Making a Murderer (Netflix) - New info

Column_sl said:

You don't need spoken narration to be biased, it can be edited in a way to influence your audience.

That being said If I was on that Jury I would have probably let this man go if everything in this Documentary is accurate and the Documentarian didn't edit out any key moments in that courtroom's history.

Click to expand...

What key moments in that courtroom did they a) edit out that proves the jury made the right decision and b) changes the fact that what we did see sure seems like enough to raise reasonable doubts and jury instructions are literally that you should not convict if you have any reasonable doubts.

A documentary about failures and shortcomings of our justice system documents failures and shortcomings of our justice system and the best point of discussion some people can make afterword is that it's bias because it only covered the subject it was documenting.

In other news, I muted the commentators during the Vikings game today because it was so one-sided and biased since the only talked about other really cold football games and completely refused to present how cold hockey is even indoors and that there have been some cold baseball games too!

cocksuckerbreath_sl said:

I don't think even Column wants to be associated with you and your retardation. But nice try.

Click to expand...

Just put me on ignore, muffin

What key moments in that courtroom did they a) edit out that proves the jury made the right decision and b) changes the fact that what we did see sure seems like enough to raise reasonable doubts and jury instructions are literally that you should not convict if you have any reasonable doubts.

Click to expand...

You are asking me to take the Documentary at face value with no follow up research.

If I had to answer that question it would take more research then I care to put into an event I really have no passion for.

That's why I left the caveat, " If the Documentary is 100% accurate with nothing hidden that could be key to my decision making process, then this is the way I would decide on the debate"

chaos_sl said:

Cad maybe you know, how common is it for the judge to limit what the defense can argue as far as theories and potential suspects like they did in this case? The liability argument didn't seem especially terrible to me but I was curious if that is common or not.

Click to expand...

It was pretty much only limited to this extent because Wisconsin has a law that says you aren't allowed to point the finger at other suspects without meeting the burden that they had motive, means, etc. That a judge could allow it, but the judge here said nobody the defense brought up met that burden, primarily because they had no motive. For some reason, having no motive is enough to try a man for murder with a lot of questionable evidence, but others potential suspects didn't have enough of a motive to be presented as alternate suspects despite, arguably, having as much or more motive, just as much means and opportunity, etc. And of course there wasn't enough evidence to strongly point to another suspect in large part because the police didn't investigate other suspects.

It's another area that is cause for concern in our system. One judge decides you aren't allowed to present evidence or other suspects, and that can drastically change the course of a trial. Like dismissing a defense attorney for not working in the best interest of their client, but not the evidence that was a direct result of that defense attorney's dishonest efforts.

The motive for rape is more often than not that they wanted to rape that person. Complaining of no motive is retarded. What was Gregory Allen's motive?

Column_sl said:

You are asking me to take the Documentary at face value with no follow up research.

If I had to answer that question it would take more research then I care to put into an event I really have no passion for.

That's why I left the caveat, " If the Documentary is 100% accurate with nothing hidden that could be key to my decision making process, then this is the way I would decide on the debate"

Click to expand...

Wait, let me get this straight... you're offended someone would ask you to respond critically to what you saw in a documentary without you doing follow up research, then admit you won't waste your precious time on research because you really don't care.

So, your only point was to come to proclaim all documentaries are biased because human nature contains natural bias?

What exactly wasn't accurate in the documentary? Or do you not need to bother to back up that claim because by nature nothing can ever be known to be 100% correct.

I hear there are other threads where people are commenting that they enjoyed a movie. You should probably go mention to them that no movie is perfect and nobody likes everything so that there are probably people who didn't like the movie they like. It could really change their world view!

But, yeah, I get it, it's easier to just dismiss something as bullshit so you can be cool and a part of the discussion rather than actually providing any insight into what's being discussed or defense of the position you're taking. Good discussion, man.

Do they tell the jury about that rule?

Seems important for the jury to know why there aren't any alternative theories being given.

popsicledeath_sl said:

It was pretty much only limited to this extent because Wisconsin has a law that says you aren't allowed to point the finger at other suspects without meeting the burden that they had motive, means, etc. That a judge could allow it, but the judge here said nobody the defense brought up met that burden, primarily because they had no motive. For some reason, having no motive is enough to try a man for murder with a lot of questionable evidence, but others potential suspects didn't have enough of a motive to be presented as alternate suspects despite, arguably, having as much or more motive, just as much means and opportunity, etc. And of course there wasn't enough evidence to strongly point to another suspect in large part because the police didn't investigate other suspects.

It's another area that is cause for concern in our system. One judge decides you aren't allowed to present evidence or other suspects, and that can drastically change the course of a trial. Like dismissing a defense attorney for not working in the best interest of their client, but not the evidence that was a direct result of that defense attorney's dishonest efforts.

Click to expand...

That's pretty fucking retarded. I mean, it's retarded that people have to conduct their own investigation anyway to see what really happened rather than rely on law enforcement, but that is dumb.

Ambiturner_sl said:

Do they tell the jury about that rule?

Seems important for the jury to know why there aren't any alternative theories being given.

Click to expand...

That's a good question. I would think not directly, though, as that could influence a jury. Imagine if part of jury instructions were that the defense has other suspects they wanted to point to but the judge wouldn't allow it, so the jury isn't to think about what other suspects the defense could be pointing to if they were allowed. I could see a situation where a reasonable jury would discuss that if someone else was also a suspect or suspicious why hadn't the defense mentioned it, so there must not be anyone. Not that this jury sounded very reasonable. Either way, I think it's a shit law, or at least it's a law that has good intentions, but wasn't acted on or represented properly, which is a pretty big overall theme of the documentary.

chaos_sl said:

That's pretty fucking retarded. I mean, it's retarded that people have to conduct their own investigation anyway to see what really happened rather than rely on law enforcement, but that is dumb.

Click to expand...

It makes you think. Evidence is a product of investigation. If they only have evidence pointing to one suspect, is it because that's the only reasonable suspect, or because that's the only place law enforcement was looking for evidence? Add to that a state where you can't then do your own research and present other theories/suspects at trial, because there isn't any 'real' evidence to meet the burden of allow it, because law enforcement wasn't producing/finding it, because they were only looking at one suspect? It's a catch 22 that basically means if local law enforcement thinks you did it, it's sure going to seem that way.

It's a lot of trust in so few.

cocksuckerbreath_sl said:

That's a good question. I would think not directly, though, as that could influence a jury. Imagine if part of jury instructions were that the defense has other suspects they wanted to point to but the judge wouldn't allow it, so the jury isn't to think about what other suspects the defense could be pointing to if they were allowed. I could see a situation where a reasonable jury would discuss that if someone else was also a suspect or suspicious why hadn't the defense mentioned it, so there must not be anyone. Not that this jury sounded very reasonable. Either way, I think it's a shit law, or at least it's a law that has good intentions, but wasn't acted on or represented properly, which is a pretty big overall theme of the documentary.

Click to expand...

You don't think they fill the jury in on the laws? Why would they not just be able to say "this law exists" and not elaborate on whether or not there were any more suspects? How would that influence a jury at all? Or how about the time Kratz objected with something like "that sounds like third party liability"? You don't think they'd explain to the jury what that meant?

The jury had left the room when Kratz mentioned third party liability.

chaos_sl said:

The jury had left the room when Kratz mentioned third party liability.

Click to expand...

So you honestly think they're just left in the dark about that law?

Jive Turkey_sl said:

So you honestly think they're just left in the dark about that law?

Click to expand...

Why are you so incredulous about the fact that they very well could have been considering everything else that happened.

I'll take this point by point because clearly you are reading whatever you want into what anyone says

Wait, let me get this straight... you're offended someone would ask you to respond critically to what you saw in a documentary without you doing follow up research, then admit you won't waste your precious time on research because you really don't care.

Click to expand...

Hmm offended is a pretty strong word for this ,more like confused you would want me to respond to your question based purely off what one filmmaker has shown us as being 100% accurate, and believe their is no other statements that weren't shown in the film that could sway my opinion the other way without researching it fully from other sources.

Having no passion for the shear amount of research it would take to accurately answer your question is not the same as not caring. Obviously I care otherwise I would not be making a statement on the debate based soley off the film itself if it is 100% accurate with nothing hidden

So, your only point was to come to proclaim all documentaries are biased because human nature contains natural bias?

Click to expand...

Mmmm all documentaries are biased to an extent ,but we can limit that bias with formulas that were written for Documentarians over 50 years ago.

This film follows a biased formula to a T including the discredit the person you are defending at the start, and use the other 90% of the film swaying the audience to your bias. If you watch enough Documentaries there are many tell tale signs this is happening. It is how the Documentarian meant it to be. If he followed the other Formula you would see an equal distribution of both sides, and it would be left up to the audience to decide what happened with very little bias injected.

What exactly wasn't accurate in the documentary? Or do you not need to bother to back up that claim because by nature nothing can ever be known to be 100% correct.

Click to expand...

See point one you are repeating yourself.

I hear there are other threads where people are commenting that they enjoyed a movie. You should probably go mention to them that no movie is perfect and nobody likes everything so that there are probably people who didn't like the movie they like. It could really change their world view!

Click to expand...

Not sure what this comment has anything to do with this Documentary, and the original question you asked. Films, and Art are 100% subjective. That is a fact

But, yeah, I get it, it's easier to just dismiss something as bullshit so you can be cool and a part of the discussion rather than actually providing any insight into what's being discussed or defense of the position you're taking. Good discussion, man.

Click to expand...

Hmm, looks like you are baiting for something here. Maybe you just need someone to argue with.

I never stated anything in this Documentary was Bullshit. I said going by 100's of other Documentaries I've watched, and the reading I've done this follows a specific formula that makes it very biased. I also said there is nothing wrong with that, and may be the Documentarians motive. For Example Michael Moore wants you to believe the message he is presenting in his films so he fashions those films to a very specific formula. He doesn't want you to support the other side.

This is not a formula he created it has been in Film for a very long time.

Khane_sl said:

Why are you so incredulous about the fact that they very well could have been considering everything else that happened.

Click to expand...

crazier things have happened, I guess

Jive Turkey_sl said:

crazier things have happened, I guess

Click to expand...

Explain how you think it's crazy? From my perspective it's really not crazy at all, but rather commonplace and mundane. In fact, I'd be surprised if informing the jury on third-party liability laws in Wisconsin was part of the jury instructions. Thinking about it, I don't think either side would have wanted it in there, because the defense probably thought they had enough areas of reasonable doubt and informing the jury about that could backfire. Imagine the jury being told the defense could have pointed to other suspects, but the judge didn't allow it because he didn't feel there was enough evidence to justify it. Both sides could be hurt by such instructions, though very clearly, in retrospect, the defense would have also had far more to gain by its inclusion.

Yea, it would be pretty crazy for a jury not to be instructed on certain things in this otherwise totally above board case. Brendan Dassey is sitting in a jail cell and you think THIS is too far fetched to be believable...

Jive Turkey_sl said:

So you honestly think they're just left in the dark about that law?

Click to expand...

I don't know if they were or were not. I know that the moment in the documentary that you mentioned was a moment that the jury had been removed from the courtroom.