'Making a Murderer"

RomanceManaged

Has anyone else watched this ?

It showed up on my feed, so I thought I would give it a try. I binge watched the full season in a day, and the whole thing has me sitting here thinking.

Anyone else watched and want to share thoughts ?

spockforprez

We just got finished bingeing. So good. I definitely see the parallels to Serial.

Here's what I'm sure of: 

• Brendan Dassey did not kill, rape, or even see Theresa Halbach
• Manitowoc PD absolutely, 1000000% planted evidence on the Avery property
• I have no faith in the legal system whatsoever

I'm not sure Steven didn't kill her. I want to be sure, but I'm not. Not 100%, anyway. Maybe something like 80% sure.

There were a lot of good points raised, like why he didn't crush her car in their compactor, that there was no DNA evidence she'd even been in the house, that Bobby Dassey, Kayla, and many others were lying to police when they incriminated Steven, etc.

But ultimately I'm just not sure.

RomanceManaged

All great points. FI and I had a good natured debate over it last night. He thinks without any doubt Steven is innocent. Heres my list of what I'm sure of:

• Brendan Dassey had no connection. At all. He was a scared boy who had been forced into that confession.
  
• That key, and the blood was planted. Absolutely.
  
• Steven was about to win a $36 MILLION dollar lawsuit that would bankrupt a lot of people. That sounds like motive.
  

However, some things weren't cut and dry. For instance, the bullet. How was it a bullet, matching the murder weapon came to be in his garage ? It seems like a whole lot of trouble to kill this poor woman, and then plant the bullet. Thats a big deal. And for that matter, why was he selling a gun, some days later. Thats suspicious to me, like woah. I think its entirely possible that while these police officers were patrolling (Stalking, IMHO) that perhaps they witnessed something. And they wanted to make sure there was no way he would walk for the murder. So they planted evidence that would ensure he would never be released.

Wow. That was ranty. Sorry! Its just got me thinking so much. I think I'm also at least 80% sure he didn't do it.

spockforprez

RomanceManaged said:

All great points. FI and I had a good natured debate over it last night. He thinks without any doubt Steven is innocent. Heres my list of what I'm sure of:

• Brendan Dassey had no connection. At all. He was a scared boy who had been forced into that confession.
• That key, and the blood was planted. Absolutely.
• Steven was about to win a $36 MILLION dollar lawsuit that would bankrupt a lot of people. That sounds like motive.

However, some things weren't cut and dry. For instance, the bullet. How was it a bullet, matching the murder weapon came to be in his garage ? It seems like a whole lot of trouble to kill this poor woman, and then plant the bullet. Thats a big deal. And for that matter, why was he selling a gun, some days later. Thats suspicious to me, like woah. I think its entirely possible that while these police officers were patrolling (Stalking, IMHO) that perhaps they witnessed something. And they wanted to make sure there was no way he would walk for the murder. So they planted evidence that would ensure he would never be released. Wow. That was ranty. Sorry! Its just got me thinking so much. I think I'm also at least 80% sure he didn't do it.

Huh, the bolded is SUCH a good point! I didn't think of that at all. 

The evidence against Manitowoc PD is so damning I can't believe Steven didn't win at trial. ESPECIALLY Lt. (or Sgt. or whatever) Colburn KNOWING the plate, model, and year of Theresa's car TWO DAYS before it was found in the Averys' salvage yard. 

Haha, look at all those caps, who's ranting now?! It's definitely a ranty type of situation. It infuriates me. Especially Brendan.

And I teared up when Kayla was on the stand admitting she lied. Poor girl. I think she wanted the attention from the police not realizing what consequences her actions had.

Also, fuck Len Kachinsky and Michael O'Kelly with dildos made of rusty nails. And fuck Ken Kratz with three of them. 

RomanceManaged

AND!!!!! The woman who found the car on the salvage lot looked for FIFTEEN minutes!! On 44 acres of vehicles. 15 minutes to find her car. Whether or not Avery was innocent, I think the PD absolutely planted evidence. Especially since Lenk said he originally checked in at 6 or 7pm, but changed it to 2:45 when they questioned why he didn't check in. He lied. Under oath. Twice. Why was that ignored ? So much doesnt make sense. Apparently theres a petition through whitehouse.gov to reopen the case, and I really hope they do. I have a feeling I'm going to obsess over this for a long time!

arrippa

I haven't seen it but I did read an article about people leaving Yelp reviews for the district attorney featured on the show. http://www.vulture.com/2015/12/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-roasted-on-yelp.html#

cupcait927

H and I are four episodes in and are totally hooked. I didn't read the rest of the thread (in case of spoilers!) but we plan on finishing it over the long weekend. It's so good!

kaos16

RomanceManaged said:

All great points. FI and I had a good natured debate over it last night. He thinks without any doubt Steven is innocent. Heres my list of what I'm sure of:

• Brendan Dassey had no connection. At all. He was a scared boy who had been forced into that confession.
• That key, and the blood was planted. Absolutely.
• Steven was about to win a $36 MILLION dollar lawsuit that would bankrupt a lot of people. That sounds like motive.

However, some things weren't cut and dry. For instance, the bullet. How was it a bullet, matching the murder weapon came to be in his garage ? It seems like a whole lot of trouble to kill this poor woman, and then plant the bullet. Thats a big deal. And for that matter, why was he selling a gun, some days later. Thats suspicious to me, like woah. I think its entirely possible that while these police officers were patrolling (Stalking, IMHO) that perhaps they witnessed something. And they wanted to make sure there was no way he would walk for the murder. So they planted evidence that would ensure he would never be released. Wow. That was ranty. Sorry! Its just got me thinking so much. I think I'm also at least 80% sure he didn't do it.

Admittedly, I haven't watched the show yet, but it's my understanding that his lawsuit was for his wrongful conviction and imprisonment on the previous charge.  While he may have sued for $36 million the likelihood of him recovering that amount is actually really small.  Further, any settlement or win wouldn't bankrupt anyone. . . . . towns, counties, states all have insurance type policies for lawsuits such as this.  If anything, the trickle down effect would be an increase in taxes for a lot of people, but likely not too much at all.

I find it interesting that outsiders can say "without a doubt" or "1000% someone is innocent" when virtually nothing is absolutely certain in life, especially coming from people who weren't a party to what happened.   This is something that we criminal attorneys often question people about when picking juries.  It's a premise that fascinates me.

spockforprez

kaos16 said:

RomanceManaged said:

All great points. FI and I had a good natured debate over it last night. He thinks without any doubt Steven is innocent. Heres my list of what I'm sure of:

• Brendan Dassey had no connection. At all. He was a scared boy who had been forced into that confession.
• That key, and the blood was planted. Absolutely.
• Steven was about to win a $36 MILLION dollar lawsuit that would bankrupt a lot of people. That sounds like motive.

However, some things weren't cut and dry. For instance, the bullet. How was it a bullet, matching the murder weapon came to be in his garage ? It seems like a whole lot of trouble to kill this poor woman, and then plant the bullet. Thats a big deal. And for that matter, why was he selling a gun, some days later. Thats suspicious to me, like woah. I think its entirely possible that while these police officers were patrolling (Stalking, IMHO) that perhaps they witnessed something. And they wanted to make sure there was no way he would walk for the murder. So they planted evidence that would ensure he would never be released. Wow. That was ranty. Sorry! Its just got me thinking so much. I think I'm also at least 80% sure he didn't do it.

Admittedly, I haven't watched the show yet, but it's my understanding that his lawsuit was for his wrongful conviction and imprisonment on the previous charge.  While he may have sued for $36 million the likelihood of him recovering that amount is actually really small.  Further, any settlement or win wouldn't bankrupt anyone. . . . . towns, counties, states all have insurance type policies for lawsuits such as this.  If anything, the trickle down effect would be an increase in taxes for a lot of people, but likely not too much at all.

I find it interesting that outsiders can say "without a doubt" or "1000% someone is innocent" when virtually nothing is absolutely certain in life, especially coming from people who weren't a party to what happened.   This is something that we criminal attorneys often question people about when picking juries.  It's a premise that fascinates me.

Hmm. Yeah, watching the series would really help you understand the comments we are making. The insurance policies of the PD in question told the town to go fuck itself because of the nature of the allegations. So yes, the money would have come out of the town's (state's?) coffers. 

I agree he may not have won the full $36 million, but this was a huge, highly publicized case in which the wrongdoing on the part of the PD was so widely acknowledged that the state of Wisconsin created legislation to prevent it happening again and named it after Steven Avery. So I think he would have recovered quite nicely.

lembaslover

kaos16 said:

RomanceManaged said:

All great points. FI and I had a good natured debate over it last night. He thinks without any doubt Steven is innocent. Heres my list of what I'm sure of:

• Brendan Dassey had no connection. At all. He was a scared boy who had been forced into that confession.
• That key, and the blood was planted. Absolutely.
• Steven was about to win a $36 MILLION dollar lawsuit that would bankrupt a lot of people. That sounds like motive.

However, some things weren't cut and dry. For instance, the bullet. How was it a bullet, matching the murder weapon came to be in his garage ? It seems like a whole lot of trouble to kill this poor woman, and then plant the bullet. Thats a big deal. And for that matter, why was he selling a gun, some days later. Thats suspicious to me, like woah. I think its entirely possible that while these police officers were patrolling (Stalking, IMHO) that perhaps they witnessed something. And they wanted to make sure there was no way he would walk for the murder. So they planted evidence that would ensure he would never be released. Wow. That was ranty. Sorry! Its just got me thinking so much. I think I'm also at least 80% sure he didn't do it.

Admittedly, I haven't watched the show yet, but it's my understanding that his lawsuit was for his wrongful conviction and imprisonment on the previous charge.  While he may have sued for $36 million the likelihood of him recovering that amount is actually really small.  Further, any settlement or win wouldn't bankrupt anyone. . . . . towns, counties, states all have insurance type policies for lawsuits such as this.  If anything, the trickle down effect would be an increase in taxes for a lot of people, but likely not too much at all.

I find it interesting that outsiders can say "without a doubt" or "1000% someone is innocent" when virtually nothing is absolutely certain in life, especially coming from people who weren't a party to what happened.   This is something that we criminal attorneys often question people about when picking juries.  It's a premise that fascinates me.

I'm 5 episodes in. They mention in one of the early episodes that the insurance was refusing to cover the people charged by his lawsuit because of the nature of the issues or whatever. It sounded like typical insurance bullshit to me but the people being sued would have been held accountable and Steven was refusing to settle at that point.

So far my opinion is that he is totally guilty but the police are guilty of planting more evidence and trying to push the case to make sure they get him. Honestly Steven is a bad dude, he murdered a cat by lighting it on fire, was convicted of burglary, pulled a gun on his aunt, threatened to kill his wife while he was in jail... etc... He has violence issues so it's no wonder the local police department isn't a fan of him. However the second his name came up in that murder investigation a different department should have handled it because I do think his local police are corrupt. 

Also regarding Brendan Dassey, I feel bad for the kid. He clearly has some mental disabilities and didn't understand what he was saying at all. He changed his tune every time someone new talked to him because to make up for his mental disability he's learned how to read people really well and guess what they want him to say to get by in school. I'm not sure yet if he didn't see anything or if he just saw a small part but I'm sure he made up most of his story and just doesn't understand what he did. 

climbingsingle

kaos16 said:

RomanceManaged said:

All great points. FI and I had a good natured debate over it last night. He thinks without any doubt Steven is innocent. Heres my list of what I'm sure of:

• Brendan Dassey had no connection. At all. He was a scared boy who had been forced into that confession.
• That key, and the blood was planted. Absolutely.
• Steven was about to win a $36 MILLION dollar lawsuit that would bankrupt a lot of people. That sounds like motive.

However, some things weren't cut and dry. For instance, the bullet. How was it a bullet, matching the murder weapon came to be in his garage ? It seems like a whole lot of trouble to kill this poor woman, and then plant the bullet. Thats a big deal. And for that matter, why was he selling a gun, some days later. Thats suspicious to me, like woah. I think its entirely possible that while these police officers were patrolling (Stalking, IMHO) that perhaps they witnessed something. And they wanted to make sure there was no way he would walk for the murder. So they planted evidence that would ensure he would never be released. Wow. That was ranty. Sorry! Its just got me thinking so much. I think I'm also at least 80% sure he didn't do it.

Admittedly, I haven't watched the show yet, but it's my understanding that his lawsuit was for his wrongful conviction and imprisonment on the previous charge.  While he may have sued for $36 million the likelihood of him recovering that amount is actually really small.  Further, any settlement or win wouldn't bankrupt anyone. . . . . towns, counties, states all have insurance type policies for lawsuits such as this.  If anything, the trickle down effect would be an increase in taxes for a lot of people, but likely not too much at all.

I find it interesting that outsiders can say "without a doubt" or "1000% someone is innocent" when virtually nothing is absolutely certain in life, especially coming from people who weren't a party to what happened.   This is something that we criminal attorneys often question people about when picking juries.  It's a premise that fascinates me.

I find it interesting that you can make these comments without even watching 1 episode of the documentary.

I am 100% sure that Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey should not have been found guilty. The prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. 

kaos16

climbingwife said:

kaos16 said:

RomanceManaged said:

All great points. FI and I had a good natured debate over it last night. He thinks without any doubt Steven is innocent. Heres my list of what I'm sure of:

• Brendan Dassey had no connection. At all. He was a scared boy who had been forced into that confession.
• That key, and the blood was planted. Absolutely.
• Steven was about to win a $36 MILLION dollar lawsuit that would bankrupt a lot of people. That sounds like motive.

However, some things weren't cut and dry. For instance, the bullet. How was it a bullet, matching the murder weapon came to be in his garage ? It seems like a whole lot of trouble to kill this poor woman, and then plant the bullet. Thats a big deal. And for that matter, why was he selling a gun, some days later. Thats suspicious to me, like woah. I think its entirely possible that while these police officers were patrolling (Stalking, IMHO) that perhaps they witnessed something. And they wanted to make sure there was no way he would walk for the murder. So they planted evidence that would ensure he would never be released. Wow. That was ranty. Sorry! Its just got me thinking so much. I think I'm also at least 80% sure he didn't do it.

Admittedly, I haven't watched the show yet, but it's my understanding that his lawsuit was for his wrongful conviction and imprisonment on the previous charge.  While he may have sued for $36 million the likelihood of him recovering that amount is actually really small.  Further, any settlement or win wouldn't bankrupt anyone. . . . . towns, counties, states all have insurance type policies for lawsuits such as this.  If anything, the trickle down effect would be an increase in taxes for a lot of people, but likely not too much at all.

I find it interesting that outsiders can say "without a doubt" or "1000% someone is innocent" when virtually nothing is absolutely certain in life, especially coming from people who weren't a party to what happened.   This is something that we criminal attorneys often question people about when picking juries.  It's a premise that fascinates me.

I find it interesting that you can make these comments without even watching 1 episode of the documentary.

I am 100% sure that Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey should not have been found guilty. The prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. 

box issue:
This is a statement I can get on board with. If you saw all of the evidence presented in the trial and come to that conclusion, that's the way the justice system is supposed to work.  It is much, much different than the statements I referenced above.  I'm just saying that reasonable doubt and no doubt at all are two different things.

I intend to watch the program, but I don't see how doing so will change my opinion on proof levels required in a criminal trial.

spockforprez

@kaos16, I think once you watch the series you will understand the context of what we are saying. It will take you about 11 hours so hurry back!  

RomanceManaged

I think his guilt is a possibility. There is too much in the case that doesn't make sense. However, I feel that too much was too clean. If someone is shot point blank, in a cluttered garage, how is it possible that no trace evidence of blood was found ? I just simply cannot believe that this man, with a lower standard of intelligence was able to clean every single piece of equipment in the 4 days before the property was seized.

My personal theory is that since he was already under constant watch, as soon as he got out of prison they showed the logs in which an officer was watching him, they saw something. Whether the officers witnessed her rape in the gravel pit, or something. So they manipulated the evidence to ensure nothing in the case could be thrown out.

But, there is also so much evidence pointing to his innocence as well. Its a really interesting docuseries, and a day later, FI and I are still discussing it!

glasgowtolondon

I didn't want to read this thread till now as I was scared of any spoilers! We just finished this (blew through it in a day and a half, made me wish I hadn't made plans for NYE ha!).

I personally am not 100% sure of Steve Averys innocence, but based on what I've seen here I just felt that nothing the state argued showed guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm of the opinion that its better to have 100 guilty men walk free than 1 innocent man locked up, so it was quite upsetting to see a guilty verdict based on so much that didn't add up and some seemingly shady practises.

Two things continue to bother me. 1) There was no DNA evidence in that crazy mess of a garage. Nowhere. Did he hire Winston Wolf to clean the place??? 2) The police didn't ask for alibis from anyone else at all. Not even as a 'hey, just for our records' kind of thing. Not even her ex BF or room mate.

All in all I'm just quite saddened by the whole thing. Whether he truly is innocent or not there were some truly shocking practices in this case. Ugh, one if those things that will no doubt play on my mind for some time.

ClaraGrace

Brendan Dassey seems not guilty of murder, to me.  I'm not sure he's 100% innocent of any involvement however.

Steven Avery seems guilty to me, but yes, the case isn't that clean either.  But he still presented as a violent predator.  

I kind of suspect the questionable practices were from a very few people, but it's also not a new issue in the US.  David Kofoed for example who ran a department for 9 years before he was caught planting evidence.  Cameron Todd Willingham case is beyond tragic and full of railroading a potentially innocent man until the state murdered him. 

And all of that being said, I have sat on jury trials.  I will never blame a jury for their work at one of the most thankless civil duties Americans have, despite the fact that we should be honored to perform the duty.  

luvskittles55

ClaraGrace said:

Brendan Dassey seems not guilty of murder, to me.  I'm not sure he's 100% innocent of any involvement however.

Steven Avery seems guilty to me, but yes, the case isn't that clean either.  But he still presented as a violent predator.  

I kind of suspect the questionable practices were from a very few people, but it's also not a new issue in the US.  David Kofoed for example who ran a department for 9 years before he was caught planting evidence.  Cameron Todd Willingham case is beyond tragic and full of railroading a potentially innocent man until the state murdered him. 

And all of that being said, I have sat on jury trials.  I will never blame a jury for their work at one of the most thankless civil duties Americans have, despite the fact that we should be honored to perform the duty.  

I just watched a 20/20 on the ID Channel on Kofoed. I couldnt believe the parallels! Forced confession and (potentially) planted blood evidence.

AddieCake

Just finished this. I am not certain of Avery's innocence, but there is certainly enough reasonable doubt for me that had I been a juror, I would have to vote to acquit. 

redoryx

Having watched it, I feel confident that

• Brendan had absolutely no connection
• The cops planted evidence. 

I'm not entirely sure on Steve's guilt or innocence. The planted evidence doesn't necessarily exonerate Steve, although for me it presented enough reasonable doubt. 

Seriously, though, the entire situation with Brendan gave me so much anxiety. The entire scene with the investigator and the "are you sorry or not sorry" form. Like, what the fuck. The investigator was supposed to be on HIS side, I mean jesus. 

RomanceManaged

The thing with Brendan that made me the most upset was when they were asking him what he did to her head. At this point you can clearly see he is grasping at straws to tell them what they want to hear, so he says "I cut her hair" and the investigator gets so pissed that he just says "Fine. i'm done. Tell me who shot her in the head". Of course Brendan said it was Steven.

I agree that it didn't 100% convince me that he is innocent, but that there was absolutely enough evidence to acquit, or call it a mistrial.

kvruns

I'm conflicted on it, I can't decide what to believe. The interviews with Brendan are hard to watch because it just seems like he's just saying random things and waiting to see if it is right from the investigators. I was most mad at his attorney Len and the investigator having him write that confession/draw pictures. I was also mad that no where in his testimony (included on the show anyway) does he bring up feeling coerced by the police in his initial confessions. I have read online that there are other parts from his interviews and testimony where he gave a more clear picture and didn't seem to just be guessing like he did on the taped confession in the show.

Steven I'm not sure. My H thinks it is all a police conspiracy and they saw a woman on his property, police killed her etc and planted it all. I don't think that, but I do think there was probably some police planting of evidence to make it easier to convict him and also just some bungled investigation. I don't think the police killed her, but I think it is possible someone else did and blamed it on Steven and then the evidence was made against him.

I'm also sure there is more to it than what is included in the documentary so it would be nice to see some of the other evidence that wasn't included. Still have questions such as the police guy Colborn who called in the plates a day before the car was discovered and then if the police did plant the key, how did they get the key unless they really were involved in her disappearance?

kaos16

RomanceManaged said:

I think his guilt is a possibility. There is too much in the case that doesn't make sense. However, I feel that too much was too clean. If someone is shot point blank, in a cluttered garage, how is it possible that no trace evidence of blood was found ? I just simply cannot believe that this man, with a lower standard of intelligence was able to clean every single piece of equipment in the 4 days before the property was seized. My personal theory is that since he was already under constant watch, as soon as he got out of prison they showed the logs in which an officer was watching him, they saw something. Whether the officers witnessed her rape in the gravel pit, or something. So they manipulated the evidence to ensure nothing in the case could be thrown out. But, there is also so much evidence pointing to his innocence as well. Its a really interesting docuseries, and a day later, FI and I are still discussing it!

I only remember seeing logs where they were watching the other guy implicated in the attempted rape on the beach that Steven did time for.  Did I miss something?  

kaos16

spockforprez said:

@kaos16, I think once you watch the series you will understand the context of what we are saying. It will take you about 11 hours so hurry back!  

I have now watched the entire series.  DH has been telling everyone to check it out since we finished.  It's craziness. 

I would like to think that Brendan had nothing to do with it.  I feel bad for the kid, it's as though he never had a chance.  I have a hard time saying he is innocent just from what was shown in the series, because they showed virtually none of his trial. . . . just the confessions.  The fact that Dean Strang feels so strongly about his innocence leads me to believe that there wasn't any real evidence presented in his trial (the parts that we didn't see).  I also find it quite problematic that he was convicted of accessory to a body mutilation when Steven was found not guilty of the mutilation.  That charge should have been tossed before trial, IMO.

The big thing that I simply can't wrap my head around. . . . somebody killed Teresa.  Who?  I would hate to think that the police killed her.  It's also pretty incredible to think that the police were out hunting for a dead body to plant on Steven, especially in such a sleepy county, that doesn't have many murders.   How did a dead body just fall into some a perfect setup against Steven?  

lembaslover

DH and I finished the series this weekend. Honestly I still have a lot of the same opinions as I stated above and I realize they aren't the popular opinion. I feel like and have read articles stating that the documentary was quite 1 sided and that they didn't display all of the evidence the state had just what the defense had arguments against. I feel like that has to be the case because I can't see 12 reasonable people believing there was no reasonable doubt. I'd be really interested to see what was left out of the documentary because while I liked it and found it really interesting i didn't like that it seemed like it had an agenda to free Steven and Brendan and bash law enforcement rather then provide both sides like I felt the podcast Serial did. 

I also disagree with everyone bashing Brendan's first lawyer. His first lawyer's tactic was to plead guilty, blame it all on Steven's influence, and get a deal. To do that Brendan had to confess and show that he was sorry for what he did and that he was forced to by Steven. Was this the best route? I'm not sure, I don't think anyone is without all of the evidence. I think since there were already taped confessions by the police it was probably the easiest route and the most likely to not involve serious jail time. What hurt Brendan was when he/his mom decided he didn't want to make a plea deal in which case yea the lawyer's actions hurt his overall trial where he claimed he was innocent. I don't agree with how the police got his first confession though and do feel like he was either not involved or not to the extent he said he was.

PamBeesly524

I saw today that over 200,000 people have signed a petition to pardon Steve Avery... There is no way that we have enough information from that documentary to make a decision to pardon him! I would probably sign something to at least have the case looked at or reopened, but pardon him? No way.

spockforprez

I agree that I would never sign a petition to pardon him. 

Sometimes I wonder, if he did kill her, about his motivation. Like maybe there was a bit of a superman complex, "I was wronged by the police and will win millions for it, I am untouchable." Maybe he did it just to prove to himself he wouldn't get caught for it. I'm not sure.

I didn't know about the camera and palm pilot @scribe95. Is there a good resource for more info about the case?

kvruns

@spockforprez this link had some info on supposed evidence not included in the show: http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

lnixon8

Not to turn this into a black lives vs. blue lives matter thread jack but a lot of my fb friends that are cops have been sharing this one sketchy article about what the documentary missed and mentioned porn was in his home. Nothing graphic but porn. If that's the case there must be a lot of murderers walking free.

climbingsingle

marriedhamstermom said:

DH and I finished the series this weekend. Honestly I still have a lot of the same opinions as I stated above and I realize they aren't the popular opinion. I feel like and have read articles stating that the documentary was quite 1 sided and that they didn't display all of the evidence the state had just what the defense had arguments against. I feel like that has to be the case because I can't see 12 reasonable people believing there was no reasonable doubt. I'd be really interested to see what was left out of the documentary because while I liked it and found it really interesting i didn't like that it seemed like it had an agenda to free Steven and Brendan and bash law enforcement rather then provide both sides like I felt the podcast Serial did. 

I also disagree with everyone bashing Brendan's first lawyer. His first lawyer's tactic was to plead guilty, blame it all on Steven's influence, and get a deal. To do that Brendan had to confess and show that he was sorry for what he did and that he was forced to by Steven. Was this the best route? I'm not sure, I don't think anyone is without all of the evidence. I think since there were already taped confessions by the police it was probably the easiest route and the most likely to not involve serious jail time. What hurt Brendan was when he/his mom decided he didn't want to make a plea deal in which case yea the lawyer's actions hurt his overall trial where he claimed he was innocent. I don't agree with how the police got his first confession though and do feel like he was either not involved or not to the extent he said he was.

Brendan's first lawyer and that investigator were not working in his best interest. He can counsel his client to take a deal, but Brendan kept telling them he was innocent. The investigator tried to coerce another confession. Laying out the pictures of Teresa and that ribbon? Come on! That was total BS. 

lembaslover

climbingwife said:

marriedhamstermom said:

DH and I finished the series this weekend. Honestly I still have a lot of the same opinions as I stated above and I realize they aren't the popular opinion. I feel like and have read articles stating that the documentary was quite 1 sided and that they didn't display all of the evidence the state had just what the defense had arguments against. I feel like that has to be the case because I can't see 12 reasonable people believing there was no reasonable doubt. I'd be really interested to see what was left out of the documentary because while I liked it and found it really interesting i didn't like that it seemed like it had an agenda to free Steven and Brendan and bash law enforcement rather then provide both sides like I felt the podcast Serial did. 

I also disagree with everyone bashing Brendan's first lawyer. His first lawyer's tactic was to plead guilty, blame it all on Steven's influence, and get a deal. To do that Brendan had to confess and show that he was sorry for what he did and that he was forced to by Steven. Was this the best route? I'm not sure, I don't think anyone is without all of the evidence. I think since there were already taped confessions by the police it was probably the easiest route and the most likely to not involve serious jail time. What hurt Brendan was when he/his mom decided he didn't want to make a plea deal in which case yea the lawyer's actions hurt his overall trial where he claimed he was innocent. I don't agree with how the police got his first confession though and do feel like he was either not involved or not to the extent he said he was.

Brendan's first lawyer and that investigator were not working in his best interest. He can counsel his client to take a deal, but Brendan kept telling them he was innocent. The investigator tried to coerce another confession. Laying out the pictures of Teresa and that ribbon? Come on! That was total BS. 

I disagree I think they did have his best interest and that his best chance was blaming it all on Steven and making a plea. Could they have handled it better? Sure but he was making it difficult by changing his story and I think that's where it got a bit gray with the tactics they used. The lawyer had a different strategy and honestly considering using the second lawyers strategy that he was convicted by a jury, the first strategy probably would have worked better.

Read the article kvruns posted on the last post of the first page of this thread. There was a lot of evidence left out. There's a lot of stuff Brendan tells his mother not coerced by the police and things he tells the police that they didn't show in the documentary that shows he wasn't just fed answers. 

I feel like that article sums up what I think and that is that the correct verdict was reached by incorrect means. I do feel sorry for Brendan though because I don't think he wanted to do what he did but was forced to by Steven.

climbingsingle

Brendan's first lawyer made comments to the press before even speaking with Brendan. How can that not make you question his motives!?!? 

If you watched the documentary and you don't truly believe that Brendan got a raw deal from the people that were supposed to help him, well, I don't think we watched the same thing.