‘Were Both Of You Open-Minded About The Case?’

at

Screen Shot 2016-01-07 at 15.02.04

Last night, on BBC Two’s Newsnight.

Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi, the producers of Netflix hit Making a Murderer, spoke to Evan Davis in their first UK television interview.

*Spoiler alert*

Making a Murderer: the Netflix documentary beating TV drama at its own game (The Guardian)

Sponsored Link

Related posts:

Kirsty Work Not The Happiest Night Of His Life Unforgettable Newsnight’s 2013

39 thoughts on “‘Were Both Of You Open-Minded About The Case?’”

  3. Looking In

    He wasn’t too nice to them. I guess it would be hard for the BBC to take kindly to the highlighting of extreme
    corruption and collusion in the US justice system in the US, considering the failures in its
    own justice system down the years.

  4. Gaz

    It’s a good documentary, well edited and presented, but it was totally one sided. After reading about the evidence that wasn’t included in the documentary there is little doubt in my mind that Steven Avery is guilty. Saying that, the police definitely planted some evidence also.
    The only thing I’m not sure of is Brendan Dassey’s guilt. He seems like a pawn in the whole thing. feel very bad for him.

    1. Raskolnikov

      What evidence, the evidence Ken Kratz mentioned that was omitted? Kratz proved himself to be a liar all the way through the trial, why would you believe him now? If he felt that strongly he could have had his say but he refused to be interviewed for the documentary. Avery’s legal team have nonsensed any evidence “not mentioned” during filming, and they are more credible than the prosecution team.

        1. Dόn Pídgéόní

          A man being sleasy doesn’t make him a murderer. Neither does hearsay. Otherwise a lot of of fellas are in big trouble. No DNA evidence from someone who had their throat cut/shot in the head? Please.

        2. Raskolnikov

          Evidence from convicted felons serving prison time can immediately and very easily be discredited for obvious reasons.
          As for Avery ringing looking specifically for Teresa Halbech to arrive at the house to take the pictures, perhaps he fancied her? With a potential 36 million dollars on his way to him, why can’t he afford to be confident with Ladies? Either way, how you can gauge him to be guilty from that unreported evidence is beyond me.

          1. Eliot Rosewater

            I’m confused, are the things Kratz mentions things that were brought up in the trial but not included in the documentary? Or are they things that Kratz are alleging?

            If they are simply allegations, then they can be dismissed in the context of the documentary (it’s not about Avery’s guilt, remember, it’s about whether he received a fair trail).

            If they were included in the documentary, they don’t actually say anything about whether Avery committed the murder. Were the bones tested in the same manner as the ones found in the burn pit outside his trailer?

            The bullet being from Avery’s gun isn’t the issue, it’s whether it was planted by the police. It’s a desperate attempt at deflected from Kratz (embarrassing, too) but the issue was never where the bullet came from initially, but whether it was planted there by the police. Remember, the bullet was found in the place where Halbach was murdered: they found no trace of her in that place (good clean up job, Avery! Well, good clean up job on removing every last bit of DNA evidence there, except you missed the bullet) but found DNA on that one little bullet. Which had been missed how many times previously?

            The other bit of ‘evidence’ is that he was sleazy. I think the documentary depicts Avery as a sleazy person with a seriously nasty past, so that’s already been covered.

            People (on both sides) are missing the point of the documentary. It’s not whether Avery is guilty or innocent, but whether there was enough reasonable doubt to free him. Personally, I think there was.

    2. Cheech

      With the greatest respect to Brendan Dassey, I don’t believe he has the mental capacity to kill someone, or to deal with the guilt afterwards, all the while maintaining the facade of ignorance/innocence.

      I’m still not sure about Avery.

      1. Owen

        100%. Whatever about Avery, Kratz had a testimony from Dassy (2 I think) saying they killed her in the bedroom with a knife and tied her to the bed etc. but then to convict Dassey he said they killed her in the garage and she was never in the house. He repeated this last week in an interview in the US.

        Two totally contradicting stories to convict two people…… one has to be wrong!

        That alone for me makes him capable to lie about anything.

        1. Raskolnikov

          Did you watch the police interviews with Dassey? He clearly told them what they wanted to hear so he could get out and go home and watch Wrestlemania. He didn’t concoct the whole story, as he told them when he was under pressure from the prosecutors on the stand. They concocted it and Dassey essentially nodded in agreement. He didn’t make it up. It was frustating to watch Dassey say that he made it up and he read it in a book and he didn’t really know where he got such a crazy story from. They clearly gave him the story, he just told them what they wanted to hear, which was yes, Steven did it.

      2. ABM's Bloodied Underwear

        Dassey is 100% innocent in all this. Plucked from his classroom, forced into making a false statement and then locked up for life. Completely shameful behaviour.

    1. Raskolnikov

      Google is a good place to start, but It’s all from the mouth of Ken Kratz, surely the most unreliable source in this whole case.

        1. Raskolnikov

          Um you may read that article. The words “Kratz claimed” features rather heavily in it.

          1. rotide

            Things that were actually presented into evidence at the trial and didn’t feature in the documentary also feature rather heavily in it.

            http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

            Another article here.

            Make no mistake, I don’t know if he’s guilty or innocent. I do think that there was misconduct all over the place and I also think that the documentary presents almost as biased a view of it as the prosecution does.

    1. Mikeyfex

      I’ve just finished episode 7. At what point do we see Strang and Buting interviewed discussing the case from bed like Bert and Ernie. That happens, right?

  8. Funky Fred

    An emerging theory is that the killer is either Brendan’s brother or Steven’s brother. Steven’s brother was reported to have sexually assaulted women in the past, including two who arrived at the yard. He would also have the same DNA as Steven, obviously. And he could have placed the key there himself, thus, giving a reasonable explanation for where the sweat on the key and under the hood of the car came from.

    As for Brendan Dassey. Doubtful he did anything. Should have definitely been given a retrial.

      1. Owen

        To be fair, in the nature of how it was presented in the show (not totally matching DNA due to contamination) it could make sense. It was to do with matching alleles if I remember right, and not identical DNA.

        1. Funky Fred

          Yea, I’m pretty sure their DNA evidence was vague at best. I meant they would have the same DNA strand, and in this case seemed enough for the Sherriff’s office to run with it. They could have delved further and realise it was the brother. But they already had their man…

          1. Owen

            Too right. It was that lad Bobby and the other guy that only had each other as alibis, driving past each other at 2.45 exactly. But the bus driver saw your one later etc.

            That’s my 2 cents – which I’m prepared to testify on.

  9. pedeyw

    I don’t think it really matters if he did or didn’t kill her. It’s up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he’s guilty, not for him to prove his innocence. At best they were unprofessional, I don’t know how they got away with the prejudicial press conference where they laid a pretty horrific story in the public’s mind or how Brendan was convicted based on his “confession”, at worst they planted evidence to ensure a conviction.

  10. rotide

    “I do not believe that the documentary places viewers in a position to decide questions of guilt”

    I have no idea how that woman can say that with a straight face.

    This was a really well put together series that raises genuine questions about the justice system in the area and the US as a whole but to say it doesn’t have a bias or that it’s not suggesting that Steven Avery is at best not guilty or at worst should be granted a retrial due to misconduct is preposterous.

    It’s bias is apparent from the first program and while bias is inevitable within the documentary genre it verges on farce at times (such as during post trial pressers where every utterance by the DA is accompanied by an obligatory cutaway of a reporter making a face of disbelief).

    Does it raise genuine concerns across the entire process ? Yes, absolutely
    Does roughly 80 minutes of heavily and selectively edited footage act as a reasonable substitute for a 2 year legal process and 2 and a half week trial? Not even close.

    Of course the directors are going to defend their programme but it’s disapointing to hear that interview.

  11. Saint Paul

    Saint Paul prays for all of your souls

    yeah verily you may still exist in flesh,

    but your souls are extinguished and no more

    go ye in peace

  12. Joe:-J

    Steven Avery is not the issue people…..

    It’s just a divisive tactic to deflect from what’s really going on in the background that they don’t want you to know about.

    The real problem lies with the false imprisonment for charity marketing purposes of wild animals….

    Focus on the reality.. It’s all bullpoo and it’s bad for ya…

    http://www.babble.com/pets/ikea-monkeys-owner-wants-him-back/

    :-J

      1. :-Joe Doocey : D

        ELECTION TIME COMING UP FOLKS…

        DONT WORRY WE’LL SORT IT ALL OUT IN THE END…

        IF THERE’S A HELL BELOW WE’RE ALL GONNA GO… HAHA…

        VOTE FOR CHANGE(IN THE POCKETS OF YOUR MASTERS)

        :-J

          1. ALL THE "NEW GENERATION" OF COALITION PARTNERS

            WE ALL ENDORSE THE ENDORSEMENTS OF THE ENDORSERS OF THE PREVIOUS MESSAGE AND RELATED FURTHER MESSAGES THAT ARE RELATED TO ARE ENDORSEMENTS

            : P

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link
Broadsheet.ie