Making a Murderer

[OKCRT]

Do you think the settlement terms would have been the same had he not been in jail awaiting trial for murder?

He would have received millions. If I remember the reason he took the 400k was to have the funds to hire his lawyers for his murder charges. The scuttle but that was going around was that if Avery won a huge settlement that heads were gonna roll and many of the people involved in his false rape conviction were going to be fired.

[OKCRT]

The blood is a big one. How are we to believe that they were able to clean every trace of her blood and DNA from the trailer and garage, yet Avery leaves obvious blood stains in the car. Why aren't Avery's fingerprints anywhere in the car, including under the latch or on the hood? If he was wearing gloves, where did his blood come from? If he wasn't, where are the prints?

It's impossible for them to have cleaned the blood if it happens the way the DA said it did. I mean impossible in the time frame. Plus,I am not even sure what the DA theory was on how she dies. First they said in the bedroom with throat slashing while she was in chains. Then they said she was killed in the garage. Either place there is no way they could clean all blood up before the police got there. There was so much stuff in the garage that would have had to be bleached down. Concrete floors ect. No way. Same goes for the bedroom.

[Pete]

18 years of time has got to be worth far more than $400K. Even if they get down to a few million, you think the officers have those sort of resources? I'm just saying there is infinitely more motive for the sheriff's office to act inappropriately than for Avery & Dassey to have.

The government offer was $25K TOTAL.

So, there is hardly the expectation that wrongfully convicted people are owed millions.

[Pete]

This is from the Innocence Project, the big advocacy group for the wrongfully convicted.

And they are recommending this clearly because payouts are usually way less. In Avery's case, these guidelines -- which are not in place -- would result in a $900,000 payout plus some job training.

It's fair to assume typical payouts are much less, otherwise they wouldn't be advocating for this.

The Innocence Project recommends that all states:

Compensate exonerated people immediately after release with a fixed sum or a range of recovery for each year of wrongful incarceration. Congress and President Bush have recommended that this amount be set at $50,000 per year of wrongful incarceration.
Provide immediate re-entry funds and access to job training, educational, health and legal services after an innocent person’s release.

Compensation for the Wrongly Convicted ? The Innocence Project

[Eric]

This is from the Innocence Project, the big advocacy group for the wrongfully convicted.

And they are recommending this clearly because payouts are usually way less. In Avery's case, these guidelines -- which are not in place -- would result in a $900,000 payout plus some job training.

It's fair to assume typical payouts are much less, otherwise they wouldn't be advocating for this.




Compensation for the Wrongly Convicted ? The Innocence Project

Did the $400K he received stem from his lawsuit, or was that from the state. He was suing the county & officials in their capacity. The show gives the impression it was a settlement. Or did he get arrested for the Halbach murder before the state compensation and then settle with the county? I'm a little off on my time line apparently. I was under the impression the county was concerned the state payment would make him far less likely to settle for a low amount.

FWIW I believe the Innocence Project thinks the MINIMUM should be $50K a year. (which is still way to low in my opinion). The feds put the $50K cap in themselves. Is freedom worth that little?

Oklahoma Law:

A wrongfully convicted person is entitled to receive $175,000 for the entirety of his wrongful incarceration as long as he did not plead guilty and was imprisoned solely as a result of the wrongful conviction. Effective: 1978; Amended most recently: 2003. - See more at: Oklahoma ? The Innocence Project

Does federal law take precedent?

[Pete]

Avery settled with the County and the two others he was suing (former Sheriff and Prosecutor) after he had been arrested but before he had been tried. The amount was $400K to dismiss all charges and not sue them again, but they admitted no wrong-doing.

Don't believe federal law had anything to do with the amount to be paid in this situation. He was suing the County only and the documentary said they had offered to pay him $25K total before he decided to sue them, so clearly they were not being held to the federal standard. I bet that's just for federal cases, which this was not.

[Tundra]

How big of a douche, did Kratz turnout to be?

[mkjeeves]

This is from the Innocence Project, the big advocacy group for the wrongfully convicted.

And they are recommending this clearly because payouts are usually way less. In Avery's case, these guidelines -- which are not in place -- would result in a $900,000 payout plus some job training.

It's fair to assume typical payouts are much less, otherwise they wouldn't be advocating for this.




Compensation for the Wrongly Convicted ? The Innocence Project

Half of what they were seeking was punitive because of the egregious nature of the actions of law enforcement to put him there and keep him there. That may have counted for something significant in front of a jury.

Not many truly good folk in the movie. I have some respect for some of the defense attorneys and some of the family. Overall, it makes me lose faith in humanity and want to go take a shower.

[Eric]

It's funny the subject we have been discussing for the most part revolves around Avery & Dassey's innocence (or guilt) but I think the main point of the documentary was to expose the power that (corrupt) officials CAN have over our lives. Call it slanted coverage, but that's not the point. The point was to expose corruption, which I think at this point it is safe to say the sheriff's department was not acting on the up and up at all times. Now, do I think all law enforcement is bad. No. But, I believe there are equally corrupt parts in law enforcement that there is in general society. It does and will continue to exist. What I think needs to be reiterate is what the focus should be. The focus should be the citizens. What I think was happening in this case was several groups (two sheriff's offices, FBI, DA, etc) all acting not in concert so much as acting in confirmation of what their "brothers" are doing, with little regard to the humans they are dealing with (all of them). They seemed at least on the surface to be concerned with the Holbach's, but what about the other side? Do they at some point become not responsible to the accused. Does even our law enforcement believe in "innocent until proven guilty"?

[Pete]

^

The point was to create controversy and suspicion to get people to watch the series, and that certainly worked.

Since everything portrayed happened years ago, there is nothing otherwise compelling about this murder.


People keep saying they exposed corruption but they didn't. All they did was present a slanted viewpoint with cherry-picked evidence and carefully edited footage.

If there was any real, hard evidence of corruption, it wasn't in that film. Just a lot of shot-gunning all types of conspiracy theories and innuendos. And where has all this ultimately led other than some silly and useless on-line petition?

This is what defense attorneys do when representing someone who is completely guilty. Otherwise, this case was a slam dunk... And even after all their diversions, the jurors still didn't take very much time making up their minds simply because there was a mountain of evidence from professional law enforcement on one side, and a bunch completely unproven and disjointed conspiracy theories on the part of the defense.

[TU 'cane]

Good points in both of your posts.

[checkthat]

^

The point was to create controversy and suspicion to get people to watch the series, and that certainly worked.

Since everything portrayed happened years ago, there is nothing otherwise compelling about this murder.


People keep saying they exposed corruption but they didn't. All they did was present a slanted viewpoint with cherry-picked evidence and carefully edited footage.

If there was any real, hard evidence of corruption, it wasn't in that film. Just a lot of shot-gunning all types of conspiracy theories and innuendos. And where has all this ultimately led other than some silly and useless on-line petition?

This is what defense attorneys do when representing someone who is completely guilty. Otherwise, this case was a slam dunk... And even after all their diversions, the jurors still didn't take very much time making up their minds simply because there was a mountain of evidence from professional law enforcement on one side, and a bunch completely unproven and disjointed conspiracy theories on the part of the defense.

Can you explain exactly how the murder went down since it is so obvious?

[Pete]

Half of what they were seeking was punitive because of the egregious nature of the actions of law enforcement to put him there and keep him there. That may have counted for something significant in front of a jury.

All such lawsuits add some huge sum for punitive damages, pain and suffering, etc. Why not? Absolutely nothing to lose.

Anyone with $50 can file a lawsuit against anyone for any amount and means next to nothing.

Only the outcome matters and has any basis in reality.

[Pete]

Can you explain exactly how the murder went down since it is so obvious?

No, because I didn't sit in on all six weeks of the trial.

But it's not too hard to sketch out a general idea what happened: Avery raped and killed her, hid her car on his property, and burned her body and other evidence.

[checkthat]

No, because I didn't sit in on all six weeks of the trial.

But it's not too hard to sketch out a general idea what happened: Avery raped and killed her, hid her car on his property, and burned her body and other evidence.

They were able to spotlessly clean the garage and trailer of all of her blood and DNA, save the one bullet that was found four months later. Then, they leave her blood, hair, and Steven's blood in the car. Why would they not even attempt to clean the car if that is the case?

[Eric]

All such lawsuits add some huge sum for punitive damages, pain and suffering, etc. Why not? Absolutely nothing to lose.

Anyone with $50 can file a lawsuit against anyone for any amount and means next to nothing.

Only the outcome matters and has any basis in reality.

An outcome, need I remind you, is based solely on the OPINION of a dozen jurors. They didn't see it happen. I'm not sure this is 100% based in reality.

[Pete]

An outcome, need I remind you, is based solely on the OPINION of a dozen jurors. They didn't see it happen. I'm not sure this is 100% based in reality.

Actually, in the settlement we are talking about it never went to a jury.

The two sides mutually agreed.

[Pete]

They were able to spotlessly clean the garage and trailer of all of her blood and DNA, save the one bullet that was found four months later. Then, they leave her blood, hair, and Steven's blood in the car. Why would they not even attempt to clean the car if that is the case?

You are not dealing with criminal masterminds, here. Both Avery and his nephew had IQ's below 80.

He burned the bedding (something I don't think was mentioned in the series) and Brendan came home with bleach on his jeans, something his mother questioned him about. He told her he had been helping Steven clean his garage.


Bottom line, they cleaned some things up but left many, many bits of evidence all over his property which is why he was convicted.

[AP]

No, because I didn't sit in on all six weeks of the trial.

But it's not too hard to sketch out a general idea what happened: Avery raped and killed her, hid her car on his property, and burned her body and other evidence.

I think a good point brought up in the trial is, if he owns an auto salvage yard with a CAR CRUSHER, why would he not get rid of the car but would be smart/skillful enough to clean every record of her being on his property. I think your "general idea" is a little too simple for what may have actually happened.

Also, he burned her body in his yard but for some reason moved her hip bone to the quarry miles away. Got it.

[FighttheGoodFight]

I think a good point brought up in the trial is, if he owns an auto salvage yard with a CAR CRUSHER, why would he not get rid of the car but would be smart/skillful enough to clean every record of her being on his property. I think your "general idea" is a little too simple for what may have actually happened.

Also, he burned her body in his yard but for some reason moved her hip bone to the quarry miles away. Got it.

You can also look at it from the other way. How would the cops frame this so well? The lengths they would have to go to is honestly astounding.

[AP]

I'm not sure I agree with that.

[FighttheGoodFight]

I'm not sure I agree with that.

How so?

Killing a person, moving a car, planting blood on the key, car and under the hood, shoot a bullet from Avery's gun and put DNA on it, make Avery purchase handcuff and anklets described by the nephew, plant or doctor Avery phone calls to the lady at an obsessive rate.

I mean that is quite a bit of stuff to do.

I agree with Pete. I wasn't in the trial. I would also have found it difficult to find a jury that was unbiased in this case.

[AP]

I'm not saying they killed anyone. I'm saying they 100% planted evidence.

[mkjeeves]

My opinion, in short, Avery killed her. He had a bad start in life, followed by 18 years in the pen. Society is part to blame for the end result of making a murderer. She was probably not killed in the bedroom and probably not in the garage but that's kind of irrelevant. He/they may or may not have raped her. Brendon was in on some part of this, more of a victim than an accomplice, a really bad situation for him. Were I on the jury I'm not sure I could say that was beyond a reasonable doubt but I wasn't on the jury, I watched a TV show. Cops/prosecution/FBI/lab workers/Judges are for the most part, assholes, incompetent and some of them are outright criminals. I could have told you that before I watched it.

[Pete]

If you want to roll your eyes at any part of this case, try this one on for size: Someone and likely multiple people in law enforcement killed an innocent 25 year-old woman and risked their careers, families and life in prison just to 'get' someone they didn't like. Then tons more participated in the frame and cover up and risked all those same things.

You have to make that gigantic leap which is absolutely totally absurd.

Yet, at the same time people want to argue over tiny bits of evidence as being implausible.


The series was a massive manipulation by the filmmakers to make a compelling controversy and they were so good at it most people found themselves believing the tiny details of conspiracy without ever considering the utter ridiculousness of the fundamental premise.