Making a murderer

Somebody explain this to me

youtube.com/watch?v=KpsRtPCWHoM

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4219732/Making-Murderer-prosecutor-says-Steven-Avery-guilty.html#ixzz4dOMp2PRQ
stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-7-2007Feb20.pdf#page=187
web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Police survey ms 07.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=GRa7yPDjBzk
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

he's guilty. HTH.

what the fuck

>yanks do not use the elite police alphabet

I can't wait for the threads during season 2.

JUST

whats season 2 gonna be about?

Continuation of the same case. Brendan's conviction was overturned in 2016 but a judge blocked his release so he's tied up in appeals court. There are new lawyers that are being brought in. I imagine they'll focus on the "impact" of season 1 as well.

>your signature when you agree
>your signature because you agree

what did they mean by these?

This isn't real.

FUCK

imagine if he was black or latino
it would be death sentence immediately

what the actual fuck

He did it.
The documentary left out evidence.
LE may have acted inappropriately but there's no massive conspiracy.
It doesn't make good television, but in real life the killer often is that creepy redneck who was the last person who saw the victim alive.

All "dindus are asking for it" memes aside, police procedure is fuuuucked up.

People aren't just exaggerating when they say "don't talk to police officers without a lawyer." Police have ZERO incentive to be truthful with you and will in fact do everything in their power to confuse, misdirect and intimidate you.

They left out evidence on both sides

Looks good to me. What's the problem?

Explain OP faggot

>They left out evidence

No shit, there's over 200 hours ofcourt footage.
Won't say Avery didn't do it, but that Theresa's boyfriend and brother hacked into her phone to delete her voice and text messages was really dodgy.

I was gonna buy the book to see that prosecutors point of view because apparently that show is deceptively edited ridiculously, like for example, that first trial, the false one, he was actually in jail when that happened. He was in jail for seven years for an unrelated offence or something. But anyway the bookstore didn't have it.

Yeah, I'd bet it was the brother who murdered her.
He seem very strangely obsessed with getting all of it over as quickly as possible, and doesn't actually want to know who the real killer is... Because well, it'd be awkward for him if it appeared it was him.

Everyone involved in the whole case is a fucking idiot except maybe the defence lawyer

>t. show only watcher

Did I miss something, but how come no one paid attention to the moment in court when that police officer admits to seeing her car, but not calling it in?
Seriously, that was such a big question mark, yet no one said anything after that.

deceptive editing. they wanted to think that the cops were corrupt and so you did.

>idiots on Sup Forums think that watching ten episodes of a show is the same as being on three juries over the span of years.

Yeah, you guys are the real experts.

How can they edit him admitting that he saw her car on that day without calling it in? They even played back the conversation he had.
I understand that there's a lot of power in editing and that the show isn't unbiased, but that felt really out of place. In case they did address it, what happened?

When I said attention, I meant the documentary watchers and people who discuss it. Not the jury memebers.

>In one example, Sgt Colborn made a call to dispatch to confirm the license plate of Teresa's vehicle, so he knew what he was searching for. This is standard practice.
>The defence argued that in fact Colborn had found the vehicle and was ringing the plate in as he was stood behind it to confirm he had the right car, which would suggest he found the car days before it was officially found by a member of the public, therefore giving him time to plant evidence in it.
>In court he was asked: 'Can you understand why someone listening might think you were calling in a license plate looking at the back of a 1999 Toyota?'
>And on the Making A Murderer he answers 'Yes.'
>However in court he never answered the question as the judge didn't let him.
>Instead filmmakers insert Colborn's 'Yes' from another question: 'This call sounded like hundreds of other license plate or registration checks you have done through dispatch before?'
>So Kratz argues that this editing misrepresented the court testimony and makes Colborn look suspicious.


Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4219732/Making-Murderer-prosecutor-says-Steven-Avery-guilty.html#ixzz4dOMp2PRQ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Is there a way to confirm that he indeed did only call it in to confirm the plate? How do people verify what was indeed said during the process? Are the written records available for everyone?

Nope. Welcome to life. All you know is that he made a call and asked for a plate number. He could have been standing in front of the car, or he could have just been checking. Very weak tact for the defence to take, I think.

Why would he kill her though? He was about to become a rich man and when you add the fact that he was loved by the nation, why would he do something as stupid as that? I mean, he was kind of stupid, but not "i bet no one will think it was me" stupid.

He's very clearly autistic as fuck and he did it.
Just more shylock tricks from our boys in blue.

>hacked into her phone to delete her voice and text messages was really dodgy.
not only that, but the police didnt even do the basics
They didnt even really interview her ex-boyfriend or tried to get an alibi from him
And then gave him and her brother free reign to go and "look" wherever they wanted
There were also alot of inconsintences when it comes to what hours police officers showed up at Averys junkyard

>dailymail
nice source

>only person to ever source his claims
>faggot retards dipshits think that interviews and evidence can be false

Go phone Prosecutor Kratz yourself then and request the court transcripts.

Source: The television show I watched.

The amount of evidence left out on the defense's side is actually of a larger quantity (and of equal quality) to that left out on the prosecution's side.

>Go phone Prosecutor Kratz
And have him verbally rape me?

From the mouth of the babes senpai

>(((Kratz)))

what's his endgame?

stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Jury-Trial-Transcript-Day-7-2007Feb20.pdf#page=187

Are those official?
I mean, I don't really care about this, but since everyone is about authenticity and reliable sources, it's kind of relevant. I don't dispute the fact that there are records, but are they really freely available for everyone?

That's not a question a jury can consider. They can only consider the evidence presented and conclude a verdict on that basis.

My great fear is that Avery actually did do it, and the police finessed the evidence to more easily secure a conviction, and now Kathleen Zellner, the most successful criminal appellate attorney in US history, is going to blow out the verdict.

just look up primary sources i agree with your skepticism, but if you are really interested just look up manitowac county public court records that is what that website says those records are

It seems kind of strange that he'd have to confirm with a dispatcher information given to him by the lead investigator, particularly when that specific information set had already been disclosed to the public in an appeal for assistance. By that time hundreds of missing persons flyers had gone up and every broadcaster in Wisconsin had covered the story.

It's just absurd to conclude anything else, "deceptive editing" aside. Why would a patrol deputy call in a plate confirmation on the best-known missing vehicle in Wisconsin, and on a cell phone instead of his radio?

Yes, they're official. They've been available for over a decade.

He wanted to know the plate number and had forgotten it.

Your bias is showing if you think the above statement is absurd. In the future, remember that the person who spoke to you first is not correct 100% of the time. You don't need to have absolute faith in them.

>yeah kid if you could just sign this I'm sure you'll be back in school before third period

He probably did it, but should be set free anyway, just like Adnon Sayyid, because the case was so poorly handled and executed going outside of the Judicial System to make a case against him.

>watch the documentary and feel like maybe he didn't get a fair trial and there's some police inconsistencies
>read up on the case and realize the documentary left out a ton of evidence like half of the victim's shit being inside his trailer, blood fucking everywhere and DNA found under the victim's finger nails

it's pretty fucking obvious he did it, but the kid is obviously retarded and probably innocent

What I don't get is that her stuff and blood was apparently everywhere but the bed where both supposedly raped and killed her had nothing on it.

Yeah?

If you are innocent or guility, Always ask for a lawyer. Its fucked up.

This popped up while I was trying to find more like web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Police survey ms 07.pdf

>All training does is make them more confident, not more accurate.
It's an entire community of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Yeah I mean even if he did it he should get a freebie because of the wrongful sentence.

I can't tell if you're sarcastic or not.
Just because you were sentenced once wrongly doesn't give you the right to kill someone and get away with it.

No it does though. One crime = one sentence. They should have just let him go since he already served the time but had not yet performed a crime.

yeah except I can't volunteer to do five years just so I can knock off a gas station when I get out. It's not a two way street as far as the cost.
>crime -> time
not
>time -> crime

Also he won a civil case so he *was* being "paid back" and that's part of the case the defense was making; that his second trial was pay-back for suing the county

Why? Because you were told that by whoever's cock you suck? Normal people understand what's fair without being told.

>fair
Tell that to the woman he allegedly killed.

>well, he could choose, sorry it had to be your family member
Normal people would understand how flawed your logic is.

Damn Paul Dano would be perfect to play that kid in the biopic movie.

Anyone else think Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas's interview is sketchy?

youtube.com/watch?v=GRa7yPDjBzk

when is it gonna be?

The show obviously sugar coats everything to make you take sides with him. He is pretty shit as a human being, that aside though I do not think he killed her. Some really dodgy cops are trying their damnedest to make it look like he did though. That entire department is crooked as fook.

>DUDE LET ME ADMIT TO A VIOLENT MURDER AND GIVE ENORMOUS DETAILS ON IT
>OH WAIT, I HAVE TO GO TO JAIL NOW? HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN????

Surely he's innocent.

One time, the Cops came to me and asked me if I knew anything about kids in the neighborhood shooting at people's parked cars with Beebee Guns.
I immediately admitted to a fictitious account of myself raping a homeless man and then burning him alive, in detail.