The TV Thread

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

As in based on the books? How is it possible I didn't know they were making a show based on that... guess I need to crawl out from under my rock. 

I've never read the books, so only found out about them after I heard about the show.

 

I also checked out the first episode of Syfy's "The Magicians" which also seems to be loosely based on a novel series.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Project_Legacy

[17to85]

I don't think I ever read the books but I know my brother always said he enjoyed them. I just am a fan of fantasy on TV so I guess I'll have to check it out and see. 

[FrostyWinnipeg]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jarettwieselman/making-a-murderer-burning-questions-answered#.fkzMwO2nx

[The Unknown Poster]

48 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jarettwieselman/making-a-murderer-burning-questions-answered#.fkzMwO2nx

That's a good article with the film makers.   I'm sure they privately have a thought on who the killer(s) are and Id love to hear it

 

 

[The Unknown Poster]

     http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/making-a-murderer-subject-was-framed-says-juror-20160105

[FrostyWinnipeg]

http://www.people.com/article/petition-pardon-steven-avery-now-requires-white-house-response?xid=socialflow_facebook_peoplemag

[The Unknown Poster]

I imagine the Feds will defer to the state. 

Even if the state truly feels they are guilty they have to see tjere is enough evidence to create reasonable doubt and to throw suspicion on the police. Under those circumstances they should want a new investigation. 

[The Unknown Poster]

   

Filmed over a decade, the docu-series follows the strange case of Steven Avery, a Wisconsin man exonerated after spending 18 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit, only to be arrested and ultimately convicted of a murder for which he also maintains his innocence.

There are, of course, some major questions that people have been asking since the show first started streaming in mid-December: Why did it take so long to find the RAV4 key and the bullet? Why was anyone from Manitowoc law enforcement even allowed on the site that late in the investigation? Here are some other questions we have – some smaller, some bigger, all perplexing (spoilers galore).

1. Who the hell is the international recording artist who was released from the jury?

Richard Mahler, listed in the documentary as an "international recording artist," is actually just a local dude with a local band, according to TMZ. Mahler's outfit, the Rick Raybine Band, played the National Anthem at a NASCAR event once; as for how he got the label, Mahler told the site that a reporter described him that way once and it just stuck. Mahler was ultimately dismissed from the jury for a family emergency after he sat in deliberations for four hours.

2. What went on with the jury deliberations?
The much more interesting part about Mahler is his new allegation that two fellow jurors were related to officials in Manitowoc County, where Avery was initially wrongfully convicted. Once the trial was over, Mahler discovered, "[one juror] was the father of a Manitowoc County Sheriff's deputy," and that "another juror, his wife works for the Manitowoc County Clerk's Office," according to an interview he gave to People.

Maybe that's what defense attorney Jerry Buting was getting at in the final episode, when he made a comment about unanswered questions that he had about jury deliberations. After all, according to Mahler, the original count was that only three jurors were convinced Avery was guilty. In an interview with the Today show, filmmakers Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos said a juror contacted them after the series aired and claimed his or her decision to vote guilty was made under duress. "The person lived in the county, feared for their safety, and also said, 'If they could frame Steven Avery, they could do it to me,'" Ricciardi said in a follow up interview with Time.

 

3. Why did the defense team for Brendan Dassey seek to further the State's case?

Len Kachinsky – the original defense attorney for Avery's nephew, Brendan Dassey – is arguably be the most inscrutable element of Making a Murderer. His initial comments to the press that implied Dassey's guilt (and by extension, Avery's) were so unprofessional that, when later questioned about them on the stand at a hearing, Kachinsky purports to have forgotten he said what he said.

In one disturbing scene, the lawyer's investigator, Michael O'Kelley, appears to coerce Dassey into massaging his statement so that it aligns perfectly with what the prosecution needs. And in an email between O'Kelley and Kachinsky – remember, both technically working for Dassey – the former all but admits he's helping for the opposition. "I am not concerned with finding evidence to placing Brendan inside the crime scene, as Brendan will be State's primary witness," O'Kelly writes. "This will only serve to bolster the prosecution."

Dassey's post-conviction lawyer, Robert Dvorak, presses O'Kelley on this unbelievable admission. "So your goal is not only to get Brendan [Dassey] to confess, but also to help the State in its prosecution. Correct?" Dvorak asks.

"That's correct," O'Kelley replies.

Kachinsky isn't there for the meeting between O'Kelley and Dassey, nor is he there the following day when two officers interrogate his client in an attempt to replicate what O'Kelley extracted. As the film notes, this level of cooperation between a defense attorney and prosecutors is unheard of. And to take it one step further, it appears to go beyond bad representation and raises questions of backdoor collusion or a quid pro quo. What possible motive do Kachinsky and O'Kelley have to affirmatively advance the prosecution's case? We don't know, but even really bad lawyering (which Kachinsky has copped to) doesn't usually translate to sleeping with the enemy.

4. Is there any innocent explanation for the pinprick hole in the vial that held Avery's blood?
No, really: Is there any convincing, non-nefarious explanation for why a box of evidence was opened, a blood vial apparently punctured with a syringe, and then the box taped back up? Is there any scenario in which that's standard operating procedure for re-examining evidence? Even if you think it's far-fetched that one or two cops would plant blood in the RAV 4, what other account is there that makes any sense?

5. Has testing for EDTA advanced?
Initially it looked like the blood vial is going to be a huge win for the defense. An FBI expert determined, however, that three swabs he ran in his lab didn't contain the chemical EDTA, an additive that would have been in the blood vial — but not in blood itself — that came from a living body. That finding ended up being a major blow.

In the final episode, all of Avery's former defense attorneys sit together discussing how their ex-client could get a new trial. Jerry Buting floats one idea that, as another attorney notes, bears a striking parallel to Avery's first case. "If we could do a test today that was scientifically acceptable and valid, that actually proved there was EDTA in those blood stains, that would be newly discovered evidence," Buting said. If that kind of test is possible, and shows what Buting hopes, it would be the second time new technology exonerated Avery of a crime he didn't commit. 

 

6. Is it common for defendants to be barred from arguing that someone else did it? 
When we learn in the film that Avery's team won't be able to advance alternate theories to who killed Halbach, we were stunned. What was going on there?

The short answer is that Wisconsin has a third-party liability law that prevents a defendant from pointing the finger at somebody else without giving the court 30 days notice prior to trial, and having good reason to believe the third party had "motive, opportunity, and a direct connection to the crime." Avery's defense team wasn't allowed to suggest anyone else could have been the culprit, which he later appealed. It's not entirely clear how often defendants in other states are prohibited from advancing alternate theories for whodunit, but in this case it seems to have had a detrimental effect on Avery's ability to defend himself.

7. What's the story behind the deleted voicemails?
Halbach's ex-boyfriend Ryan Hillegas testified on the stand that he was able to guest Teresa's username and password and listen to several voicemail messages left on her phone. Avery's defense lawyers argue that since the mailbox was full, and then some messages were deleted after her death, that someone knows more than they're letting on.

When defense attorney Jerry Buting attempts to pursue this line of inquiry, though, the judge stops him on ground it will violate the third-party liability prohibition. If the State argued that Avery had already destroyed the phone, why didn't the police follow up on any and all people who might have had a motive to delete Halbach's voicemails?

8. Why was Halbach's pelvic bone discovered in the quarry?

At trial, defense attorney Dean Strang cross-examined forensic anthropologist Dr Leslie Eisenberg about whether Halbach's remains had been moved or not. Dr Eisenberg testified that she believed the primary burn site was the burn pit 20 feet from Avery's bedroom, but acknowledges remains were found in a separate barrel, as well as a quarry that's far away from the other two sites.

The State argued that the burn pit was the primary burn location, while the defense argued it could have been elsewhere – implying, possibly, the quarry. If the State's theory is correct, what accounts for Halbach's pelvic bone being discovered in the quarry?

9. What's going on when Sgt Andrew Colborn called in the read the license plate for Halbach's RAV 4?
In Episode Five, defense attorney Dean Strang asks Sgt Colborn about a phone call he made to his dispatcher prior the discovery of Halbach's vehicle on Avery's property. In the recording of the call, Colborn asks dispatch to run a license plate number, and gets a hit for Teresa Halbach, who at that point was listed as a missing person. Colborn then immediately says "Ninety-Nine Toyota?"

To Strang – and likely to many viewers – it sounds like Colborn is looking at the very SUV that wouldn't be discovered for another two days. "I shouldn't have been and I was not looking at the license plate," Colborn responded on the stand.

Maybe. But what was he looking at?

10. Who killed Teresa Halbach?

This remains the most important unanswered question in the case. Redditors have been floating alternate theories about who killed Halbach since the show premiered in late December. Since Avery himself wasn't able to pursue this question at trial, and the filmmakers have said it wasn't their job to investigate the case independently, we're left with little more than speculation. If it was Avery, then it seems clear it didn't go down the way Dassey described it. Could Avery have sterilized two crime scenes to eliminate virtually all traces of Halbach's presence? It seems unlikely.

Ultimately, the responsibility for answering this question shouldn't be that of Internet detectives. And although disgraced prosecutor Ken Kratz is waging his own media blitz to assure the public justice was done, that seems to be a lonely battle at this point.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/making-a-murderer-10-questions-we-still-have-20160107#ixzz3wZwBbC2M 
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Edited January 7, 2016 by The Unknown Poster

[The Unknown Poster]

As a few of us have theorized, Avery shares our suspicions:

 

In a 59-page court document filed in 2009 obtained by The Wrap, Avery alleged that his brothers Charles and Earl Avery, as well as nephew Bobby Dassey and brother-in-law Scott Tadych, all were capable of murdering Halbach and framing Steven Avery with the crime.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/making-a-murderer-steven-avery-thought-brothers-framed-him-20160106#ixzz3wZyaKHHi
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

[Logan007]

...I'm lost.  What the heck are you guys talking about?  Isn't this a "what's on netflix" thread.  This some documentary show or something?

[The Unknown Poster]

4 minutes ago, Logan007 said:

...I'm lost.  What the heck are you guys talking about?  Isn't this a "what's on netflix" thread.  This some documentary show or something?

This documentary really deserves its own thread now.  Im not sure if its possible to split it off completely or even from some chosen point.  But when I suggested people watch it, I didnt realise it was going to explode the way it has.

THis is "Making a Murderer", a docuseries on Netflix.  It's taken on a life of its own in the public and media.  You should watch it.  It's riveting.

Speaking of which, the two defense lawyers are considering a return:

Strang hinted that he and Buting may return to Avery’s side to fight for a new trial that could exonerate Avery—again.

“Jerry and I both have always been in touch with Steven, on and off,” said Strang, who now leads his own law firm, Strang Bradley LLC in Madison. Buting is a partner in Buting, Williams & Stilling, S.C., an hour away in Brookfield, Wisconsin. “It’s clear that he probably needs formal legal representation [for] the specific, concrete things that a lawyer can do in the coming weeks and months.

“It would depend on what he wants, for one, and two, whether any future legal steps might involve examining whether Jerry and I dropped the ball in some way—whether we were inadequate or the legal term is ineffective, in some way. If some possible avenue of relief might be raising questions about our performance or criticizing our performance then we shouldn’t be the ones to do that.

“He’s not going to be able to pay anybody,” he added. “Money isn’t in the equation. But what is, right now in our eyes, is, what’s best for Steven?”

Strang readily admits he thinks it’s possible that Avery is guilty. But, he argues, “If our system worked on convicting people on maybes, then everybody could pat themselves on the back and go out and have a beer, convicting a man on a maybe. Our system isn’t supposed to work on convicting people on maybes.

“In our system, if we live the values we profess, that means you get to keep your liberty,” he continued. “That means you don’t spend the rest of your life in a cage. Could he be guilty? Sure, he could. Do I think he was proven guilty? No. Do I think there’s a real strong chance he could be innocent? Yes. But that’s just me. I wasn’t asked to decide.” 

[Logan007]

Ah ok.  I didn't realize it was a documentary show, I thought it was a fictional one, and then you all started talking about real life stuff so it through me off.  Thanks for clarifying.

[Taynted_Fayth]

found this Nightwing :the series, its a fan made series (6 episodes) but only 9 mins long each (ugh).  considering it was done with no affiliation to dc comics or anything, the quality is fairly decent and while i only watched the first 2 albeit extremely short episodes, seems like it could have been a good one, up their with the other dc comic tv series currently played.  

[The Unknown Poster]

(CNN)Steven Avery, the subject of the popular Netflix documentary series "Making a Murderer," wants to be released from prison while the Wisconsin Court of Appeals considers his latest challenge to his 2007 murder conviction.

Avery filed two motions Monday alleging violations of due process rights in his prosecution for the 2005 rape and murder of photographer Teresa Halbach, according to CNN affiliate WBAY. Avery is serving a life sentence for her death.

Avery wrote and filed his appeal before noted defense attorney Kathleen Zellner took on his case. One of the motions claims a search warrant executed on the property was invalid, meaning evidence from the search should have been inadmissible. The second motion claims a juror pressured others into voting guilty.

The motion seeks a stay of enforcement of the judgment and release on bond. If the court decides to vacate Avery's conviction based on his claims, prosecutors would have to decide whether to retry him without the impermissible evidence.

Ken Kratz, who was the Calumet County district attorney and the lead prosecutor in the case, shared his thoughts with WBAY.

"I'm disappointed that Mr. Avery's appellate lawyers are allowing him to continue to file pleadings with the court on his own - that's what lawyers are hired to do," he said. "And this appears to be an example of Mr. Avery doing exactly what he wants to and when he wants to do it."

 

****Kratz's comments are interesting.  He definitely isnt speaking in favour of Avery.  While using lawyers is always wiser, its strange he'd feel Avery shouldnt be allowed to exercise his rights as a citizen.  Kratz is a creepy jerk anyway.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

[Logan007]

Although hilarious, I think you're in the wrong thread there Frosty. 

[The Unknown Poster]

4 minutes ago, Logan007 said:

Although hilarious, I think you're in the wrong thread there Frosty. 

Its a joke about Making A Murderer, discussed at length in this thread.

[Logan007]

3 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Its a joke about Making A Murderer, discussed at length in this thread.

Ah ok.  You guys really need to make a separate thread about that. 

[The Unknown Poster]

One of the defence lawyers for Avery was out of the country but he's back now. And giving fantastic interviews to rolling stone 

here's one(but there are many)

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/see-making-a-murderer-lawyer-talk-evidence-prosecutors-sour-grapes-20160115

[Brandon]

My good does this look awful and could they have found the whitest looking asian ever...

 

Edited January 20, 2016 by Brandon

[Taynted_Fayth]

I just saw a thing on FB about celebrities who went broke, and one of them was Chris Tucker, who never continued on the Friday series but found some luck with the Rush Hour movies, I wonder if they are trying to reboot interest in the franchise or if this is kind of a nail in the coffin for it?

[Brandon]

I think Chris Tucker was a victim of the Micheal Jackson effect.... he used to be good buds with him and just went straight out weird.

However he did do an HBO stand up last year and has turned down a tonne of movie offers in the past and if he really was hurting I'm sure he would just make a few easy movies for some money.

[Taynted_Fayth]

I started watching that Shannara Chronicles, and Im finding the same issue I have/had with the Expanse.  The series premiere were 2 hours (2 episodes) and it was like watching a movie and somewhat captivating. But switching to the regular format of an hour, or really 45 min episodes with commercials, and only playing one show per week, I find it harder and harder to keep interest.  I know my buddy who will only binge watch a season of a show once it's been entirely aired, I might have to follow suit. Or maybe shows should start being longer per week? 

[The Unknown Poster]

X-Files revival this weekend!

American Crime Story (People vs OJ) in two weeks.

The Walking Dead in a month.

Vinyl in 5 weeks.

Very excited!

[Taynted_Fayth]

I might have to rewatch the season of the walking dead, these holiday hiatuses are brutal lol