Making a Murderer on Netflix

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Personally I think the guy killed her. Not the kid but the guy. But I very much believe the prosecution and the judge played very fast and very loose. The police were desperate to get a conviction and they did whatever it took to get one.

The documentary is not about guilt or innocence but did they get a fair trial.
 
I'll think about it. But I've lost the taste for those kind of programs as I've gotten older. When I was younger I couldn't get enough of them.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
 
ripcityboy said:
I'll think about it. But I've lost the taste for those kind of programs as I've gotten older. When I was younger I couldn't get enough of them.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You more of a Golden Girls/Matlock/Perry Mason kinda' guy now? #OldMan
 
HCP said:
You more of a Golden Girls/Matlock/Perry Mason kinda' guy now? #OldMan
Click to expand...
No. I'm into historical or science documentaries lately. It's an amazing world we live in. We'll. When we are not destroying it. I saw one on nanotechnology recently that blew my mind. Also saw a documentary on the decay of the NY inner city in the 60's which led to the gang social structures and was the basis for hip hop culture. Amazing.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
 
ripcityboy said:
No. I'm into historical or science documentaries lately. It's an amazing world we live in. We'll. When we are not destroying it. I saw one on nanotechnology recently that blew my mind. Also saw a documentary on the decay of the NY inner city in the 60's which led to the gang social structures and was the basis for hip hop culture. Amazing.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
What was the NY one called? That sounds very interesting.
 
I'm about to watch this one.....looks fantastic!Screen Shot 2016-01-17 at 11.31.41 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-01-17 at 11.31.41 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2016-01-17 at 11.31.41 PM.png
    305.1 KB · Views: 51
HCP said:
What was the NY one called? That sounds very interesting.
Click to expand...
It's called Rubble Kings and it's narrated by John Leguizamo. You can find it on Netflix. It's basically focuses on the gang cultures that spread up all around NY after poorly planned urban renewal projects tore the heart of the city. But it's more about the people who lived through it, esp the Puerto Rican leaders. You watch it going, "This is an amazing story. Why hasn't Hollywood made a story about this yet!

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Personally I think the guy killed her. Not the kid but the guy. But I very much believe the prosecution and the judge played very fast and very loose. The police were desperate to get a conviction and they did whatever it took to get one.

The documentary is not about guilt or innocence but did they get a fair trial.
Click to expand...

And they absolutely did not. From top to bottom. Jury, Prosecution, Judge.

Steven Avery jurors 'feared for their personal safety' if they didn’t convict subject of Netflix series, filmmakers say
 
Has anyone seen The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst on HBO? The ending was absolutely chilling.
 
Avery is a creeper of epic proportions. Make sure you read every thing that has come out about him since the airing of the documentary. Dude is guilty. Lots of evidence was left out of of the doc (Avery's DNA found on the truck latch of her car, non blood DNA, for example). The film makers certainly had an agenda. Not to say the case wasn't handled awfully. Dasser should not be in jail. I honestly do not believe he had anything to do with it.
 
The Professional Fan said:
Avery is a creeper of epic proportions. Make sure you read every thing that has come out about him since the airing of the documentary. Dude is guilty. Lots of evidence was left out of of the doc (Avery's DNA found on the truck latch of her car, non blood DNA, for example). The film makers certainly had an agenda. Not to say the case wasn't handled awfully. Dasser should not be in jail. I honestly do not believe he had anything to do with it.
Click to expand...

Ken Kratz admits to abusing Vicodin and Xanax DURING trial

"The court suspended Kratz in June after review of a complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation. Kratz was found to have sent inappropriate text messages to a domestic abuse victim while prosecuting her case. Kratz says he knows what he did was improper and a violation of trust."

"he has been diagnosed with and sought treatment for narcissistic personality disorder and sexual addiction; he was abusing the sleeping aid Ambien, the painkiller Vicodin, and the anti-anxiety drug Xanax at the time of the misconduct; he subsequently sought treatment for his substance abuse issues."
 
HailBlazers said:
Ken Kratz admits to abusing Vicodin and Xanax DURING trial

"The court suspended Kratz in June after review of a complaint filed by the Office of Lawyer Regulation. Kratz was found to have sent inappropriate text messages to a domestic abuse victim while prosecuting her case. Kratz says he knows what he did was improper and a violation of trust."

"he has been diagnosed with and sought treatment for narcissistic personality disorder and sexual addiction; he was abusing the sleeping aid Ambien, the painkiller Vicodin, and the anti-anxiety drug Xanax at the time of the misconduct; he subsequently sought treatment for his substance abuse issues."
Click to expand...

Yeah, he's a peach as well.
 
The Professional Fan said:
Avery is a creeper of epic proportions. Make sure you read every thing that has come out about him since the airing of the documentary. Dude is guilty. Lots of evidence was left out of of the doc (Avery's DNA found on the truck latch of her car, non blood DNA, for example). The film makers certainly had an agenda. Not to say the case wasn't handled awfully. Dasser should not be in jail. I honestly do not believe he had anything to do with it.
Click to expand...

The doubts cast by the series as to Avery and Dassey’s guilt (the two are currently serving time in prison for their alleged crimes) have ignited a firestorm of backlash, most notably from rightwing news anchor Nancy Grace, who has in recent weeks launched an all-out assault on the documentary, accusing its makers of neglecting key evidence that proves Avery and his nephew are guilty.

“This is a documentary – we’re documentary filmmakers,” Ricciardi said in defense of the project Sunday at the Television Critics Association winter tour in Pasadena, California.

“We’re not prosecutors, we’re not defense attorneys, we do not set out to convict or exonerate anyone,” she continued. “We set out to examine the criminal justice system and how it’s functioning today. It would have been impossible for us to include every piece of evidence submitted to the court. So we took our cues from the prosecution, what they thought was the most compelling evidence. That’s what we included.”

“Of course we left out evidence,” she added. “There would have been no other way of doing it. We were not putting on a trial, but a film. Of what was omitted, the question is: was it really significant? The secret is no.”

Ricciardi said in deciding to take on the documentary, she and Demos were interested in “finding out how someone who had been wrongly imprisoned, could find himself back in the system”.

“We absolutely have a point of view,” she added when prodded further. “When we set out to make this series, we chose Stephen Avery to be our main subject. The reason we chose him was his unique status as an American who had been failed by the system in 1985, and had been repeatedly failed for another 18 years.”

Asked to address the series’ detractors, including Grace, Demos said: “It’s interesting that people would expect news reports to contain the truth. I mean if you see the news about this series, I would challenge people to do some research about what’s being presented as truth, and see whether the documentary or the news report has more veracity.”


“We did not take on Stephen Avery’s biography,” Ricciardi added. “What we set out to do here was essentially check up on the American criminal justice system, to see if it was any better at delivering truth and justice in 2005 than it was in 1985.”


http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/jan/17/making-a-murderer-netflix-steven-avery
 
SlyPokerDog said:
The doubts cast by the series as to Avery and Dassey’s guilt (the two are currently serving time in prison for their alleged crimes) have ignited a firestorm of backlash, most notably from rightwing news anchor Nancy Grace, who has in recent weeks launched an all-out assault on the documentary, accusing its makers of neglecting key evidence that proves Avery and his nephew are guilty.

“This is a documentary – we’re documentary filmmakers,” Ricciardi said in defense of the project Sunday at the Television Critics Association winter tour in Pasadena, California.

“We’re not prosecutors, we’re not defense attorneys, we do not set out to convict or exonerate anyone,” she continued. “We set out to examine the criminal justice system and how it’s functioning today. It would have been impossible for us to include every piece of evidence submitted to the court. So we took our cues from the prosecution, what they thought was the most compelling evidence. That’s what we included.”

“Of course we left out evidence,” she added. “There would have been no other way of doing it. We were not putting on a trial, but a film. Of what was omitted, the question is: was it really significant? The secret is no.”

Ricciardi said in deciding to take on the documentary, she and Demos were interested in “finding out how someone who had been wrongly imprisoned, could find himself back in the system”.

“We absolutely have a point of view,” she added when prodded further. “When we set out to make this series, we chose Stephen Avery to be our main subject. The reason we chose him was his unique status as an American who had been failed by the system in 1985, and had been repeatedly failed for another 18 years.”

Asked to address the series’ detractors, including Grace, Demos said: “It’s interesting that people would expect news reports to contain the truth. I mean if you see the news about this series, I would challenge people to do some research about what’s being presented as truth, and see whether the documentary or the news report has more veracity.”


“We did not take on Stephen Avery’s biography,” Ricciardi added. “What we set out to do here was essentially check up on the American criminal justice system, to see if it was any better at delivering truth and justice in 2005 than it was in 1985.”


http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/jan/17/making-a-murderer-netflix-steven-avery
Click to expand...
Well they certainly succeeded at that. But still, one of the centerpieces of the documentary was the possibility that cops planted Avery's blood in her car. Not making any mention that additional DNA of Avery's was found in the car, non blood DNA, is a huge omission to me.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
That poor dumb kid needs looked after.
Click to expand...

He does. If the DA decides not to re-prosecute and he's released the press is going to hound him to death. He would be smart to move far away from that state. Do you have an extra room you could rent to him for a while?
 
SlyPokerDog said:
He does. If the DA decides not to re-prosecute and he's released the press is going to hound him to death. He would be smart to move far away from that state. Do you have an extra room you could rent to him for a while?
Click to expand...
I turned it into my movie room. I have family with property in the NW, he could stay in the apartment over the barn.
 
Bump. Season 2 is out. Yeah, these dudes are innocent.
 
If anybody likes making a murderer, a new docuseries dropped on Netflix Friday called the innocent man. Binged it already. Very very good
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top