Thread: Making a Murderer

Originally Posted by Adretheon

Did they leave stuff out? Because from what I saw the State didn't really bring any evidence that was 100% concrete in proving he did it. The things that should have been has questionable surroundings to it(specifically around the testing of the evidence).

I don't know if he did it or not, but there are so many questionable things that it does raise doubt. And that was on the State to disprove. There's no question there's people who don't like him(even in his family) and one could have made a case against anyone of them, but from this it looked like they didn't even look at anyone else at all. That's the thing that gets to me. How could you not at least look into the other people just in case.

That's what I mean by the investigation being a farce and not to mention the leading the investigators gave to that kid during their interrogations. I think that kid was thretened and forced to lie and give a false confession personally because nothing of what he said that happened made any sense and there was zero evidence to support it. That prosecutor was a complete scumbag too btw.

I'm still finishing the eps, I just got done with the kids case. ep 9 I think.

One thing I can't wrap my head around is the way the convictions came out vs the story that the state was using. I know it's a different case, but how was Steve's case not a pertinent source of evidence for Brendan's case? Steve was found guilty on Murder but not guilty on corpse mutilation, on top of the fact that Brenden's confession was thrown out of Steve's case. So the state is effectively saying that he killed her but didn't burn her body, but some how Brenden killed her and burned the body with his uncle?

I don't know how all that works in the courts, but I feel like if his confession was ruled unusable for Steve's case that should have made Brenden's case just go away since that same confession was the whole basis of the other one. Am I missing something, are you not allowed to use the outcome of Steve's case(and the story that the state used for that case, which contradicts the story they told in this one) as a defense?

Originally Posted by Adretheon

I'm still finishing the eps, I just got done with the kids case. ep 9 I think.

One thing I can't wrap my head around is the way the convictions came out vs the story that the state was using. I know it's a different case, but how was Steve's case not a pertinent source of evidence for Brendan's case? Steve was found guilty on Murder but not guilty on corpse mutilation, on top of the fact that Brenden's confession was thrown out of Steve's case. So the state is effectively saying that he killed her but didn't burn her body, but some how Brenden killed her and burned the body with his uncle?

I don't know how all that works in the courts, but I feel like if his confession was ruled unusable for Steve's case that should have made Brenden's case just go away since that same confession was the whole basis of the other one. Am I missing something, are you not allowed to use the outcome of Steve's case(and the story that the state used for that case, which contradicts the story they told in this one) as a defense?

I am not an expert but because Brendons confession was thrown out of Steves case that means the two legally speaking became separate from one another meaning nothing in one case can be used as evidence in the other.

The point of it all is that he is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; wether Steven is innocent or not is not what the burden of proof [the State] needs to prove, excuse the redundancy.

Later reports came out where jurors spoke out of being threatened themselves to vote guilty.

Good point and it didn't help that the media were all over this like flies on shit. Even George Stephanopoulos had a segment on it. My point is it was also a trial by public opinion. The Manitowoc county population is so small I can't believe they would draw their jury from there especially since they had all probably heard of his first case. They should have had the jury chosen from the county the woman he was suspected of killing was from. The entire trial was completely wrong. This why I was left speechless. The whole thing just stinks.

Not only that but 2 or 3 of the jurors were related to the prosecution or worked for the county or some shit.

Yea, it is some TERRIBLE shit; nothing can give this man his 18 years back for the first wrongful conviction and he will probably not see the light of day as a free man again. I feel bad for Brendan as well; he´s obviously mentally impaired.

I had a ton of problems with the evidence presented by the State but one of the biggest things is that they argue the woman was stabbed, shot in the head and mutilated; they first said in the trailer, then they said it happened in the garage. Where is the DNA? I mean, mutilating a body is messy. Shooting a person creates a ton of blood splatter. Stabbing a person and slashing someone´s throat is terribly messy as well. WTF Where is all this evidence? The jury just heard that statement and went with it based on solely the word of the prosecutor; there IS NO PHYSICAL evidence backing this up, and this is the strongest argument they have.

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

Yea, it is some TERRIBLE shit; nothing can give this man his 18 years back for the first wrongful conviction and he will probably not see the light of day as a free man again. I feel bad for Brendan as well; he´s obviously mentally impaired.

I had a ton of problems with the evidence presented by the State but one of the biggest things is that they argue the woman was stabbed, shot in the head and mutilated; they first said in the trailer, then they said it happened in the garage. Where is the DNA? I mean, mutilating a body is messy. Shooting a person creates a ton of blood splatter. Stabbing a person and slashing someone´s throat is terribly messy as well. WTF Where is all this evidence? The jury just heard that statement and went with it based on solely the word of the prosecutor; there IS NO PHYSICAL evidence backing this up, and this is the strongest argument they have.

Yeah the more you look at it the more you become convinced it is a blatant abuse of power by the state to avoid taking responsibility for his wrongful conviction and to discredit the whole thing.

It reeks!