Search
Search results
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated Making A Murderer - Season 1 in TV
Aug 5, 2017
Not all the information is used so it may be slightly inaccurate (1 more)
Now a bit outdated after recent changes to Brendan Dassey's conviction
Incredible series, extremely well produced
While it is apparent there are documents left out of this series, it has been masterfully put together by the documentary's director. A true crime series following convicted criminal Steven Avery and possible misconduct and corruption claims against the federal government, it is absolutely gripping from start to finish. Definitely recommended.
Ross (3282 KP) rated Making A Murderer - Season 2 in TV
Nov 5, 2018
Too long and unsatisfying
Contains spoilers, click to show
Steven Avery is back, still appealing his conviction for the murder of Theresa Hallbach, as is his nephew, Brendan Dassey.
The series was interesting, giving so much insight into the US courts and appeals system, which seems very convoluted, with so much apparent new evidence emerging on more thorough investigation and forensic analysis.
Avery's appeal case is submitted based on lots of facets - ineffectiveness of counsel, constitutional violations, new evidence etc etc. How this evidence is uncovered was really interesting and compelling. However, you have to wonder whether the submission of Avery's appeal was made too early in order to satisfy the TV series. It seemed like so much more evidence was uncovered after it was filed, which would have made the case so much stronger - fine if it goes to trial as this can all be used, but once the original appeal is submitted, that is what the judge will use to assess whether it should. Again, this facet of the appeal system seems unfair - the same judge reviews the appeal repeatedly and is bound to get fed up with hearing the same appeal over and over again. If the conviction was a result of large-scale corruption and evidence-planting, they had to nail the appeal first time, not file some of it then add bits and pieces later.
Dassey's appeal also seemed flawed, focusing so much on his coerced confession, when they should have paid more attention to how little evidence there was against him other than a dubious confession. I guess it was a case of having College lawyers who saw it more as an intellectual/theoretical exercise and were possibly a bit green for the courts in action.
All in all, the series ends with no progress for either party - Dassey's case has been all the way to the top with no joy. However, Avery's case is still in the early stages and the fight is clearly not over. This felt similar to the filing of his appeal, submitted too early just to satisfy TV scheduling.
The series, while compelling throughout, is too long for the content included and could easily have been edited down to 5 episodes or less.
I suspect another few episodes will be released next year, if some progress is made on either case.
The series was interesting, giving so much insight into the US courts and appeals system, which seems very convoluted, with so much apparent new evidence emerging on more thorough investigation and forensic analysis.
Avery's appeal case is submitted based on lots of facets - ineffectiveness of counsel, constitutional violations, new evidence etc etc. How this evidence is uncovered was really interesting and compelling. However, you have to wonder whether the submission of Avery's appeal was made too early in order to satisfy the TV series. It seemed like so much more evidence was uncovered after it was filed, which would have made the case so much stronger - fine if it goes to trial as this can all be used, but once the original appeal is submitted, that is what the judge will use to assess whether it should. Again, this facet of the appeal system seems unfair - the same judge reviews the appeal repeatedly and is bound to get fed up with hearing the same appeal over and over again. If the conviction was a result of large-scale corruption and evidence-planting, they had to nail the appeal first time, not file some of it then add bits and pieces later.
Dassey's appeal also seemed flawed, focusing so much on his coerced confession, when they should have paid more attention to how little evidence there was against him other than a dubious confession. I guess it was a case of having College lawyers who saw it more as an intellectual/theoretical exercise and were possibly a bit green for the courts in action.
All in all, the series ends with no progress for either party - Dassey's case has been all the way to the top with no joy. However, Avery's case is still in the early stages and the fight is clearly not over. This felt similar to the filing of his appeal, submitted too early just to satisfy TV scheduling.
The series, while compelling throughout, is too long for the content included and could easily have been edited down to 5 episodes or less.
I suspect another few episodes will be released next year, if some progress is made on either case.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Anatomy of Innocence: Testimonies of the Wrongfully Convicted in Books
Mar 15, 2018
With movements like Black Lives Matter at the forefront of society right now, and multiple documentaries about wrongful convictions such as Steven Avery and The West Memphis Three out, there has never been a better time for this book to come out and be read. This topic is <i><b>so important.</i></b>
Reading about the lives of these poor, innocent human beings being treated like theyre dirt, like theyre less than dirt, is devastating. A number of these stories actually brought tears to my eyes. How this injustice goes on, I cant fathom. In many of these stories we hear how there are alibis that prove the person wasnt there to commit the crime, but they convict them anyway. There are confessions from other people to crimes, yet they will convict someone else. There is someone elses DNA on a victim's body but they will commit someone whose DNA is not on the body. And possibly the worst one of them all, there are statements from VICTIMS that the person they have arrested is not the right person, yet they will still convict them. How can a legal system, thats supposed to protect us and who were supposed to trust, let this happen? It makes my blood boil.
In this book, each persons story is written by a prolific crime writer, so all of these accounts are really well written and they really bring out raw emotions in you because theyre so well presented and you can feel the exonerees pain.
Many of these people spent over a decade, if not over <b>two decades</b> of their life trapped in the walls of dirty prisons for crimes they were innocent of, such as murder, child murder, rape and GBH. The brutality of the officers arresting these people makes me sick. <b>Literal</b> torture is used on innocent people, as young as 17, to coax a <b>false confession</b> out of them, all because they want to be able to arrest someone. What makes me sicker is that these officers and the higher powers who turn(ed) a blind eye to this kind of abuse are never charged or made to own up to their brutalities AND because of the idiocy of these *insert the worst possible swear word and insults here* policemen, real child sex offenders and heartless murderers are <b>NEVER CAUGHT.</b>
This book is hopeful, but it is also heart breaking and while I could go on forever talking about the hatred and rage that this book makes me feel, but Im going to end it with this instead.
<b><blockquote>GLORIA KILLIAN
DAVID BATES
RAY TOWLER
MICHAEL EVANS
KEN WYNIEMKO
KIRK BLOODWORTH
AUDREY EDMUNDS
ALTON LOGAN
PETER REILLY
GINNY LEFEVER
BILL DILLON
JEFF DESKOVIC
ANTOINE DAY
JERRY MILLER
JUAN RIVERA</blockquote></b>
<b>You are brave and you are strong. Thank you for sharing your stories with us and shining a light on a subject so often ignored. I hope the world does nothing but right by you from here on in. You, over anyone, deserve it.</b>
I have been inspired. I am now going to look into the UKs own Innocence Group and see what I can do to help those 10% who are wrongly convicted and being left to rot in prison.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and W. W. Norton & Company for giving me the opportunity to read this book in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Reading about the lives of these poor, innocent human beings being treated like theyre dirt, like theyre less than dirt, is devastating. A number of these stories actually brought tears to my eyes. How this injustice goes on, I cant fathom. In many of these stories we hear how there are alibis that prove the person wasnt there to commit the crime, but they convict them anyway. There are confessions from other people to crimes, yet they will convict someone else. There is someone elses DNA on a victim's body but they will commit someone whose DNA is not on the body. And possibly the worst one of them all, there are statements from VICTIMS that the person they have arrested is not the right person, yet they will still convict them. How can a legal system, thats supposed to protect us and who were supposed to trust, let this happen? It makes my blood boil.
In this book, each persons story is written by a prolific crime writer, so all of these accounts are really well written and they really bring out raw emotions in you because theyre so well presented and you can feel the exonerees pain.
Many of these people spent over a decade, if not over <b>two decades</b> of their life trapped in the walls of dirty prisons for crimes they were innocent of, such as murder, child murder, rape and GBH. The brutality of the officers arresting these people makes me sick. <b>Literal</b> torture is used on innocent people, as young as 17, to coax a <b>false confession</b> out of them, all because they want to be able to arrest someone. What makes me sicker is that these officers and the higher powers who turn(ed) a blind eye to this kind of abuse are never charged or made to own up to their brutalities AND because of the idiocy of these *insert the worst possible swear word and insults here* policemen, real child sex offenders and heartless murderers are <b>NEVER CAUGHT.</b>
This book is hopeful, but it is also heart breaking and while I could go on forever talking about the hatred and rage that this book makes me feel, but Im going to end it with this instead.
<b><blockquote>GLORIA KILLIAN
DAVID BATES
RAY TOWLER
MICHAEL EVANS
KEN WYNIEMKO
KIRK BLOODWORTH
AUDREY EDMUNDS
ALTON LOGAN
PETER REILLY
GINNY LEFEVER
BILL DILLON
JEFF DESKOVIC
ANTOINE DAY
JERRY MILLER
JUAN RIVERA</blockquote></b>
<b>You are brave and you are strong. Thank you for sharing your stories with us and shining a light on a subject so often ignored. I hope the world does nothing but right by you from here on in. You, over anyone, deserve it.</b>
I have been inspired. I am now going to look into the UKs own Innocence Group and see what I can do to help those 10% who are wrongly convicted and being left to rot in prison.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and W. W. Norton & Company for giving me the opportunity to read this book in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Making A Murderer - Season 1 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
The phenomenon of “true crime” as entertainment is disturbing. What we are saying when we subscribe to watch these compellingly morbid shows is that, of course, we don’t “enjoy” or condone the crimes themselves. But, we do increasingly expect that without the grotesque detail of primary crime scene evidence, documented visually, we can switch over to another show that will give us our macabre kick. So, it is a dangerous precedent to say that without that factor we won’t engage.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.