told the school counselor. The school counselor then called the police, who then did a follow up interview with Dassey. It was during this follow up they got his confession.

One specific detail was that Dassey said he saw body parts in the fire. Dassey didn't tell them this until the follow up interview.

Yes, but the "body parts in the fire" was all over the news way prior to this. Not a far leap.

We just watched this episode last night. The prosecution pulled out Kayla's statement to the police, and she admitted that she made it up, having seen the details on television. She (said she) didn't do it to get Brendan in trouble, but thought what she'd seen on tv must be the truth, even if he wasn't admitting it.

They also played a clip of one of Brendan's "confessions" where it seemed like they pushed him to say he saw body parts in the fire. "What did you see in the fire, Brendan?" "A cabinet and tires and stuff." "Were there body parts in the fire?" "...There were garbage bags, so maybe..." "What body parts did you see in the fire, Brendan?" "...Toes..."

The whole thing makes me ill. Especially that O'Kelly guy who told him exactly what to confess in writing, emailed Brendan's (then) lawyer that all of the Avery family should be wiped out, and then cried on the stand. Ugh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does everyone make of the young female cousin? She was very convincing on the stand that she'd made up the story, but how would she know to give some of those details if Dassey hadn't told her?

I believe her statement to police was made after a lot of the information was made public via Kratz's press conference. Not 100% sure but I think that's what I remember from the doc.

I'm fairly certain this isn't the case. I'm getting all the details confused now and would have to go back to see, but I think she told the school counselor. The school counselor then called the police, who then did a follow up interview with Dassey. It was during this follow up they got his confession.

One specific detail was that Dassey said he saw body parts in the fire. Dassey didn't tell them this until the follow up interview.

Yes, but the "body parts in the fire" was all over the news way prior to this. Not a far leap.

Anonymous wrote:This is exactly the kind of show I like, yet I'm finding it doesn't hold my interest. I keep drifting off. Disappointing since I erupted my Netflix just for this.

How far have you gotten? I was a little bored in episode 1 but it gets WAY more captivating.

This is exactly the kind of show I like, yet I'm finding it doesn't hold my interest. I keep drifting off. Disappointing since I erupted my Netflix just for this.

Anonymous wrote:I can't have any faith in someone that doesn't testify on their own behalf. You are being charged with murder, it doesn't get any worse than that.

Did he testify in the rape case?

You clearly have no clue how the legal system or reality work

Anonymous wrote:I can't have any faith in someone that doesn't testify on their own behalf. You are being charged with murder, it doesn't get any worse than that.

Did he testify in the rape case?

I'm pretty sure >99% of attorneys would advise against testifying on your own behalf in these circumstances. As a former defense attorney, I can tell you I wouldn't testify on my own behalf against any charge that someone lobbed at me, and I haven't done anything criminal.

What happened to the presumption of innocence?

Anonymous wrote:I can't have any faith in someone that doesn't testify on their own behalf. You are being charged with murder, it doesn't get any worse than that.

Did he testify in the rape case?

I've heard it's actually not often in your best interest to testify in your own defense. Particularly given someone like Avery who had a bit of a checkered past, who had law enforcement out to get him in the past, a judicial system that failed him in the past, and given the fact that he wasn't the brightest bulb. All of those factors would've worked against him on the stand, particularly during cross examination. I've also heard juries don't hold it against you if you don't testify. In addition, even though Brendan testified, it obviously did very little to help his case.

I can't have any faith in someone that doesn't testify on their own behalf. You are being charged with murder, it doesn't get any worse than that.

Did he testify in the rape case?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those crying that the documentary is so one-sided and biased... documentaries are typically made to serve one side of an argument or the other. This is not new news.

Please watch something by Ken Burns. This is not the case.

Many are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Steven Avery thinks his brother(s) may have committed the murder-

http://www.businessinsider.com/making-a-murderer-convict-seven-avery-says-his-brothers-may-have-killed-teresa-halbach-2016-1

Wow I wish someone would do a new documentary and focus on all the new information we've heard since this series was released!

A lot of information the film makers kept out was deliberate. There was non-blood evidence revealed at trial that they did not include.

Basically, they were trying to feature a man wrongly jailed for rape, but the guy's a sleaze and actually murdered someone in the process of making their film. I think he was quite capable of murdering someone well b/f he went to jail for the rape he didn't commit.

This just doesn't make sense. He was free, had public opinion on his side, and stood to receive a $36 million payout from the county. He had a girlfriend and was going to get married. What possible motivation did he have to MURDER someone on his own property and then LEAVE ALL THE EVIDENCE THERE knowing the police had it out for him already?
.

I'm not opining on his guilt or innocence, but I don't think most people who commit murder make a pros and cons list first.

That's actually not the case - they didn't set out to make the film until after they heard he had been arrested for murder.

They obviously set out under the assumption that he was yet again being railroaded by local police.

I'm sorry but these "documentarians" are full of sh*t.

From the NPR interview:

MONTAGNE: As a teenager, Demos says, Steven Avery made a series of bad choices, like burglarizing a local tavern with friends.

DEMOS: These are felonies, but when you look at the actual report, it's about breaking in and making a cheese sandwich and stealing some beer.

MONTAGNE: But what turned out to be his most fateful bad choice was his decision to escalate feud with his own cousin, who was spreading nasty, humiliating rumors about him. One night, he decided he'd had enough. He ran her off a country road and pointed a gun at her he says was not loaded. Turns out, she was the wrong person to intimidate.

DEMOS: She was married to a sheriff's deputy. And there's certainly a line that he crossed there that it became personal."

Oh yeah, he made a cheese sandwich, and by the way, threw the family cat into a bonfire after pouring oil on it. You know, just normal, good hearted, boyish fun stuff. And there is no "wrong person" to intimidate by running them off the road and pointing a gun at them--it is illegal no matter who the victim is.

If Demos or Ricciardi were run off the road by some creep in a car who then pointed a gun at them, they wouldn't be downplaying this behavior as much. Cognitive dissonance to support their agenda.

Anonymous wrote:For those crying that the documentary is so one-sided and biased... documentaries are typically made to serve one side of an argument or the other. This is not new news.

Please watch something by Ken Burns. This is not the case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Steven Avery thinks his brother(s) may have committed the murder-

http://www.businessinsider.com/making-a-murderer-convict-seven-avery-says-his-brothers-may-have-killed-teresa-halbach-2016-1

Wow I wish someone would do a new documentary and focus on all the new information we've heard since this series was released!

A lot of information the film makers kept out was deliberate. There was non-blood evidence revealed at trial that they did not include.

Basically, they were trying to feature a man wrongly jailed for rape, but the guy's a sleaze and actually murdered someone in the process of making their film. I think he was quite capable of murdering someone well b/f he went to jail for the rape he didn't commit.

This just doesn't make sense. He was free, had public opinion on his side, and stood to receive a $36 million payout from the county. He had a girlfriend and was going to get married. What possible motivation did he have to MURDER someone on his own property and then LEAVE ALL THE EVIDENCE THERE knowing the police had it out for him already?
.

I'm not opining on his guilt or innocence, but I don't think most people who commit murder make a pros and cons list first.

That's actually not the case - they didn't set out to make the film until after they heard he had been arrested for murder.