I've noticed there are several anti avery posters, i wonder why? - Making a Murderer (2015) Discussion

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

Your argument is not sound.

Lol just because they have done these things in the past, doesnt mean they do it in all cases, and in particular this case. Looking at the evidence as a whole there is too much pointing at Avery, and the frame job would just be too convoluted to be taken seriously.

reply

[–] paranoja 8 years ago

Because, obviously, we are part of the Manitowic LE.

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

they searched that room several times , where was the key ? are they all that incompetent or as i suspect they planted the evidence , secondly police department are known for the "code of silence " hence even if they all didn't participate looking the other way makes them just as culpable , clearly that department erred in the first conviction , so they are prone to err , and when a 36 million dollar lawsuit was levied by avery it was clear that they had him in their sites the one cop asked "had he been arrested yet " when there was no0 evidence suggesting he had anything to do w/ it , i wasn't there but you don't have to be that smart to see the obvious , they had a motive and were out for retribution , police are dirty , they've always have been , this case will be much like what the rodney king video was , it will reveal that the police are a bunch of armed lying thugs who will say or do anything if it serves their purpose , white america will learn what people of color have long known , cops are pigs , even the goods one since they say nothing to stop the bad ones

reply

[–] paranoja 8 years ago

they searched that room several times , where was the key ?

First of all, why would they plant that key when they had the car with Avery's blood in it and Teresa's remains found on his property? The key is actually one of the lesser evidence that points towards Avery's guilt... unless you believe that they did plant Teresa's body + her car + Avery's blood (+DNA) in her car...

Are you starting to realise how ridiculous this sounds like? Even without the key they had a slam-dunk case.

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

I've already been over this same territory w you on the OJ Simpson docu board. In order for me to believe framing was involved in either case, I have to deconstruct the alleged framing, all the steps necessary to do it, to find out if its first even possible, and then likely. I don't see that in either case. I know you do and nothing anyone could say will change your mind, so I won't be posting anything else about it to you.

reply

[–] paranoja 8 years ago

Also, why would they feel the need to implicate Brendan Dassey in all of this, if all they wanted was to get rid of Avery's lawsuit?

reply

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago

So you're going to frame someone for murder.. you plant a car with blood and scatter some bones and wash your hands ahhh job done...
I doubt it - more like you are going to take every option you have available to make sure he goes down and suspicion isn't cast elsewhere.

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

dassey was the witness who was going to say that he saw nothing and that he heard nothing , by charging him that took away a wit=ness which supported his story that he was not involved thats why they charged him , he changed his story even though if he had kept it he would have been given a lesser charge and less time , but his change prevented him from testifying

reply

[–] paranoja 8 years ago

dassey was the witness who was going to say that he saw nothing and that he heard nothing , by charging him that took away a wit=ness which supported his story that he was not involved thats why they charged him , he changed his story even though if he had kept it he would have been given a lesser charge and less time , but his change prevented him from testifying

Ok. So what do you find more believable

a) that Dassey was just innocently having a bonfire with his uncle

or

b) Dassey was somehow* involved, especially since Avery initially lied about having a bonfire, or even Dassey over and went with "I watched girl-on-girl porn and went to bed"?

Ask yourself this: if Avery was innocent, why wouldn't he give his alibi of having an innocent bonfire with his nephew? Unless you believe that a bonfire didn't happen that night, despite witnesses saying it had...

C'mon.

* It should be noted that I don't believe in Dassey's full confession of the rape and murder of Teresa Halbach.

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

what do you believe that they raped and murdered that girl in the trailer , cutting her w/ a knife and yet their is not one bit of dna in the tailer , you believe that ? there is no evidence that the murder occurred as he said , where is it , he cleans the place spotless but then leaves the key by the stand ? come on you are not that dumb

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

I don't believe that, no. I think the prosecution got it wrong. There is NO evidence of rape, except BDs train wreck of a "confession." Was TH raped? No idea, regardless, there's literally no evidence of it, or that she was killed in the trailer.

I think the prosecution got their narrative wrong, but that SA did murder her. I don't think he was likely to have planned the murder, but that's speculation on my part. Maybe he did; I don't know.

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

in america i don't know = not guilty

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Not tru, actually. In criminal cases it's beyond a reasonable doubt, not all doubt.

I couldn't convict on rape bc of lack of evidence, but could in murder. That's the difference.

reply

[–] paranoja 8 years ago

And it should be noted that Steven Avery WASN'T convicted of rape re: Teresa Halbach. As he shouldn't be.

But murder he was convicted of and rightly so.

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

i don't know = reasonable doubt

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

You need to look up what reasonable doubt actually means.

reply

[–] Moonlighty 8 years ago

Saying you aren't sure where the murder took place isn't equal to reasonable doubt that a murder DID take place though.

-
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that I'll be over here looking through your stuff.

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Exactly. These are two entirely differently things. Which some don't want to admit to.

reply

[–] misterbfd 8 years ago

Cat:

We are both on the same page. It is clear to me that SA killed Teresa Halbach. Rape? No idea. Murder? Definitely. Was her demise planned? Probably not. I think things just got out of hand. I think Avery intended to get her over there on purpose ("send the same girl from before") and perhaps tried to "pull something" on her and when he was rebuffed, he lashed out and things took a very bad turn. Then Brendan showed up and Steven convinced him that he'd better go along with disposing of the body, manipulating him into believing that if he went to the cops he'd be implicating himself in her death.

That's my speculation. Brendan was never guilty of anything beyond mutilation of a corpse as far as I'm concerned.

-----

Shooting has started on my latest movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5531336/

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

MrBFD, yeah, we're on the same page. Could SA raped Teresa? Maybe, but there's no evidence of it, or that she was stabbed, throat cut, and the ridiculous assertion that her hair was cut off with a knife. Her body may have proved she was raped or sexually assaulted, but it was burned, so no evidence either way.

I agree he planned to get her over there, nosy likely because he intended to make a pass at her, but not to kill her. Thing went wrong, as he SHOULD have known they would, and he killed her, most likely via strangulation.

I'm not sure Brendan had anything to do with any of it, or not knowingly. Now that I know the size of the burn pit, it's possible he saw and knew nothing. Also possible he did, and that SA threatened him by citing his involvement, even though it was minimal.

reply

[–] paranoja 8 years ago

I already stated that I don't believe in Dassey's confession.

No, I don't believe Teresa Halbach was ever in Steven Avery's bedroom, yet I'm sure he murdered her. These aren't exclusive beliefs.

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

why didn't dassey say where she murdered ? where was she murdered in the garage where they found the shell casing yet found no blood

reply

[–] misterbfd 8 years ago

why didn't dassey say where she murdered

Dassey said and didn't say a LOT of things. His entire "confession" was a big mess. Instead, pay attention to his telephone calls to his mother from jail that were recorded. Read those transcripts. Those make it clear that he saw something and didn't report it. He might lie to the cops, but he wasn't lying on the phone to his mom.

He was manipulated by his uncle and then by police. The poor kid is a victim, and I'm glad his conviction was overturned for now. Mutilating a corpse? Yes, I can see that. Rape and murder? No way.

-----

Shooting has started on my latest movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5531336/

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

where is your evidence that was manipulated ? he could have cut a deal , but chose to go to trial , and as you can see on what evidence ? the appellant court didn't buy his story nor how it was extracted

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Agree his confession was a huge mess, but the phone call to his mother on May 13 was coerced by W&F. They'd told him if he told their version of the "truth" he'd only serve 20 years opposed to 90, and pressed him to "confess the truth " to his mom before they talked to her. So he did as they said, thinking it was in his best interest, but it wasn't.

Next phone call he had with Barb, he recanted yet again.

I don't have any compelling reason to think he even mutilated Teresa's corpse, or not knowingly.

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

or if there was a corpse to mutilate

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

That I am sure of.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] misterbfd 8 years ago

Aye carumba. Because there are people out here in this world who didn't suck up every morsel that the documentary fed us and bought into their intended conclusion that Avery is just a poor, innocent man framed by the corrupt police force, we must all be shills for the cops.

People need to use their actual brains to analyze things for themselves instead of accepting every spoonful of propaganda that these documentarians as trying to feed the public.

Analyzing the evidence outside of the bounds of the parameters laid out by the documentary generally leads plenty of people, like the courts and the jurors and so forth, to believe that Avery is guilty.

-----

Shooting has started on my latest movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5531336/

reply

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago

People need to use their actual brains to analyze things for themselves instead of accepting every spoonful of propaganda

may not be wise to start throwing the critical thinking insults around when there's a pretty good chance it is your critical thinking that is flawed.

reply

[–] paranoja 8 years ago

may not be wise to start throwing the critical thinking insults around when there's a pretty good chance it is your critical thinking that is flawed.

The "ZELLNAMI" pretty much achieved nothing that a Reddit users didn't already ask, yet you think "critical thinking" regerading Avery's innocence is the problem?

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

 So these are the types of pearls of wisdom I've been missing having her/him on ignore? Good to know.

reply

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago

That wasn't zellnami. You realize that right? That was just prequel - you think she should lay her entire narrative and evidence out right now? Before the tests come back?

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

why wouldn't those who think he is guilty welcome the new test , they should implicate him as you think and it will prove he is guilty in spite of the obvious planting of the evidence , its either one of 2 things that after 6 inspections they are all incompetent or someone planted the evidence , which makes sense to you , each and every previous officer missed the key to the car , or people from the department that was told to stay away were the only cops there were competent to find both the keys and bullet even though if the bullet was found in the room there should have been blood , but no blood , its obvious they planted the evidence ,

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

If the carbon dating on the blood is reliable, as she says it is, I would welcome it. As it stands, I don't know if that's true or not. I've read about the unreliability of carbon dating many times in the past. If now it's established its advanced enough as she says, great.

I do have to wonder why she isn't retesting for ETDA, as that was one of the hotly contested issues from the defense side. Why wouldn't she want to do both? That makes no sense.

Where is your evidence that anything was planted? Key was hidden in the night stand somewhere, and it's not like it was critical evidence, such as his blood in her car. So why risk planting it?

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

11/05/05 - As many as 200 officers comb the Avery property. No evidence is discovered in Steven Avery's garage. During the search of Avery's bedroom, his nightstand is searched.

11/08/05 - Sergeant Andrew Colborn removes all contents of Steven Avery's nightstand. No evidence is discovered.

11/08/05 - A Rav4 Toyota key is found by Lieutenant James Lenk inside Steven Avery's bedroom next to the nightstand.

03/01/06 - Law enforcement officers return to Steven Avery's property to search for additional evidence. During this search, a bullet fragment and 11 empty shell casings are discovered in Avery's garage.

May - In a pre-trial hearing, Judge Willis rules that the Defense cannot suggest to the jury any alternative suspects by name except Brendan Dassey.

http://stevenaverytrial.com

my evidence that it was planted is that hundreds of cops searched the property and they didn't find anything , then 3 days later after another detective colburn searched that location it was di then suddenly its discovered by a LT Lenk

both had their deposition taken in the civil case

09/22/05 - Mark Rohrer, Manitowoc County District Attorney, is deposed and acknowledges communications with Sergeant Andrew Colborn and Lieutenant James Lenk regarding Steven Avery's case. He states that he provided this information to the Attorney Generals office, but no record exists of Rohrer doing so. He also confirms that Douglass Jones spoke with Eugene Kusche regarding the 1995 phone call.

10/11/05 - Lieutenant James Lenk is deposed and acknowledges the phone call from Brown County in 1995.

use your head of all the people to find the evidence it coincidentally was found by the 2 cops who were being sued

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Sorry, none of that is evidence any evidence was planted. Additionally, neither Lenk nor Colborn were being sued. You need to spend more time studying this case so you know the actual facts. But of course if all you've done is watch the very biased show, you wouldn't know any better.

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

they had their depos taken in case and they just so happen to find the evidence against the guy who took their depo, all the other cops couldn't find the evidence it took the 2 guys who were deposed to find the evidence , they say keep an open mind but don't open your mind so much that your rains fall out , what are the odds that everyone else searched and the 2 guys who were deposed just happen to find the evidence ? if you believe that then you will believe anything

reply

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago

Yeah what cat fails to acknowledge is that this civil case had repercussions that went further than just the SD.
That and just because 2 people were named doesn't mean more couldn't have been added. And if the civil case brought evidence of conspiracy to wrongfully convict criminal charges could have followed for a number of LE. It was a huge problem for the whole wisconsin justice system which has been corrupt for a long time.

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

So you're unwilling to admit you were wrong, and neither of them were being sued. Takes th wind out of your sails, but let's ignore that, right?

Colborn's sole relationship to SA was he was a corrections officer in '95 when a call came in relating to SAs case and the fact that SA may be innocent of the crime he was currently incarcerated for. Colborn then directed the call to a detective, as he was supposed to do, being only a lowly CO officer, answering the phones. That's it! That's his only connection to SA.

That's what ha was giving his depo about. He was a witness, as was Lenk. So suspicious, innit!

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

who is his employer , who pays his bills , if thats not enough of connection i don't know what is , its called the code silence for a reason

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

So then in your opinion any and everyone who worked for the Manitowac sheriff or police departments, just by virtue of that fact alone and nothing else, has enough of a connection to do what you're accusing Colborn and Lenk if, without any evidence.

And, it has nothing whatsoever to do with them having been deposed, although you said it did, or suing him, which they were not.

Ok then.

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

were they deposed ? how many other people who were deposed happen to find crucial evidence ?

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

What difference does it make, according to you?

You said both were being sued by SA, I point out they weren't, only deposed as witnesses. Your response was being employed by SD or PD was enough of a connection, because code of silence, and nothing more.

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

Mark Rohrer, Manitowoc County District Attorney, is deposed and acknowledges communications with Sergeant Andrew Colborn and Lieutenant James Lenk regarding Steven Avery's case. He states that he provided this information to the Attorney Generals office, but no record exists of Rohrer doing so. He also confirms that Douglass Jones spoke with Eugene Kusche regarding the 1995 phone call.

cat , when you stop sucking cops dicks let me know ,

reply

[–] bluesafari 8 years ago

@ misterbfd You sir really has issues, i salute your talent for knowing the truth, and nothing but the truth. But wait a minute, whose phonecalls made by Dassey, that you mention at somepoint, was a someone else stated, made by a young soul with low IQ, and he was telling was he was clearly told to, nothing more. Was he manipulated by the agent, clearly he was, so why you would hang your hat on those phonecalls is a mystery, because you attended a Ted Bundy trial? lol, your as credible as the lawenforcement in Manitowoc.

Your rambling, doenst make it the truth, no matter how many times you repeat it.

reply

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

He never mentioned Dassey though did he.

lol

reply

[–] bluesafari 8 years ago

Was a response to that someone nicknamed misterbfd

reply

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

Yes and where did he mention Dassey? You didnt address anything he said about Avery but decided to focus on the one thing that most people are in agreement in, which is Dassey's interview.

reply

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago

He's not wrong. Bfd was spouting that nonsense (at least prior to the recent ruling).

reply

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

Absolutely nothing he said was about Dassey, so what are you on about?

reply

[–] bluesafari 8 years ago

@ro-bust c'mon now, that question is what you should ask yourself, but since you cant seem to find his response let me help:

Dassey said and didn't say a LOT of things. His entire "confession" was a big mess. Instead, pay attention to his telephone calls to his mother from jail that were recorded. Read those transcripts. Those make it clear that he saw something and didn't report it. He might lie to the cops, but he wasn't lying on the phone to his mom.

He was manipulated by his uncle and then by police. The poor kid is a victim, and I'm glad his conviction was overturned for now. Mutilating a corpse? Yes, I can see that. Rape and murder? No way.

reply

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

Well I was only talking about this branch of the "comment tree" but yes I do remember him saying that

reply

[–] kspkap 8 years ago

I don't believe Brendan Dassey is capable of lying. The following are the texts of his phone calls with his mom. If you all will read carefully, when Barb asked him if Steven killed Teresa his response was "Not that I know of." Brendan never saw a body. In the video with his mom he told her it didn't happen. His answer "They got in my head."

http://crowdnotate.com/sections/bd/051306_bd_mom.html

Good Grief people! Why do you think Brendan's conviction was overturned...his confession thrown out? I'll tell you why. The following is his compiled list in a nutshell:

https://m.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3ypgsu/a_few_things_that_brendan_dassey_admitted_to_in/

🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!

reply

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

I don't believe Brendan Dassey is capable of lying.

Lolz

reply

[–] kspkap 8 years ago

Back at you! You have no empathy for Brendan anyways, so some of us wouldn't expect you to reply in the positive. Just in the snide, snarky way you do. Forgive me, but I'll take the judge's decree if you don't mind.

🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!

reply

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

Clearly Brendan is capable of lying. That is just a crazy thing to say, whether you believe him innocent or guilty.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago


Who said that?
If that's the case, then Dassey was telling the truth when he confessed to violating Ms Halbach, as he's not capable of lying, so that's that multiple false confession claim thing sorted.
He also wasn't lying when he said he read the Novel Kiss the Girls, so that puts the whole mental retardation thing to bed as well.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply

[–] misterbfd 8 years ago

I don't believe Brendan Dassey is capable of lying.

Ok, then...

Barb: Then Steven did do it.
Brendan: Ya

and...

B: They just asked me if I wanted to say something to them, on the tape.
M: Did you?
B: Just that I was sorry for what I did.
M: Did he make you do this?
B: Ya.
M: Then why didn't you tell him that.
B: Tell him what
M: That Steven made you do it. You know he made you do a lot of things.

-----

Shooting has started on my latest movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5531336/

reply

[–] Moonlighty 8 years ago

Seeing as Brendan told a bunch of different stories, that IS lying. If you keep changing your story, then that is lying. How could he not be capable of lying when he by definition of the word gave false statements multiple times. I don't know if he's capable of telling the truth since I still have no idea what the truth is.

-
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that I'll be over here looking through your stuff.

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

How could he not be capable of lying when he by definition of the word gave false statements

Because lying is by definition to give a false statement, whereas to give a false statement is not by definition lying.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

Lying is also being purposely deceitful, which the only thing Brendan was guilty of is trying to be a people pleaser and guess what the detectives were trying to get him to say.

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

Speaking of lying, do Avery supporters agree that MaM is deceptive in its altered testimony and selective editing, for instance, of AC and ST answering questions they were never actually asked?

Example: ST testimony. Posters make a big deal about ST describing the fire as 3 feet or 8 to 10 feet:

(From reddit):

"They specifically removed those two words ("at least") from Strang's question, and blended the audio back together seamlessly. Strang didn't ask that question, and ST didn't answer that question. What were their intentions? Those two words had to be removed because they did not fit with their narrative.

Testimony: Was November 29 also the day that you told the police that the flames were at least 3 feet high, at least that high?

MaM: Was November 29 also the day that you told the police that the flames were three feet high?"

Would you, at least, disagree with this form of deception, intentional or otherwise? How much time does deleting two words save?

reply

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

Bernie, you are a like a dog barking at its own farts. I don't think anyone in here would say the documentary wasn't biased. 

However, that doesn't mean the entire documentary is false.

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

Woof, woof, doggie. There are posters like "inyoface415" out there passing word farts like "Where did you get 'tossed a cat into the fire? ...The cat/fire thing sounded like an accident." New people see the documentary. I have no problem with a doc showing a point of view. I have a problem with being intentionally misled.

That poster needs to read the Judgment of Conviction. SA built the fire to burn his own family cat alive, dousing it first in oil and gasoline. The other man involved had a conscience and went to the police to admit what they had done. In the doc SA passes it off as fooling around.

reply

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

There are posters like "inyoface415" out there passing word farts like "Where did you get 'tossed a cat into the fire? ...The cat/fire thing sounded like an accident." New people see the documentary. I have no problem with a doc showing a point of view. I have a problem with being intentionally misled.

I watched the same doc as inyoface69 and didn't think the cat thing was an accident. I wasn't "misled" by that example. Maybe inyoface69 wasn't paying attention when that part was on? I don't see how that's the documentaries fault though.

In the doc SA passes it off as fooling around.

How is that the filmmaker's fault?

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

"How is that the filmmakers fault?"

You must be kidding doggie because you are a smart person. Letting the guilty party define their own crime is neutral?

You gave an example of a doc on fast food having a point of view: fast food is not good for you. (not rocket science) You could also say a doc on climate change has a point of view with scientists commenting based on their knowledge. This is quite different than distorting witness testimony in a trial by editing out words to have witnesses answer questions they were never asked or changing the meaning by editing out words.

Where would you draw the ethical line? If a doc had a burger manager saying, "We never put doggierodriguez poop in our burgers" and the doc left out the word "never" by editing, would that be okay with you? (Lawsuits would follow.)

Here is another example of "clever" MaM editing:

Here is a transcript of the message from MAM:

"Hello, this is Teresa with Auto Trader magazine. I'm the photographer and just giving you a call to let you know that I could come out there today, um, in the afternoon. It would probably be around 2 o'clock, or even a little later. Um, again, it's Teresa. If you could please give me a call back and let me know if that'll work for you. Thank you."

And from the Dassey trial

"Hello. This is Teresa with AutoTrader Magazine. I'm the photographer, and just giving you a call to let you know that I could come out there today, urn, in the afternoon. It would -- will probably be around two o'clock or even a little later. But, um, if you could please give me a call back and let me know if that will work for you, because I don't have your address or anything, so I can't stop by without getting the -- a call back from you. And my cell phone is xxx-xxxx. Again, it's Teresa, xxx-xxx-xxxx. Thank you."

The actual call at 11:43 am suggests that TH doesn't know she is meeting SA, TH wants to know who she is actually meeting, wants to hear a voice on the phone.

Answer me this doggie. SA called TH directly for the Oct. 10 "hustle" shot. Why doesn't SA just call TH again the same way for Oct. 31? Why does SA use *67 twice to hide his identity when calling her? (Please don't say it is for privacy reasons...TH knows him, she's had his number). Why does SA phone TH at 4:35 without *67? In Nov. interviews why doesn't SA give his alibi of being with BD? Why does he lie about being with BD and having a fire and cleaning the garage?

Woof, woof. It's a dog eat dog world and you're wearing Milkbone underwear.

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

That's interesting, Bernie. I didn't know about that edit.

It's very annoying to me how deceptive/misleading MAM is.one of its legacies, for me and no doubt others who took the time to look more closely into things, is being a lot more skeptical about information in other documentaries.

reply

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago

Is almost like you and bernie would expect the 'super size me' guy to spend half the doc talking up the positives of the macdonalds franchise.
Documentaries don't owe us a balanced view of everything. Sometimes you just make a documentary to make a point. Obviously you shouldn't fabricate events but this idea that is floating around that documentaries are obliged to give a balanced review is ridiculous.

reply

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

Obviously you shouldn't fabricate events but this idea that is floating around that documentaries are obliged to give a balanced review is ridiculous.

And if they say one thing you disagree with the whole thing is biased and should be thrown out. But "they" act like this is a Michael Moore doc when it's not even remotely close.

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

A two word edit like this shoots down the whole argument that "you can't show the whole trial". Words are edited in a number of places during testimony, even in TH's message left on an answering machine.

It is fine for a doc to have a point of view. It is even okay to present the defense side of a story as "The Staircase" did so well. What is not okay is intentional deception in a biased way.

It was the way MaM glossed over the burning of the family cat (letting SA tell the story as a youthful indiscretion) that first got me suspicious of the motives of the filmmakers. They had a narrative to tell (and frankly a narrative to sell). Not cool.

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

I never bought that argument anyway. Of course we know they couldn't show th entire trial. I also understood the prosecution, the Halbachs, and I suppose LE as well weren't interested in being involved in the project, and that the Avery family was very interested so they-- and SAs defense-- had a lot more representation in it. This is all understandable.

But the intentional misleading and misrepresentation is not. That's not just having a POV.

reply

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

It was the way MaM glossed over the burning of the family cat (letting SA tell the story as a youthful indiscretion) that first got me suspicious of the motives of the filmmakers.

What were they supposed to do NOT let him tell HIS story? He's being interviewed. He can say what he wants. They don't have to buy it. They just have to film it.

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

"How is that the filmmakers fault?"

You must be kidding doggie because you are a smart person. Letting the guilty party define their own crime is neutral?

You gave an example of a doc on fast food having a point of view: fast food is not good for you. (not rocket science) You could also say a doc on climate change has a point of view with scientists commenting based on their knowledge. This is quite different than distorting witness testimony in a trial by editing out words to have witnesses answer questions they were never asked or changing the meaning by editing out words.

Where would you draw the ethical line? If a doc had a burger manager saying, "We never put doggierodriguez poop in our burgers" and the doc left out the word "never" by editing, would that be okay with you? (Lawsuits would follow.)

Here is another example of "clever" MaM editing:

Here is a transcript of the message from MAM:

"Hello, this is Teresa with Auto Trader magazine. I'm the photographer and just giving you a call to let you know that I could come out there today, um, in the afternoon. It would probably be around 2 o'clock, or even a little later. Um, again, it's Teresa. If you could please give me a call back and let me know if that'll work for you. Thank you."

And from the Dassey trial

"Hello. This is Teresa with AutoTrader Magazine. I'm the photographer, and just giving you a call to let you know that I could come out there today, urn, in the afternoon. It would -- will probably be around two o'clock or even a little later. But, um, if you could please give me a call back and let me know if that will work for you, because I don't have your address or anything, so I can't stop by without getting the -- a call back from you. And my cell phone is xxx-xxxx. Again, it's Teresa, xxx-xxx-xxxx. Thank you."

The actual call at 11:43 am suggests that TH doesn't know she is meeting SA, TH wants to know who she is actually meeting, wants to hear a voice on the phone.

Answer me this doggie. SA called TH directly for the Oct. 10 "hustle" shot. Why doesn't SA just call TH again the same way for Oct. 31? Why does SA use *67 twice to hide his identity when calling her? (Please don't say it is for privacy reasons...TH knows him, she's had his number). Why does SA phone TH at 4:35 without *67? In Nov. interviews why doesn't SA give his alibi of being with BD? Why does he lie about being with BD and having a fire and cleaning the garage?

Woof, woof. It's a dog eat dog world and you're wearing Milkbone underwear.

reply

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

You must be kidding doggie because you are a smart person.

You know you don't believe that.

Letting the guilty party define their own crime is neutral?

Should they have just cut his mic like Bill O'Reilly does?

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

Sure let SA speak, then tell the actual truth of the event. So no answers to any of my questions. Okay. Yes, I do think you are smarter than this.

reply

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

So no answers to any of my questions.

You responded to my response to someone else. Don't try to suck me into your crazy. I've made my stance abundantly clear. Now we play the waiting game.

I said the "regs" all admit the doc was biased (that was what I said when I initially responded to "not you"). But it's ridiculous of you to be upset at the filmmaker's for letting SA tell his story. He admitted that he did that. He admitted that he shouldn't have. There's nothing he can do about it now.

Should they have talked about the cat for all 10 episodes? That's just stupid.

*EDIT: Fixed the first sentence.

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

"You responded to someone else" Anyone can fact check that all my replies on this thread were to doggie. Barking up the wrong tree, woof, woof.

"Don't try to suck me into your crazy." What does that even mean?

"Crazy Bernie" (Donald Trump quoted in Wash. Post today). Those who have no answers in a debate often resort to ad hominem attacks.

"Should they have talked about the cat for all 10 episodes? That's just stupid."

Straw man hyperbole. Why did MaM not mention that SA doused his own family cat in oil and gasoline? There is a simple reason for this. It did not play into their poor Steven Avery narrative.

reply

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

I mistyped. I meant that you responded to me after I had responded to someone else. Sorry about that.

"Don't try to suck me into your crazy." What does that even mean?

That should make sense now.

"Should they have talked about the cat for all 10 episodes? That's just stupid."

I still agree with that.

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

I remember when we discovered the message Teresa left for Barb was first discovered on this board. In fact, I think I found the unedited version, and was very confused. Innocent that I was back then, it didn't occur to me that MAM had edited out the part about Teresa not having the address and requesting a call back. A pretty significant detail to edit out, along with many others that have been discovered along the way,

I agree there was no apparent logical reason for SA to not call TH directly for a hustle shot this time, as he'd done before, and certainly no innocent reason for him to hide his identity the two times he called her that afternoon.

In the 11/6 interview I'm in the midst of listening to now, he's asked about the details of what he did that afternoon, evening, and the following days. He never mentions a bonfire or any type of fire, or that Brendan came over, or even that he called him. Why not?

You're never going to get an answer to these questions from those who believe SA innocent or who claim to not know. It is what it is.

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

We know he lied. End of story, except, what we still don't know is WHAT he lied about. He is, quite obviously, capable of lying.

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Yes. We know Brendan is capable of lying because question he DID lie, one way or the other, What we don't know, for certain, is what he lied about.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WhenGreyjoysCry 8 years ago

We believe he is guilty because we can follow basic logic.

reply

[–] Gabe1972 8 years ago

You wonder why? Because not everyone buys a shaky, completely biased documentary that purports to show his innocence hook, line and sinker. That's why.

Time wounds all heels.

reply