- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New Netflix docu-series "Making a Murderer" (Spoilers)
Posted on 1/24/16 at 6:44 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 1/24/16 at 6:44 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Sweet assumption, but as I've stated in here more than a few times, this isn't the case. I read about this case before I ever watched a single episode on it. My wife mentioned it to me, and I initially thought it sounded just like all the other Lifetime made-for-television crap. I decided to read about it because I enjoy reading much more than watching television. After I did some fairly extensive research, I decided I'd watch the documentary with my wife. It was entertaining, but it did little to alter my thoughts one way or the other.
CSB
2
Posted on 1/24/16 at 6:48 pm to Jwodie
Cool post baw
Keep'em simple.
Keep'em simple.
Posted on 1/24/16 at 6:56 pm to Jwodie
quote:
Jwodie
Wonderful contribution, kind sir.
Posted on 1/24/16 at 7:06 pm to thetempleowl
quote:nah, the 8 day warrant search where certain members of the public were Invited onto the premises (unfrickingbelievable) , lack of victims blood/spatter, and the way the detectives interrogated a borderline retarded kid (which was all video taped) is why it was questionable.
The only reason it is questionable is because the defense team did a great job selling their stuff
Oh let's not forget the "I'm sorry for what I did", "im not sorry for what I did" tactic.
Posted on 1/25/16 at 12:39 pm to jeff5891
As a US citizen and human being this documentary turned my stomach from the first episode. As others and Strang said - I hope Avery is guilty. If he isn't...
As a lawyer myself -- I believe that first lawyer for Brendan is a low life piece of crap. If he is not disbarred he should be immediately. I have handled very little low level criminal stuff which means I do not know anything close to Strang and Buting. But I know that first lawyer for Brendan did almost everything wrong and unethically. How does that guy sleep at night?
I'm not sure how things like this occur in the US in this century.
On a personal level it is hard for me to say whether I think Avery did it or not. I do know that the evidence presented in the documentary -- and I realize we did not see the entire trial and all of the evidence offered -- left more than a reasonable doubt in my mind. With what was presented in the doc there is no way I would have voted guilty on that jury and I do not think most reasonable people could.
As a lawyer myself -- I believe that first lawyer for Brendan is a low life piece of crap. If he is not disbarred he should be immediately. I have handled very little low level criminal stuff which means I do not know anything close to Strang and Buting. But I know that first lawyer for Brendan did almost everything wrong and unethically. How does that guy sleep at night?
I'm not sure how things like this occur in the US in this century.
On a personal level it is hard for me to say whether I think Avery did it or not. I do know that the evidence presented in the documentary -- and I realize we did not see the entire trial and all of the evidence offered -- left more than a reasonable doubt in my mind. With what was presented in the doc there is no way I would have voted guilty on that jury and I do not think most reasonable people could.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 8:56 am to rmc
open question to any of the attorneys here, after the judge ruled against kachinsky to have the confession thrown out, what should his strategy have been? Was he wrong for pushing for the plea bargain?
Edit- obviously the way he went about it wasn't kosher. The documentary mentioned that kachinsky had run for public office so he used the trial as free publicity.
Edit- obviously the way he went about it wasn't kosher. The documentary mentioned that kachinsky had run for public office so he used the trial as free publicity.
This post was edited on 1/26/16 at 9:01 am
Posted on 1/26/16 at 9:28 am to rmc
quote:
But I know that first lawyer for Brendan did almost everything wrong and unethically. How does that guy sleep at night?
After Dassey get's some real help from the innocence project, or whatever the name of it is, and they call that guy to testify, he still has that shite eating grin on his face. He knows he is f**ked and he still can't help being a smug bastard. I think he sleeps fine. I think he has no soul. I think he was remotely part of some scheme to "get" the Avery's. I think he truly was just a scum bag who wanted to get this case off of his desk and get some attention while doing so. Speaking on television about someone's guilt before ever having even spoken to the client is just absurd.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 10:24 am to 632627
quote:
open question to any of the attorneys here, after the judge ruled against kachinsky to have the confession thrown out, what should his strategy have been? Was he wrong for pushing for the plea bargain?
I don't think he had a strategy to begin with, meaning I don't think he ever had the intention of going to trial. I've met some pretty incompetent shady public defenders, but this guy is on another level.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 12:15 pm to LesGeaux45
This show grinds my gears.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:03 pm to 632627
quote:
open question to any of the attorneys here, after the judge ruled against kachinsky to have the confession thrown out, what should his strategy have been? Was he wrong for pushing for the plea bargain?
He wasn't wrong, per se. He should have more fully developed the evidence regarding Brendon's capacity to have even given the confession, freely, plus his suggestibility (which some of us thought he was doing with the video re-confession via his investigator) - well prior to arguing his motion to suppress the initial confession.
But, having lost that, I do not think he was wrong in pushing for a plea bargain. The problem is - Brendan is so unreliable, either in his own defense or against Steven Avery, his testimony is of no value - to anyone (which makes it strange that he was put on the stand in his trial - on the other hand, I don't fault his trial attorneys - they were dealt a bad hand. They wanted to the jury to see just how dumb this kid is.)
The core problem with Kachinsky - he didn't believe his client when he recanted. Once he was adamant in recanting, if he didn't believe him, he should have withdrawn. He actively worked against his client's best interest after that.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:28 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
He wasn't wrong, per se. He should have more fully developed the evidence regarding Brendon's capacity to have even given the confession, freely, plus his suggestibility (which some of us thought he was doing with the video re-confession via his investigator) - well prior to arguing his motion to suppress the initial confession.
But, having lost that, I do not think he was wrong in pushing for a plea bargain. The problem is - Brendan is so unreliable, either in his own defense or against Steven Avery, his testimony is of no value - to anyone (which makes it strange that he was put on the stand in his trial - on the other hand, I don't fault his trial attorneys - they were dealt a bad hand. They wanted to the jury to see just how dumb this kid is.)
The core problem with Kachinsky - he didn't believe his client when he recanted. Once he was adamant in recanting, if he didn't believe him, he should have withdrawn. He actively worked against his client's best interest after that.
He was wrong to have admitted doing work for the prosecution.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 1:30 pm to jeff5891
quote:
the 8 day warrant search where certain members of the public were Invited onto the premises (unfrickingbelievable)
Not just members of the public - other persons of interest in the case who were never investigated in the first place!
Posted on 1/26/16 at 2:20 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
He was wrong to have admitted doing work for the prosecution.
At the very least, it gives credibility to those who claim the system is rigged and that the criminal justice system is a group of folks all working, collectively, against criminal defendants - unless you hire your own lawyer with your own money.
(ETA: For the record - I know a pretty good sample of criminal defense attorneys - they range from public defenders who fight like hell for their clients, effectively, those that fight like hell, but are as incompetent as you might imagine, and slimy, high end defense attorneys who pervert the system at the expense of justice - the other way from what happened with Kachinsky. None of them did anything like what Kachinsky did with that "re-confession.")
This post was edited on 1/26/16 at 2:23 pm
Posted on 1/26/16 at 5:44 pm to Ace Midnight
The whole first lawyer for BD was a bad situation. It was bad for a couple of reasons.
First off, LK basically was working for the prosecution. A good lawyer would've talked to his client, gotten all the information about it privately, and then gotten a deal for his client. He would've protected his client the moment he got involved.
That being said, people here can't put themselves in his position or the position of his investigator.
First it is a small town. Many people know each other. The Averys, as a family, are pretty unliked. The investigator knew TH. I am sure these guys knew that BD had already confessed. They knew he was involved in it.
Imagine you are a public defender. You are called to defend a kid who confessed to the horrible rape and murder of a young woman whose parents you knew. Perhaps you went to church with the victims family. It is a small town after all. How would you treat the kid who just confessed to the crime?
Look, I know many people believe that the greatest conspiracy in the history of the world was pulled off and feel that these two guys were framed (OK, fine, for those absolute imbeciles who believe the moon landing was faked, I guess that would top this conspiracy). But the fact is, unless you are willing to suspend reality, he and avery are both guilty.
Before I get downvoted to oblivion, everyone who wants to hang LK, answer me this question. This is not about this case. This is about a hypothetical case where you know the guy is guilty. Let me paint you a picture...
You are a small town lawyer. You get called to defend a kid who just confessed to the rape, murder, and mutilation of the pretty daughter of friends of yours. Heck, you have know this girl since she was a kid. And this guy just raped her, tortured her, killed her, and then mutilated and burned her body. And you know he did it. What are you going to do?
I know everyone here is going to say that they would do what they are supposed to do and try everything to get their client off or at least get the best deal possible for their client. I know that is what everyone is going to say. But the fact is, many here would think that justice demands that this kid spend the rest of his life in jail and hell, you might just help make sure the kid does just that.
Now lets get back to talking about the real case for a second. The interesting thing here is that if BD had followed LK advice and turned witness on his uncle like he should have, he may very well be out of prison now.
The more I think about it, the more I totally dislike the two other lawyers who represented BD later in the show. Were they much better lawyers than LK was? Hell yes. But they didn't do what was right for BD. The simple fact is with the mountain of evidence and his self professed guilt, the trial was in reality a foregone conclusion. Both were going to be found guilty. Because they wanted the publicity of defending a very well known criminal, they basically wanted this thing to go to trial and get the publicity while all the while knowing that they were going to lose. They offered up this kid for the sake of publicity to further their careers.
What they should have done was had him testify against his uncle for a more lenient sentence. They should have gotten the best deal they could've gotten for him especially after the confession was not thrown out.
I hate LK. But hell, put yourself in his position. Many here would do the same thing.
But the next two lawyers sold their client up the river for the sake of furthering their own careers.
First off, LK basically was working for the prosecution. A good lawyer would've talked to his client, gotten all the information about it privately, and then gotten a deal for his client. He would've protected his client the moment he got involved.
That being said, people here can't put themselves in his position or the position of his investigator.
First it is a small town. Many people know each other. The Averys, as a family, are pretty unliked. The investigator knew TH. I am sure these guys knew that BD had already confessed. They knew he was involved in it.
Imagine you are a public defender. You are called to defend a kid who confessed to the horrible rape and murder of a young woman whose parents you knew. Perhaps you went to church with the victims family. It is a small town after all. How would you treat the kid who just confessed to the crime?
Look, I know many people believe that the greatest conspiracy in the history of the world was pulled off and feel that these two guys were framed (OK, fine, for those absolute imbeciles who believe the moon landing was faked, I guess that would top this conspiracy). But the fact is, unless you are willing to suspend reality, he and avery are both guilty.
Before I get downvoted to oblivion, everyone who wants to hang LK, answer me this question. This is not about this case. This is about a hypothetical case where you know the guy is guilty. Let me paint you a picture...
You are a small town lawyer. You get called to defend a kid who just confessed to the rape, murder, and mutilation of the pretty daughter of friends of yours. Heck, you have know this girl since she was a kid. And this guy just raped her, tortured her, killed her, and then mutilated and burned her body. And you know he did it. What are you going to do?
I know everyone here is going to say that they would do what they are supposed to do and try everything to get their client off or at least get the best deal possible for their client. I know that is what everyone is going to say. But the fact is, many here would think that justice demands that this kid spend the rest of his life in jail and hell, you might just help make sure the kid does just that.
Now lets get back to talking about the real case for a second. The interesting thing here is that if BD had followed LK advice and turned witness on his uncle like he should have, he may very well be out of prison now.
The more I think about it, the more I totally dislike the two other lawyers who represented BD later in the show. Were they much better lawyers than LK was? Hell yes. But they didn't do what was right for BD. The simple fact is with the mountain of evidence and his self professed guilt, the trial was in reality a foregone conclusion. Both were going to be found guilty. Because they wanted the publicity of defending a very well known criminal, they basically wanted this thing to go to trial and get the publicity while all the while knowing that they were going to lose. They offered up this kid for the sake of publicity to further their careers.
What they should have done was had him testify against his uncle for a more lenient sentence. They should have gotten the best deal they could've gotten for him especially after the confession was not thrown out.
I hate LK. But hell, put yourself in his position. Many here would do the same thing.
But the next two lawyers sold their client up the river for the sake of furthering their own careers.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 8:48 pm to thetempleowl
quote:
What they should have done was had him testify against his uncle for a more lenient sentence. They should have gotten the best deal they could've gotten for him especially after the confession was not thrown out.
this is exactly what LK was trying to do. The biggest criticism i have of LK is he seemed (at least as presented in the documentary) to be basking in the limelight and be in it for recognition for his next shot at public office.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 9:48 pm to thetempleowl
quote:
I forgot about the bleach, gas,etc used to clean up the site.
I also forgot about the bleach stains on BD clothes that his mother remembered.
You ever get this sorted out? Not trying to be a jackass, I genuinely want to make sure no one puts anything into this.
Posted on 1/26/16 at 9:51 pm to thetempleowl
quote:
First it is a small town. Many people know each other. The Averys, as a family, are pretty unliked. The investigator knew TH. I am sure these guys knew that BD had already confessed. They knew he was involved in it.
Imagine you are a public defender. You are called to defend a kid who confessed to the horrible rape and murder of a young woman whose parents you knew.
Pretty sure LK was from a different county. Not sure at all he knew who anyone was beforehand.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 9:12 am to 632627
quote:
this is exactly what LK was trying to do. The biggest criticism i have of LK is he seemed (at least as presented in the documentary) to be basking in the limelight and be in it for recognition for his next shot at public office.
Not exactly. They were trying to get him a deal, but not the best deal they could get. He let the police interview him without being present the next day. He should have never done that.
He could have gotten quite a bit of information and then talked deal before giving the prosecution or the police anymore than they already had.
What he did was basically get him to confess more details to help the case and leave the deal up to the prosecution.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 9:29 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
You ever get this sorted out? Not trying to be a jackass, I genuinely want to make sure no one puts anything into this.
I'm not sure what you are asking? Yes, BD said they used bleach and other substances to clean the garage.
Yes, there were bleach stains on his clothes as well which they found after they went back and looked.
I'm not sure what you are asking?
Yes, Barb Janda saw bleach stains on BD clothes the night of 10/31. She admitted this. And yes, BD said in his confession that they used bleach and other substances to clean the garage floor. And yes, they found clothes with bleach stains on them.
These are facts.
quote:
From the criminal complaint: “On February 27, 2006, your complainant spoke with Barb Janda. Barb Janda stated on October 31, 2006, when Brendan Dassey returned from Steven Avery’s residence, Dassey had bleach stains on his jeans. Barb Janda Asked Dassey what happened to his jeans, and he told her his jeans were bleached while he was helping Steven Avery clean his garage floor with bleach. On Mar 1, 2006 Investigator Wiegert recovered the jeans worn by Dassey on October 31, 2005. Wiegert noted the jeans contained bleach spots and other stains.”
Posted on 1/27/16 at 9:30 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Pretty sure LK was from a different county. Not sure at all he knew who anyone was beforehand.
LKs investigator knew the victim. That was pointed out in the film I believe.
Page 72 of 84
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News