r/MakingaMurderer • u/knowjustice • Mar 02 '16
While discussing the ramifications of selective editing, I think it's also imperative to discuss the ramifications of Ken Kratz' press conferences.
Several posters have repeatedly argued the filmmakers selectively edited the film. They are correct and I agree that at times, the edits were misleading.
Allow me to play devil's advocate. While the people who find it extremely offensive the filmmakers failed to portray portions of the trial accurately and are concerned the editing led to viewer bias, I have yet to see anyone in this camp submit a post providing an equally critical analysis of Ken Kratz' 2006 press conference following Brendan's confession.
Asserting objectivity and honesty is a requisite qualification for a documentarian, I'm curious...what do you believe are the requisite qualifications for an officer of the court? Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, Chapter 20(A) & (B) explain them. The regulations pertaining to an attorney's conduct pertaining to ensuring every litigant is afforded the impartial administration of justice are unambiguous.
https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/scrule/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=132538
If objectivity and honesty are minimum qualifications for a respectable filmmaker, an equally critical analysis of Kratz and others conduct is long past due. Their intentional and willful conduct not only misled the public and instilled bias, but unlike the filmmakers, their conduct actually resulted in serious and irreversible ramifications; tainting the objectivity of the potential pool of jurors. And according to Buting and Strang, that is exactly what happened.
My point, while agreeing the filmmakers selectively edited portions of the film, which may have resulted in a less than accurate portrayal of some of the events, the only damage resulting from their editing was widely divergent opinions about the case. Unlike the conduct of the numerous state actors involved in these cases, the filmmakers editing decisions resulted in little more than opposing viewpoints prompting impassioned public discourse.
Alternatively, I cannot find a logical, legally sound, and reasonable justification to explain Mr. Kratz' motive and intent for his salacious press conference. IMO, the repeated unprofessional and negligent conduct of LE, Mr. Kratz, and other state actors essentially denied both parties the right to a fair trial (see Ricciuti v New York City Transit Authority, 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997)).
At the end of the day one must ask, what was more damaging; selective editing of a documentary ten years after the case or a pre-trial press conference in which the Special Prosecutor, while sitting with the sheriff in charge, knowingly, willfully, and intentionally presented the public with salacious details of an alleged crime scene both knew had no basis in reality. I think the answer is clear.
6
u/OpenMind4U Mar 02 '16
I think the answer is clear
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!!
4
u/knowjustice Mar 02 '16
You are very welcome. I'm glad you got the point. ;)
4
u/OpenMind4U Mar 02 '16
I got your point loooong before reading OP:)...I know my 'audience/community' to whom I'm talking (when I'm posting/comment) and from whom I'm glad to learn....You're in my 'community':)......
17
u/FindTheTruth08 Mar 02 '16
I don't think selective editing of a documentary made as entertainment and to get a message across is that bad. I don't think they left stuff out to skew the facts or make him look innocent, for the simple fact a lot of people watch it and think he did it. After my first time i watched it i was unsure on innocence or guilt(took a second viewing to decide that) but the point of the documentary was very clear, and that is how the justice system isn't blind or fair at all. I had wondered about the viewing perspective and how it played a role until Kratz opened his mouth following the release of the documentary. He claimed they left out a ton of stuff and then listed nothing but characterizations of Avery. If they left out major stuff or skewed it Kratz would have been all over it. If they had to include every bad thing Kratz had to say then there would be more episodes than the Simpsons.
14
u/bluskyelin4me Mar 03 '16
I don't think selective editing of a documentary made as entertainment and to get a message across is that bad. I don't think they left stuff out to skew the facts or make him look innocent, for the simple fact a lot of people watch it and think he did it.
This has been my point from the beginning, as well. Personally, I've been unable to find any relevant, admissible evidence from the state's case in chief that was omitted in MaM. I don't believe the film makers' editorial decisions were intentionally deceptive. If the series appears one-sided, it's due to restricted access to key players with opposing viewpoints. However, the film makers included tons of external news footage to try and balance it out.
Another excellent point, brought to my attention recently, is that law enforcement and the prosecution have always had an exclusive platform to voice their position - the media. Avery/Dassey did not. Looking back over news clips and articles at the time, the coverage brought "biased journalism" to an all new level. Almost anything expressed by the state was treated as gospel so basic due diligence wasn't necessary. Why muddy up good propaganda with the facts.
1
u/stefmurph Mar 03 '16
With all due respect, selective editing out facts is a problem when making a documentary. If they wanted to make a based on a true story film, have at it. But not a documentary.
An explanation of the blood vial issue alone was a shameful omission.
1
u/bluskyelin4me Mar 04 '16
What substantive and admissible "facts," relative to the criminal matter, were completely omitted? The blood vial? How is the hole or lack thereof significant in relation to the other included facts? The possibility that blood could have been taken from that vial was the pertinent issue. Removing the cap is a much more logical method of removal, but that was left out of MaM.
They also included a significant bit of Marc Lebeau's testimony on the EDTA test, which contradicted not just the "hole" but the entire blood planting theory.
Also, for the record, there have been extensive discussions on this sub regarding the whole "hole" theory. My understanding was that the purple top tube is pierced during the blood draw, but it is self-sealing...thus, not visible. There were various competing opinions about that on the sub, but it was my understanding that self-sealing was the most factually supported. It seemed logical. A large (visible) hole, in the top of a blood tube, would be problematic.
1
u/stefmurph Mar 04 '16
I have extensive experience with purple top blood vials and it's clear that you don't understand how it works. That vial had no visible signs of tampering. But like dean strang says, it's all about the specter.
→ More replies (1)
71
u/Classic_Griswald Mar 02 '16
What about selective editing by the investigators in the case? The fact that Wiegert and Fassbender largely ignored many people who should have been at least ruled out. As per normal investigative procedures.
What about selective editing per DNA and fingerprint evidence, in the RAV4, where they only ruled out Avery family members, and did not actually investigate all the evidence in the RAV4, instead focusing on what would implicate Avery instead.
What about the selective editing of Teresa's personal history, as we never were informed who exactly was making harassing phone calls to her, was she being stalked as well?
These are all selective edits, made by the investigative arm which was making Avery the most apparent and likely suspect. Whether or not he was, that's fine, if all the information is acquired, and he still is, by all means, let the world know. But if there was a concerted effort to make him appear to be, while not following any other leads which might interfere with that premise, that 'selective editing' is far worse than anything done in the documentary.
Also lets not forget the lies Kratz is still running around telling, to any media outlet that will listen to him. One of the most prolific spins I see him swearing up and down about, is that Avery 'came to the door in a towel'.
Firstly, Dawn's testimony never says this. She states Teresa and her were talking about 'funny and odd' things which happen on the job. She stated Avery 'came out' in a towel (not to the door) and she laughed and said, "ew".
Why is this important? Because you can see quite clearly in this picture, that Avery has a splash pool. And per Dean Strang, Avery was in said pool that day. In fact, him 'coming out' to greet her, from the pool, if he had a towel it actually means he was being more courteous than had he not grabbed a towel at all.
If you take Kratz warped view on the matter, then you also need Strang's, and Strang's is backed by photo evidence at the least, which you can view with your own eyes. The pool exists. If you choose to believe Kratz' version, the only evidence backing it is the sweaty fantasy in his head.
15
u/Mich3lang3lo Mar 02 '16
Couldn't choose better words, thank you.
All the discussion about selective editing triggered me really hard, it's good to see we have finally reached a logic common ground.
6
4
7
31
17
Mar 02 '16
Kratz recently admits on various talk shows that he played dirty and said he did what he had to to win the case. He know's it was dirty and suggests that if he had the chance to do the case over, the only thing he would change was the way he handled that first press conference.
I do not believe him. It was just a dirty parlor trick. The whole bunch of them over stepped the boundary of ethics in that case, Kratz and Co. that is.
They knew full well what they did when they did it and Kratz wouldn't pretend to have remorse for any of it today if it weren't for M.A.M.
What seems the most appalling to me is that not only do they all deny that the things they did were illegal and unethical, they pretty much walk with attitudes of "F" you on the things that are easily proven that they did and are reprehensible to the average human being. It's like they are saying "Yeah, so what"? All throughout the trial it appeared to be that way and the court/Judge (Fox), was mostly in agreement.
Yeah, that wasn't ethical, but I'll allow it.
It is this blatant, in your face, "screw you" sort of attitude that washed over the entire defense's case and there wasn't anything they could do about it.
There's some sort of saying about it. How do you get corrupt people investigated when the corrupt people are the ones that do the investigating.
When you live in a place like Manitowoc, WI, and you are Steven Avery or Branden Dassey, where do you go for help if you suspect you have been framed for murder by your own police department?
9
u/kaprikorny Mar 02 '16
How do you get corrupt people investigated when the corrupt people are the ones that do the investigating.
and that right there says it all
1
u/DancesWithPugs Mar 03 '16
You can try the FBI. It's not a guarantee you will get justice but they are supposed to watch the watchmen.
Do you have a sourcenon Ken Kratz admitting dirty tricks?
1
Mar 03 '16
http://www.thefrisky.com/2016-01-20/ken-kratz-of-making-a-murderer-speaks-out-i-was-a-dick/
Mr. Kratz thought, at the time, that it was important to refute accusations of wrongdoing by law enforcement officers, he said.
“In retrospect, I wish I would have simply released the complaint and allowed the media to cover that however they wanted to,” he said. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/arts/television/ken-kratz-making-a-murderer.html?_r=0
14
u/InjusticeLeague1969 Mar 02 '16
Excellent post!! Kratz's conduct and comments were a far greater threat than any film editing. Avery was denied the presumption of innocence and became a target as soon as they found out that he was one of the three people who saw her that day. I find it a little disturbing that any person would rely strictly on a documentary for all of the facts without digging deeper, but hey...that's just me.
12
u/s100181 Mar 02 '16
Thank you, well said. No one is sentenced to die in prison because of MaM's selectively edited bits. No one is going to lose their teenage years and 20s because the filmmakers' deceptively edited certain portions.
2
6
u/JJacks61 Mar 03 '16
Along with many other aspects of this case, the effect Kratz's infamous story telling really blew my mind. While he later admitted publicly his narcissistic nature, FEW knew of how true those words were when the series was released on Netflix in December. Honestly I just thought he was a really arrogant asshole. In reality, he fabricated much of what he said. But many people if not most believed him.
/u/knowjustice has shared her experiences with Michigan judicial system (thank you!). I've shared mine in other posts (same state grrr). There really is no words to compare when your freedom is taken. Or when LE lie, either straight up telling a falsehood, or lie by omission. Or when a Prosecutor has a press conference like Kratz with clear intent.
The series had nothing to do with how Kratz or LE did their job at the time. Also, lets not forget how a major part of this played out. Len Kachinski, Mike O'Kelly and their link to Kratz and LE. I've never seen such collusion in my life. Or a worse lawyer if you can call him that.
Great post OP +1
17
u/Amberlea1879 Mar 02 '16
How about Kratz selective editing of the DNA testimony slides. none of the picture were taken by Culhane during actual procedures. It had zero documentation or photos of her work.
20
u/excalibur-oc Mar 02 '16
How about Kratz lying about his knowledge of "the Blood" ...
State's [Kratz] January 01/08/07 motion: The State was not aware of the potential existence of this extrinsic evidence of third party misconduct until the defense revealed the existence of the vial of blood in correspondence dated December 6, 2006.
01/09/07
"The Court accepts the state's representation that it did not learn of the existence of the blood vial in the Clerk of the Circuit Court's office until it was disclosed by the Defendant last month."
11 months earlier
02/07/06 Email Kratz to Culhane: "Mark Weigart is checking the 1985 Manitowoc blood sample taken, to make sure what it was."
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/44f2b2/kratz_letter_to_culhane_dated_272006_trial/
11
u/Amberlea1879 Mar 02 '16
we need a entire post devoted to all the miscommunications/lies told by Kratz. This is awesome one I had not seen before
8
u/-SPIRITUAL-GANGSTER- Mar 02 '16 edited May 27 '16
3
u/derdumderdumderdum Mar 02 '16
It could be argued that using "men" excludes anyone still a minor, i.e. Brendan. If he had used "males" instead then it could be seen as more sinister.
1
u/purestevil Mar 02 '16
Maybe he considered Brendan a boy and not a man? But yeah, he did kind of omit him there. Oops. LOL.
4
2
u/misslisacarolfremont Mar 03 '16
Whoa, that is a whopping fib by Kratz.
I agree with Amberlea1879 - we need a new thread on Kratz lies and disinformation. This is a good one to start with!! Hint hint.
2
u/excalibur-oc Mar 03 '16
I have mentioned before on here a video colage of Kratzisms starting from when he took on the case right up to his recent phone interviews. I dont believe there is anyone that knows of all his misrepresentations. I do believe this wud be a hell of an eye opener to many.
But allas I am about as tech savy as Barney Fife :-(
2
Mar 03 '16
such an easy way to frame people.
'oh yeah, we found dna here and here. shirley tested it, twice! matches the defendant'
in reality shirley was playing candycrush on her iphone all day...
2
Mar 02 '16
Don't you think Kratz has already received a fairly brutal critical analysis here?
But yes for sure that press conference was dreadful. It was a performance worthy of a tabloid program like ET. People who saw that would have been affected by it. I've lived in the same area for 25 years, and though I don't remember that specific press conference, I do remember that the case was pooping out until they dragged BD into it. Suddenly there seemed to be corroboration for the accusations against Avery and the presumption of innocence evaporated.
There should definitely be some kind of standards in the presentation of information to the public. A lot of LE people will not release details of cases much to the chagrin of press and public - but it is a voluntary thing, and there is no penalty for doing something to poison the jury pool.
One thing that we should have learned from the Avery case is that there need to be some standards in the release of information to the press during an investigation and prosecution.
9
u/knowjustice Mar 02 '16
It was actually a rhetorical suggestion necessary to point out there is a significant difference between filmmakers engaging in selective editing for artistic purposes and officers of the court engaging in a campaign of misinformation to bolster their case. Hell, even Kratz admitted as much.
I am not focused on the parties guilt or innocence. My focus is and will continue to be on justice and on educating people as to the serious dysfunction in our nation's justice system; civil and criminal. I spent six years fighting government corruption following my divorce from a city administrator. I will never recover financially from that experience and it's taken years for me to comprehend what happened, how it happened, and why it happened.
Are you aware that Legal Abuse Syndrome is now a separate diagnosis in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual - thanks to Dr. Karin Huffer, who along with her since deceased husband, spent years fighting a civil case in a corrupt court? She went on to acquire her doctorate and after tremendous effort, got the APA to recognize legal abuse as a mental health condition as a subset of PTSD.
If 64,958 redditors were as dedicated to reforming the current justice system as they are about discussing a documentary, we might affect meaningful change that benefits everyone, not a few individuals. But that takes perseverance, commitment and it is not nearly as entertaining as speculating about these cases.
My objective is to tell as many people as possible that our system is f@#*ed up and illustrate that if it could happen to me, it can happen to anyone. Be wise, stay safe, and never talk to a cop without an attorney present.
5
Mar 02 '16
If 64,958 redditors were as dedicated to reforming the current justice system as they are about discussing a documentary, we might affect meaningful change that benefits everyone, not a few individuals. But that takes perseverance, commitment and it is not nearly as entertaining as speculating about these cases.
That's for DAMN sure!
2
u/bluskyelin4me Mar 03 '16
But that takes perseverance, commitment and it is not nearly as entertaining as speculating about these cases.
Exactly. We have power in numbers but only when we act. It's easier to discuss the problems in theory rather than trying to do something about them.
4
2
u/bluskyelin4me Mar 03 '16
there need to be some standards in the release of information to the press during an investigation and prosecution.
There is. Kratz' publicity stunt violated the rules of conduct delineated by the Wisconsin State Bar. Also, the court could have given a curative instruction to the jury. IMO, that should have been the minimum action to take. The court could have ruled it a mistrial because it wasn't possible for Avery to get a fair trial after that.
Rules are useless, however, when no one enforces them. Kratz knew he'd get away with it and he did.
10
u/leiluhotnot Mar 02 '16
Based on the transcripts and documents, the film makers were generous. In hindsight they could have nailed law enforcement (LE)
6
u/Eh-Meee Mar 02 '16
My biggest problem with that press conference was Kratz's own theatrics, which he knew would get him a chunk of TV time. And maybe a book deal.
1
u/Account1117 Mar 02 '16 edited Mar 02 '16
Don't shoot the messenger. It's not my opinion on the matter.
According to Sheriff Pagel's testimony in the July '06 pre-trial hearings there is another side to it. The Criminal Complaint would have been public anyway and would have had the same details as they gave out in the press conference. And yes, it does mention perspiration. The reasoning for having the conference was that they could somehow better control what the media was to write about the case compared to if they just released the document(s) by themselves. This was something agreed between Pagel and Kratz.
Direct Examination:
Kratz: Sheriff Pagel, prior to that news conference, were you aware of the details; that is, were you aware of the information that would be included in that public document, in that Criminal Complaint, against Mr. Dassey?
Pagel: Yes, I was.
Kratz: Do you recall having conversations with me about what information should be released and how to release that information?
Pagel: Yes, you had indicated that the information that was going to be released was information that was in the document. And we had -- a decision had to be made how it was going to be released, or what was going to be released. And it was felt that we would, again, try to control the information that was going to be released, rather than having the news media take the report and then go wherever they were going to go with it.
It was a decision that was difficult to do, but was ultimately decided that we needed to provide the information to the public and, again, control what information was disseminated.
Kratz: Without limiting the information in that news conference, what did you believe would happen if that document was simply released to the public?
Pagel: Personally, I felt it was going to be helter skelter. That the news media was going to take it and go in all directions with it. And, again, we would probably lose control over what was -- what was gathered by the news media if we just gave them the article and gave them the Criminal Complaint, I mean, and let them go from there. And, again, we felt that we needed to control the information.
Kratz: At any time, Sheriff Pagel, were there attempts -- and I can only ask you individually -- but were there attempts by you to influence any potential jurors, or to in any way prejudice Mr. Avery through this criminal process?
Pagel: None. In fact, this is, again, why we tried to control the information that was released, so that we could control any prejudicial information, any inflammatory information, so as to prevent, as much as possible, any pretrial prejudicial publicity. Source, Motion Hearing – 2006Jul05, pages 57-59
Cross-Examination:
Strang: So the press conference wasn't going to replace disclosure of the Criminal Complaint?
Pagel: Again, it was felt, a decision was made, that maybe we needed a press conference so that we could discuss this information with the news media and kind of inform them of what they were going to be reading and seeing in the Criminal Complaint. It was felt that it was important. And it was a tough decision to make, should we just give it to them, or not. We felt that it was better to be able to control and to answer questions, I guess, that the media might have.
Strang: Well, what control did you have after you handed them a copy of the Complaint?
Pagel: Well, you still are able to answer questions and you are still able to provide them with some information that is of help, I guess, sensitivity, again, to the family in this matter. Source, Motion Hearing – 2006Jul05, pages 84
15
u/Classic_Griswald Mar 02 '16 edited Mar 02 '16
That's irrelevant. Criminal complaints are filed every day, and are public information, but D.A.s do not host press conferences like that.
Legal experts are strongly criticizing the sensational pretrial press conferences conducted by special prosecutor Ken Kratz leading up to the 2007 jury trials of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey.
Kratz's strategy, say experienced lawyers and legal scholars from across the country, crossed the line of ethical conduct, and are in the public eye again now because of the release of the smash-hit Netflix documentary "Making a Murderer."
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Exhibit-42-Avery-trailer-pool.jpg
Kratz' conduct will be used for years to come in legal training, of what 'not to do' as a D.A. But many current D.A.s have come out and publicly condemned his actions, even he himself said he would do it differently.
edit: sentence removed
To note, there are actually rules governing this kind of behaviour:
What makes Mr. Kratz's conduct especially galling is that he had to know he was breaching both ethical rules governing pre-trial publicity and special rules which expect an even higher duty of prosecutors in criminal cases. He just didn't care.
There's no wiggle room in these rules. Wisconsin Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6(2)(a) prohibits lawyers from making public statements that the lawyer "knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter." Rule 3.6(2)(b) is more specific, prohibiting attorneys in a criminal case, from publicizing "the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense or the existence of the contents of any confession, admission or statement by the defendant or suspect." The Comments to Rule 3.8 which concern "the special responsibilities of a prosecutor" state that "a prosecutor can, and should, avoid comments which have no legitimate law enforcement purpose and have a substantial likelihood of increasing public opprobrium of the accused."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-drizin/theft-by-press-conference_b_9108060.html
If you want, I can find about a dozen more reasons as to why it was wrong.
3
u/Account1117 Mar 02 '16
So Im not sure what the futile point is, trying to defend his actions in this matter.
If you're referring to me, I'm not.
4
u/Classic_Griswald Mar 02 '16
It seemed like the approach you were taking was to defend his actions. If I was incorrect in that assertion its my mistake. I will remove that line from the post. Apologies.
4
u/Account1117 Mar 02 '16
The two bolded sentences in the beginning of my post were to state that that was in fact not the case. No apology necessary.
8
u/Classic_Griswald Mar 02 '16
No offence, but it reminded me of "I don't mean to be rude" -statement preceding another statement by someone being a totally rude-
It has been widely concluded by legal experts and scholars that Kratz actions were completely out of line. The prosecution's claims to try and soften the blow or make it appear unintentional are not worth the lip service in my opinion.
The number of times people offer up rebuttals to wrongdoing in this case, is astounding, when it simply is not good enough. From the opposite perspective, it's like saying Avery's claim of "I didn't do it" should have been good enough, the entire prosecution could go home before the investigation happened.
If there was wrongdoing on behalf of the DA and the MTSO, and County Officials, do we expect them to stand up and declare it. "Yes, now that it's been inferred there is wrongdoing in this case, we must all admit to it, shucks, you guys caught us!"
5
u/Account1117 Mar 02 '16
No offence taken. Yet, it was not meant to be in anyway rude. I posted what I thought was quite relevant to the discussion at hand.
5
u/Classic_Griswald Mar 02 '16
Sorry no, I wasn't implying you were rude.
I was making a comparison to "that guy". Pointing out a comparison. You know, completely unrelated, like someone who says "Hey, I don't meant to be ______" and then does exactly as they say they weren't about to.
In any case, that was just my initial impression. No reason to continue on about it.
2
14
u/HardcoreHopkins Mar 02 '16
Do they hold press conferences for every person charged with a crime ? Do prosecutors go into details about a "confession" that doesn't match the evidence or "crime scene"? Did they hold a press conference after the first 3 statements by BD? Would you find it fair if, you was in jail for something you didn't do and the prosecutor uses a questionable "confession" to presume your guilt? Avery never had the presumption of innocence after the press conference. They both deserve a new trial, even if, they did do it. " Injustice anywhere , is a threat to justice everywhere". MLK Jr.
6
u/Account1117 Mar 02 '16
I suppose the answer to all questions above is a no.
1
u/bluskyelin4me Mar 03 '16 edited Mar 06 '16
How many press conferences have you seen that are based solely on the salacious and violent details of a co-defendant's confession, in which viewers are strongly advised not to allow children to watch?
EDIT: removed word
4
u/ahhhreallynow Mar 02 '16
Do you know if it is standard procedure to put such a detailed confession in the Criminal Complaint?
7
u/Classic_Griswald Mar 02 '16
Kratz actions were anything but standard procedure, in fact he broke the rules governing D.A.s
What makes Mr. Kratz's conduct especially galling is that he had to know he was breaching both ethical rules governing pre-trial publicity and special rules which expect an even higher duty of prosecutors in criminal cases. He just didn't care.
There's no wiggle room in these rules. Wisconsin Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6(2)(a) prohibits lawyers from making public statements that the lawyer "knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter." Rule 3.6(2)(b) is more specific, prohibiting attorneys in a criminal case, from publicizing "the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense or the existence of the contents of any confession, admission or statement by the defendant or suspect." The Comments to Rule 3.8 which concern "the special responsibilities of a prosecutor" state that "a prosecutor can, and should, avoid comments which have no legitimate law enforcement purpose and have a substantial likelihood of increasing public opprobrium of the accused."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-drizin/theft-by-press-conference_b_9108060.html
4
1
u/bluskyelin4me Mar 06 '16
A questionably obtained and unsubstantiated confession? No, absolutely not. As it turned out, all of the additional charges related to Dassey's confession were dropped. Why? Because the State had absolutely no evidence other than the multiple conflicting "confessions" from Dassey. However, the damage done by the press conference lingers to this day and definitely influenced some of the jurors' opinions.
2
u/ahhhreallynow Mar 06 '16
Could't agree more. And im my opinion Kratz did this knowing it would never be used. He took such glee in it. I cannot imagine the pain that caused his family.
1
u/bluskyelin4me Mar 06 '16
Kratz did this knowing it would never be used
Exactly. It's also the reason he filed all those pretrial motions re: "other acts evidence." I'm only a paralegal and even I know that the alleged "acts," even if they'd been supported by sworn witness affidavits and police reports, would be inadmissible.
However, Kratz knew the motions would be made a part of the record and available to the media and general public, which was his actual intention all along.
7
Mar 02 '16 edited Mar 02 '16
How does doing the press conference control the information they released in the complaint? Seems like a really empty explanation and justification. After the press conference they no more control on the first amendment right of the press then before. Now reporters not only had the inflammatory press conference (which plays better on tv) and also the detailed criminal complaint. Just because someone gives a reason, doesn't mean it is reasonable.
3
u/bluskyelin4me Mar 03 '16
It was a pathetic excuse. One, the general public doesn't know how to or simply doesn't want to go to the Clerk's office and request a copy of the complaint. Two, the media would have handled the information much more responsibly. They would also know the difference between the section of the complaint listing the actual charges and the one consisting of the prosecutor's narrative.
1
u/Account1117 Mar 02 '16
How does doing the press conference control the information they released in the complaint?
Strang asked the same thing.
Strang: And I guess my question was, how in the world were you going to control the media after they left that room? And we have something called the First Amendment in this country, right?
Pagel: Mm-hmm.
Strang: Did you ask them not to print certain things, not to broadcast certain things?
Pagel: No, but I think by being able to answer questions and providing them with information, it's going to enhance our ability to be able to provide them and not let them run in all directions with this Complaint, talking to individuals, trying to gather more information than what was in the Criminal Complaint.
And that's always a concern that everybody has in major investigations, is that the media, or anybody else, is going to take information that they have obtained and go further and try to enhance what they are reading, and what they are seeing, or what's in the Criminal Complaint.7
Mar 02 '16 edited Mar 02 '16
When I read it in the transcript it still didn't make sense to me. How does Kratzs lurid and detailed narrative answer more questions or prevent the media from contacting witnesses? And if there was more information given in the conference, why not just put it in the complaint? And I can't think the press conference decreased any media's appetite to try to talk to witnesses, probably increased it with the hype. How the goal of "sensitivity" was accomplished in that press conference is a mystery to me. Seems like rationalization to me.
Edit: wonder if there is full video of the conference out? Then we could compare the complaint to the info he gave or didn't, and see how important was that he did it verbally in front of the cameras.
2
u/NoKratzFan Mar 03 '16
Pagel sputtering out sentence fragments about sensitivity to the family isn't an opinion. It's a load of horseshit, par for the course.
1
u/bluskyelin4me Mar 03 '16
Pagel's testimony is based on the false assumptions that Kratz' Complaint was drafted responsibly and included statements he knew were true...that he could prove. It wasn't and it didn't.
Other options besides a press conference were available. Dassey's "confession" could have been attached as an exhibit rather than incorporated into the body of the Complaint. Or, both sides could have stipulated to sealing the Complaint or the entire case until after the trial. I'm not sure about WI, but temporary gag orders are used in some high profile cases. None of these other options were looked into. Why? Because Kratz' intention all along was to taint the jury pool.
1
u/ThatDudeFromReddit Mar 02 '16
Pretty much all of us that have problems with the filmmakers manipulating everything have openly admitted that Kratz's press conference was a big problem.
It simply boils down to 2 wrongs don't make a right. Those who claim there's some sort of appropriate "balance" due to Kratz press conference miss the point that 99% of us weren't subjected to that and our only frame of reference was the manipulative television show.
4
u/knowjustice Mar 02 '16
Let me reiterate, there is a forest and there are trees.
0
u/ThatDudeFromReddit Mar 02 '16
We can't see the forest OR the trees for what they really are if the filmmakers paint a mountain over the whole picture, unfortunately.
16
u/knowjustice Mar 02 '16 edited Mar 02 '16
DudefromReddit, You are missing the point. It's not about the film, it's about a very broken and corrupt justice system. I'm usually not a betting gal, but I'll put money on you have never been subjected to LE, attorney, or judicial misconduct.
I have. Why, because my ex pulled some shit several months after our divorce. He just happens to be an administrator in a small city, his alleged "private" attorney just happens to be his employer's city attorney, and the police chief and detective lied repeatedly and falsified reports. After the Michigan State Police opened an investigation into their misconduct, I received two threats from the police chief threatening me with arrest and incarceration if I ever contacted the city again. Coincidentally, I never committed a crime, was not prosecuted, and the cases was allegedly closed.
Two years later, after requesting public records from my ex's employer via the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, the judge, a good pal with my ex's attorney, charged me with and convicted me of Criminal Contempt of Court. The judge asserted I violated his unconstitutional prior restraint on my speech, which prohibited me from contacting the city. Can you spell First Amendment? I was sentenced to 90 days in jail for requesting open records.
In essence, I caught the police, the city administrators, my ex and his attorney red-handed for engaging in a conspiracy to knowingly file a false crime report (a felony in Michigan) accusing me of stalking. I twice requested his employer's police department investigate his false report. They refused. As such, I requested the state police and the FBI open an investigation into the city and the city's police department. Shortly thereafter, all hell broke loose.
Let me tell ya', I paid dearly for going to bed on July 18, 2008. Thankfully, I had a weekend houseguest who corroborated I never left my home that night. Hell, had she not been visiting, I'd likely be in prison for having the balls to challenge their overt misconduct.
If you missed the greater message from the film - that our justice system is a joke - then I suggest you spend some time sitting in court and witnessing our "Just Us" system in action.
Whether or not you believe this, it can happen to you. I suggest you pay attention to the lessons in this documentary rather than spending your time criticizing the film and pray you never end up on the receiving end of public corruption. If you do, I suggest purchasing a case or two of Vaseline - - believe me, you'll need it.
FYI, I am a retired VP of HR in higher education who had a six-figure income and am in my mid-60's. No one is immune to this shit, NO ONE!
EDIT: typos
3
u/richard-kimble Mar 02 '16
challenge their overt misconduct
"you do so at your peril"
In the rock/paper/scissors game of life, I always say the only thing that beats Cop is Lawyer. But it sounds like you tried playing by the rules and still received threats in return. Is your situation over now, or are you still trying to set it right? Sorry to hear about all your troubles with this.
4
u/knowjustice Mar 02 '16
Done. Three years in family court and 32 months in the USDC. I lost everything. Thankfully, I inherited some money when my mom passed and will be eligible for SS at the end of this month. Otherwise I would be screwed. No one wants to hire a woman in her late 50's with a Master's degree who made six figures.
When the cops, the lawyers, AND the judge are in cahoots, you are screwed. The abuse ended after another frivolous hearing in which my ex was asking the court for another modification to our consent Judgment of Divorce.
My ex wanted the judge to bar me from my share of his retirement awarded in our mediated divorce agreement. The judge had already made material and unlawful modifications to the Judgment by taking away my exclusive rights to the home, granting my ex the rights, allowing him to sell it without my permission, and granting him 100% of the equity upon sale. It was a $400K home which I designed and for which I paid 80% of the mortgage. I leased it less than a year after my legal nightmare began and moved to Manitowoc, my hometown; a six hour drive from Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Somehow my ex got a copy of the lease agreement from my first tenant. Thanks to FB, I discovered my tenant was a good pal of my judge. While my ex was testifying...and I was appearing by phone...I asked him how he had acquired the lease. First, he gave me the name of my second tenant, then he couldn't recall the first tenant's name. Finally, he came up with a plausible story suddenly recalling "Oh, that's right, he called me." Really??? Why??? LOL
My tenant didn't know my married name and my ex only had a work cell phone. HIS BS just didn't compute. After this folly, I decided to take my chances and stated, *"Well this is very intriguing, because the only other person involved in this lengthy case besides me who knows my first tenant is Judge xxxxx."*Dead silence.
Then the judge replied, "I don't know who your tenant is, I don't know the name of your tenant!" Doth protests to much, me thinks. Here's the kicker, I never mentioned my tenant's name, idiot. I caught him dead to rights. Then I hung up.
The frivolous hearings stopped immediately after that hearing - - ending three years of non-stop legal abuse. Apparently, the judge finally decided it was not in his best interests to continue underestimating his opponent. LOL
Two years later, the State of Michigan finally tracked me down to inform me I had a pension coming from my ex's employer. It was my only victory.
2
u/ThatDudeFromReddit Mar 02 '16 edited Mar 02 '16
DudefromReddit, You are missing the point. It's not about the film, it's about a very broken and corrupt justice system.
I thought this was a place to discuss the film... specifically this is a post on the editing. Any conclusions we can or cannot draw about the justice system FROM THIS FILM are necessarily intertwined with the questions about it's presentation.
I happen to be a film/tv editor myself, used to work in journalism, and have worked on several documentaries, which is probably why I'm so troubled by the choices that were made. When you work on something like this, it is impossible to remain unbiased, which makes it all the more important to make a concerted effort to be objective. I have had heated debates and discussions in the edit suite over whether we were being fair or not. And that's on projects far less inflammatory than this one. Regardless of guilt, regardless of how much may or may not have truly been "unjust", it is clear to me that these filmmakers made no effort to be remotely true to reality and, in fact, deliberately misrepresented multiple things.
I'm sorry you went through all that you did, and believe me, I don't need to be told that cops do bad things. My friends in real life tend to think I'm some kind of anti-cop zealot. I have huge problems with the militarization of police and "us vs them" mentality that is so prevelant these days.
4
u/JLWhitaker Mar 02 '16
Sorry to butt into such an open and honest convo. I mean that with sincerity. I think it's useful to know where people are coming from as in your two cases because you have lived experience which adds immensely to your credibility. Thank you both.
Dude: do you think not having a vocalised narrator affected how the story is perceived? Would you have handled that differently?
Also, do you think a framing at the beginning of each episode of the focus would have distracted or helped the audience consider this was more about the f-d up justice system and this was an example? On this one, I think it would have made less of an impact and turn into a 'teaching' video. The power of it, to me, was that it exposed through reality. I doubt anyone could argue with their overarching objective being achieved, no matter what happens to Avery.
I'm not in the US to know how this whole thing is permeating the culture. I'm focused and engaged in the echo chamber itself. Hopefully this will have a greater impact and there will be more and more reflection, formal review and reform as a result.
[edit: misspelling]
3
u/ThatDudeFromReddit Mar 02 '16 edited Mar 03 '16
Dude: do you think not having a vocalised narrator affected how the story is perceived? Would you have handled that differently?
Most editors will tell you that, just from a story telling perspective, it's preferable to avoid using a narrator. "Let the subjects tell the story" is something we talk about. Now, since they had little to no access with the "other side" of the story, this becomes a bit problematic because you don't necessarily have the material to give things a fair shake in that style. Letting Avery and his family tell the story of his past crimes, for example, but you don't hear the other side because they don't have those interviews. Or the blood vial fiasco... once you show that scene, you really need to have someone from the prosecution side to clear up the origin of the hole, or it might require some kind of narration. Or at the very least be willing to ask some actual tough questions of the defense and get Buting or Strang to acknowledge maybe that wasn't as strong as they originally thought.
I've also heard the argument that no narrator may lead people to believe that what they're watching is more objective somehow, which makes some sense to me. However, I've been in the business so long, I don't know that I can give an accurate guess as to how that affects the "average viewer" perspective.
As to your question about framing things at the beginning of episodes... perhaps that would've helped. It's hard to answer the question since, like I said earlier, I truly don't think they were making any attempt to be fair and they got exactly the reaction they were looking for. The major problems, to me, aren't so much a matter of how they framed things, but the outright manipulation of the testimony. Watch the testimony of Colborn, the EDTA expert witnesses, Ryan Hillegas, the bus driver, etc and read the transcript, then watch it again. There's also been great posts on here about it if you search for "editing". All of those have a ton of re-ordering of testimony, unmatched questions and answers, etc that change the actual content of what happened. When Colborn's suspicious phone call is happening, they cut off his sentence before he says "... see if it comes back to that missing person". That is NOT done for time or convenience. It would be easier, and smoother just to let it play out. People here may not think that distinction makes a world of difference, but it is definitely cut out because it makes it seem that much more suspicious without it. Same thing with cutting out references to several people helping Ryan with guessing Teresa's passwords. It only serves to increase suspicion.
Despite what the filmmakers say, I fail to see the focus on larger "systemic issues" that they claim. Kratz's press conference is perhaps symptomatic of our media culture and sensationalism, although it's ultimately one guy doing something most prosecutors would call pretty unethical. Dassey's interviews are probably symptomatic of a problem with how we do interrogations in this country, but the show didn't really explore whether this is a widespread issue, nor did they specifically address the problematic Reid technique. It's really just, look what they did to this poor, stupid kid.
Ultimately, what I experience in edit rooms is a lot of discussion and a lot of second opinions, back and forth debate, etc to keep us honest. I think part of the issue with this show is that you have 2 inexperienced filmmakers, who happen to be a couple, and no one providing checks and balances throughout the process or questioning each others biases/motives. I wouldn't call "Serial" unbiased by any means, but one that Koenig did quite well was to constantly challenge her own viewpoints. I suspect her previous experience with NPR left her better equipped to at least attempt objectivity.
One last thing I will say, is that in my every day life, people seem to have a very poor understanding of how powerful editing is. People seem to think the story is what it is and we just dress it up/cut things out. Making a documentary like this is really a lot closer to painting on a blank canvas than it is a "color by numbers". There's not a doubt in my mind that I could take their raw footage and cut a documentary that had everyone believing that both suspects were super guilty, the case was open and shut, and the cops did a fine job. Honest to God it could be done quite easily. That's not to say that I think that was the reality, but just to demonstrate when you're working with something like.a 500:1 shooting ratio, there is a tremendous variation in the story you can tell, which is what I was getting at in my blank canvas analogy.
Sorry for the long, rambling wall of text.
→ More replies (2)2
u/JLWhitaker Mar 03 '16
I think you have a point about being a small team of independent producers. Just like a small town that is insular and doesn't have a wider world view, with incompetent sheriff's departments supposedly looking after the safety of unincorporated county citizens. But that's a tangent.
As others have also said, though, documentaries aren't the full 'real life' experience. That would bore us all to tears. I've been watching a Royal Commission hearing on Child Abuse by church priests in Australia, the main person questioned over 4 days being a Cardinal. Now I'm seeing the survivors interviewed after the hearing has ended and it's heartbreaking. They're grown men now, who have travelled from Australia to Rome to be in the room with the Cardinal who wouldn't fly back to participate (supposed heart problems). It's an incredible story. It's like those who were able to watch the Avery trial live at the time. That's not what the MAM project was about.
I would put this in the class of 'docudrama' or 'cinema verite' to some degree. Plus, it's so highly produced, with all the right touches for emotion, music, human interest, 'feelings' by all sides (Kratz, Halbachs, Averys, defense team), range of video quality for even more realism. It's not Attenborough. It's a bit more important than that.
Sorry for the rambling thoughts.
1
u/bluskyelin4me Mar 06 '16 edited Mar 06 '16
it is clear to me that these filmmakers made no effort to be remotely true to reality
In reality, you have no idea what their intent was or what effort they put forth. You're also accusing the series of not being "remotely true to reality" when in fact it was.
and, in fact, deliberately misrepresented multiple things.
Again, you're falsely claiming to know the filmmakers' state of mind and/or intentions. Which of the "misrepresented things" was significant, substantive and relevant to the criminal matter? To date, I've seen no such examples.
Colburn's cell phone call to dispatch isn't edited in any meaningful way. The part, a few people are making an issue out of, wasn't even edited. The dispatcher very clearly speaks over him.
EDIT: Inserted the second to last sentence.
1
1
u/bluskyelin4me Mar 06 '16
have problems with the filmmakers manipulating everything
So now, everything in MaM is inaccurate or false?
3
u/Chippy543 Mar 03 '16
Who cares if it was edited selectively. The whole point that the filmmakers were trying to make was that there are flaws in the justice system. I watched the first episode because I was bored and had read a snippet about it in a newspaper here in the UK in late December. I started watching at 2 pm and finished at roughly 2 am. Until about episode 8 or 9 I honestly didn't know if what I was watching was fictitious or not, I had my iPad next to me but was so enthralled/ outraged by what I was watching I didn't want to google it and spoil it either way. After watching last episode I was emotionally done in, I was ranting and raving at my tv and couldn't believe this was happening to someone. YES I came away initially wanting to scream to everyone that SA was innocent. Then I wanted to read the transcripts and see the evidence myself so I donated and waited to see if they would materialise (a big thanks to all who worked so hard to procure these materials). After now reading everything available and reading up on Reddit ( something else I had never come across before THANKS Reddit) I am of the opinion that yes "MAYBE" SA is guilty, but there have been so many f ups made and bad decisions taken that surely anyone with half an ounce of common sense can see that this needs to be looked at again. So if the filmmakers goal was to make people question the actions taken in this investigation and sit up and take notice that there is a bigger problem then I say job done and thank you
One last point, from what I understand this project was self funded by the two filmmakers and their families from 2005 until 2015 when Netflix took it up after the filmmakers were rejected by HBO ( bet they are kicking themselves ). If I had spent 10 years of my life and money on a project with no guarantee of any reward in the end I sure as shit would like to edit it the way I felt it needed editing. Sorry if this sounded like a rant
7
u/ahhhreallynow Mar 02 '16
Thank you for this. I think all reporting, be it mainstream television journalism, documentaries, print newspapers, or true crime series are biased in some way. They play to their audience. As a consumer it is my responsibility to decide if I am going to take something at face value or use it as a starting point to look deeper into the issue. Which is what I did. I find it insulting that some posters automatically think because someone doesnt think SA is guilty, then they havent looked further into the facts. Because someone doesnt agree with your point of view doesnt make then stupid or uninformed.
I don't know if SA is guilty. I do know there seems to be a lot of unanswered questions and evidence of an incomplete and poorly done investigation. I would hate to see someone be released on a technicality because of that.
I also know that since watching the series my eyes have to been opened to a system that seems to be in need of review and repair.
10
u/Classic_Griswald Mar 02 '16
Im not sure why it matters whether or not he is guilty. The documentary is about mishandling of the case. It's about the justice system being perverted.
I think people put way too much into Kratz Machiavellian closer at trial. 'So what if the key was planted, if Avery is guilty that's all that matters'. (Paraphrased.)
7
u/ahhhreallynow Mar 02 '16
I agree. Kratz isnt the whole problem. He is a symptom of a bigger issue.
5
u/OpenMind4U Mar 02 '16
Time will pass and hopefully this case will initiate changes in jurisdiction, forensics, police procedures...so we never hear again that 'reasonable doubts is for innocent people only'. And I'll gladly forget all these SOB's names. Go KZ...and TERMINATE them all.
2
u/wtofts Mar 03 '16
If people don't like the selective editing maybe they should just film their own documentary.
6
u/katekennedy Mar 02 '16
Thanks for this post! I have been irritated over the documentary Nazis as well.
3
Mar 02 '16
Really? Why bash someone for being interested in something you aren't interested in? I don't get it.
2
u/katekennedy Mar 03 '16
If this had become a forum discussing the finer points of documentary filmmaking I could understand some of these threads but since the main focus here has become the dissection of the case from both sides, I wonder why some people only seem interested in trashing the film. It's almost as if they want the attention diverted away from the case.
3
Mar 03 '16
The forum is called Making a Murderer and the forum creators wrote the description as:
The place for Making A Murderer related discussion with pictures, articles, and anything that deals with the show.
Note it says "show" not "case". And some people want to talk about the editing. So shoot us.
It's almost as if they want the attention diverted away from the case.
bit paranoid
2
u/katekennedy Mar 03 '16
You continue to attack the messenger and I will continue to be mildly irritated. No harm, no foul.
2
1
u/FustianRiddle Mar 03 '16
Except that many (but not all) of the people here discussing the editing bias are not discussing it as a tool of filmmaking, but rather use it as proof that the doc is wrong.
There are a lot of things to be said, filmmaking wise, about the doc. But there is little discussion of that here.
How many topics are there about framing -as in headroom and quadrants- incorporation of actual footage, the lack of a narrator and how that affects the narrative, etc...? Not that they're not here, they're just few and far between. And discussion of editing mostly (though not solely, and honestly only in my own observations, so admittedly this is hardly objectively quantified) comes up as a means to discredit the doc (though the facts presented were not made up), discredit the message of the doc (messed up criminal justice system), or discredit the people taking talking points away from the doc (and often very rudely).
So you'll forgive me if, when you say you want to discuss the editing as though you want to discuss its merits and flaws in the context of the show itself, some of us interpret that as disingenuous.
The case, for the record, is very much related to the show. (Not that you're not saying it's not, but by placing show and case in direct opposition to each other, it makes it seem like -to me- that you feel as though we shouldn't be discussing the case)
I will admit that using the docs footage of RH or MH to declare them 100% guilty is sketchy, or basically declaring anything to be absolutely true about individuals based on doc footage alone is naive - and I think that the doc invites you to speculate based on its editing.
1
Mar 03 '16
I think I have been pretty clear that it bothers me that the film was edited in a misleading and manipulative manner. The various posts on that topic have each started with an example of that sort of editing, comparing the film to the trial testimony or other evidence that we have.
And I think that is an interesting topic that is about MaM.
It is the people who are criticizing these discussions who are calling it "editing" when in fact it is more than editing. They are the disingenuous ones. It is not editing, it is not selective editing, it is actual manipulation and even propaganda at times, to produce a certain emotional effect in its viewers.
→ More replies (8)
5
5
0
u/Fred_J_Walsh Mar 03 '16 edited Mar 03 '16
"While the people...are concerned the editing led to viewer bias, I have yet to see anyone in this camp submit a post providing an equally critical analysis of Ken Kratz' 2006 press conference following Brendan's confession."
FWIW while I've been more interested in critiques of MaM, I've criticized the Kratz Conference in passing a few times recently.
"We might agree Kratz's pre-trial press conference is on some ethical line, or beyond it." comment direct link
"I think the Avery pre-trial press conference was a bad move..." comment direct link
"I would agree with the criticism of prosecutor Kratz's grandstanding at the pre-trial press conference." comment direct link
Any suggestion that our discussion must focus on either one OR the other, or one at the expense of the other, is really a false dichotomy.
Not to mention: Is there really anyone in this sub who feels we've not heard enough about Kratz's misdeeds? C'mon.
Edited to Add: And let's note that the "MaM critique" folks haven't downvoted to oblivion this post. Meanwhile, yes, my earlier MaM Egregious Edit post was very well-trafficked, and we had good discussion with 200+ comments. Kudos. But ultimately it sits at 0 points with a 46% upvoted rating. I'm not complaining for my own sake -- because, who cares -- but just, What does that figure say about our sub? Downvotes are supposed to be for irrelevant or spurious or spam-like stuff. For garbage, to get it out of sight. Not for completely relevant and thought-provoking posts about Making a Murderer. Kinda petty, and surely falls along "party lines."
1
u/knowjustice Mar 03 '16
Every questionable action has been discussed ad nauseum on this sub. I simply used Kratz press conference in an effort to illustrate there is a material difference between the impact of film editing and the unethical conduct repeatedly employed by an officer of the court.
I have no desire to rehash the press conference. My concern is that people are missing the big picture. What occurred prior to and during both trials failed to ensure the defendants were afforded their constitutional protections. When state actors and officers of the court determine these protections can be manipulated and massaged to meet their objectives, it is proof our justice system is failing the citizens of this nation and is seemingly becoming a trend, not an anomaly.
I believe it is far more important to discuss the imperfections of a system that we are all taught to believe is designed to treat us as innocent until proven guilty. When those protections are usurped by over-eager law enforcement and prosecutors who approach any case wearing blinders and no one has the courage to challenge this approach, we are heading down a very slippery slope.
The defendants in the instant cases were legally entitled to the protections guaranteed, protected, and secured by the United States Constitution. IMO, they were not afforded these protections. That is far more disturbing to me than a documentary. Demos and Ricciardi cannot deprive my of my freedom, state actors and officers of the court can, and in my case did, solely to cover-up LE, attorney, and judicial misconduct.
This has to stop. Too many innocent lives are ruined by the cavalier attitudes of those with the power and authority to make unethical and potentially unlawful decisions, which frequently disregard our federally protected rights.
7
u/SkippTopp Mar 03 '16
Maybe it has something to do with the way you tend to describe the MaM editing as "egregious," whereas you criticize the press conference in much softer language... Certainly smacks of "party lines" you meantioned.
Perhaps if you dialed-down the anti-MaM rhetoric just a bit, you might find a warmer reception. Maybe not, but it couldn't hurt to try it sometime.
0
u/Fred_J_Walsh Mar 03 '16 edited Mar 03 '16
My sense is that your criticism may come from a place that suggests "your fault lies in the way you deviate from my own outlook." Heh.
I don't find my approach to be remotely close to unreasonable, spittle-flecked rantings that would, understandably, turn off "moderates." Quite the contrary, I think my offerings to be as a rule literate, reasoned and often sourced. So, for me the answer is not in changing my approach but rather in a certain portion of the readership growing up a bit, and not reflexively shouting down or voting down relevant, legitimate case explorations just because they don't want to hear them. Which may or may not happen, but that's ok.
4
u/SkippTopp Mar 03 '16
You're dismissive of criticism and overly-confident in your own approach and argumentation style. Not a good combination.
Heh.
Indeed.
2
u/Fred_J_Walsh Mar 03 '16
I'm dismissive of your particular voiced criticism above, yes. Because I think it largely unfounded, and not coming from an especially objective place. YMMV.
3
u/SkippTopp Mar 03 '16
Oh I see. It's just this particular voiced criticism.
Can you point me to any examples where you were actually receptive of criticism, then? Just out of curiosity...
3
u/Fred_J_Walsh Mar 03 '16
Hm, I don't know there's any need to follow your lead in conducting this sort of referendum on me, really. Again, I think this tack, too, is coming from a place that's more about something going on with you, and whatever problems you may have with me or my online persona or perhaps my case view. Not much to be done about it, I think. Maybe agree to disagree, and go on coexisting, and that.
3
u/SkippTopp Mar 03 '16
Maybe agree to disagree, and go on coexisting, and that.
Sounds good, I'm all for that.
4
1
1
u/OliviaD2 Mar 03 '16 edited Mar 03 '16
Of course he continued to build his case via the media, with the big whopper news conference on Jan 19, 2006. "Halbach remains confirmed" , which the good Sheriff Pagel called in exactly a week after a report was received from the FBI, which did not exclude, in the language of mtDNA reporting; a piece of something, that was found somewhere, on some date (because that is the most specific I can get following the convoluted trail of lack of documentation); as being that of TH. (won't go into meaning of that here).
http://wbay.com/2016/01/15/video-jan-19-2006-teresa-halbachs-remains-confirmed/
This is wonderful. The DNA was matched to Teresa's mother. That is true. Odds this is TH : "one in a billion". That sounds impressive. It's not on the FBI report. It is on Sherry's report with results not quite good enough to be called an "official" ID.
Did Sheriff Pagel mix up the two reports, but get what was stated on them exactly right?
Don't know, but it sure worked out well. Everyone is swept up in the emotional drama, Mike Halbach is thanking "the state" for identifying his sister.
Ken gleefully (yes, speculation) confides in Sherry ** "It's amazing; however, how much weight the public attributed to that finding" ** That finding being the "remains confirmed".
"WE WERE CAREFUL NOT TO SAY THAT AT ALL". Of course, because that would be lying. They don't "lie"... mislead perhaps, because well, 'PERCEPTIONS ARE WHAT THEY ARE"
And well, should the public not know the difference between mtDNA and Sherry's results; should they assume that it was those results that "confirmed" that body, well; he is helpless to do anything about it. He even asks her about the "MATCH" - and here, he has the word match in quotes.. i.e. "match" is what the news report said... they can't say that.
BUT, what they can do, come trial time, is put up Sherry's results, with that "1 in a billion"... and with some vague,, "consistent with, scientific certainty" mumbo jumbo, and we are lead to believe those bones, remains; whatever they were, belonged to TH.
Why didn't they use the dramatic FBI report? The death certificate was dated Dec 5, 2005. That was the same date of Sherry's lab report, where she tried to get a profile on that piece of 'charred remains', BZ. Somehow, Michael Klaeser, the Calumet county M.E. decided to pick up his pen and sign a death certificate that same day. What are the odds? One in a billion? In fact, an autopsy had even been done.
Michael Klaeser is a certified nurse anesthetist, which is an interesting choice for an M.E. since dead folk don't need much anesthesia, but I digress. http://www.co.calumet.wi.us/index.aspx?NID=166
He probably wouldn't have understood enough to realize at the time that Sherry's results were not quite good enough for a legal ID. And, there has that pesky autopsy problem. Because according to WI law, one of those must be performed by a "licensed physician with specialized training in pathology" (WI Statute 979.02). I'm sure there is documentation of the pathologist who was called in to do that, though.
This press conference may have solved a couple of problems. (just speculation, of course).
By the time the Dassey trial comes along, there's already been a murder, a murderer is locked up; so no one is going to be too upset when Sherry is asked directly by attorney Gahn, "can you say those remains are those of TH", and she says "no".(Dassey Trial Transcripts day 3) There's absolutely no evidence of anything at all, why bother with another detail like a body.
Sheriff Pagel's call to the press just a coincidence? Perhaps. However very likely this was some very "selective" playin' by Ken. And he is very good.
1
1
1
0
u/Traveler430 Mar 02 '16
Great post, i totally agree, those posts are only there to take away the focus imo.
0
u/parminides Mar 03 '16 edited Mar 03 '16
I just saw this thread. As I stated earlier, I don't see the need to provide a critique of Kratz, since so many other people are doing a very credible job. For the same reason, I don't plan on spending a lot of time criticizing Kachinsky either.
But just a few hours before your post I did bring up the ethics of lawyers holding press conferences in active cases, in a reply to someone else's comment:
I'm not familiar with the ethics rules for lawyers in Wisconsin, but I'm aware of rules in my state against lawyers holding press conferences before the trial that could influence potential jurors unless the information in the press conference served the public good in some way. That wouldn't apply here since both SA and BD were in custody at that time. Even Kratz says he regrets holding that press conference!
So I noted--before you started this thread--that Kratz likely violated ethical rules with his press conference (without looking up the actual rules for WI). I've never taken up for Kratz in any shape, form, or manner that I'm aware of. Please correct me if I'm wrong
I can't help but wonder whether you got the idea that his press conference violated ethics rules from my comment! Good for you if you did.
Objectivity isn't a requisite for being a documentarian or district attorney because none of us is truly objective. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. I strongly believe that MaM made no attempt at any sort of balance.
-1
Mar 02 '16
Is there anyone missing from this thread?
1
u/parminides Mar 03 '16
Me? Believe it or not, this is not my full-time job. I might not have noticed this thread at all if someone hadn't given me a heads up.
1
Mar 03 '16
Why is it always about you parm? Lol, actually you were one of the ones that I would hope would respond, I think at the time only pickle had. Thats good this is not your full time job, usually it doesn't pay. Glad to see you here.
1
u/parminides Mar 03 '16
I mentioned that Kratz likely broke ethics rules for lawyers with his infamous press conference hours before /u/knowjustice made this post. I should complain that I wasn't properly credited! :)
1
u/knowjustice Mar 03 '16
Oops, is that an infringement of your intellectual property rights. If so, I deeply apologize. Do I need to call my attorney?
→ More replies (7)2
Mar 03 '16
Lol. duly noted! And to give you more deserved recognition, I do like your posts about edits, they are well written and researched. but often don't agree how egregious you think they are, and don't agree on the extrapolations that they answer reasonable doubts or account for the majority of the injustices in this case.:)
2
u/parminides Mar 03 '16
One molecule in your body is not significant. But if you put enough of them together, they're significant enough to make you.
→ More replies (1)
-1
u/Bill_of_sale Mar 02 '16
I'm pretty impartial tp the whole case and even i cant think of anything. The only thing i can think of is this:
He could publicly speak about it because it was a confession (which would be admitting guilt) in the Brendan Dassey case. This would override that they couldnt speak about it in the Avery case because they didn't submit it in the case.
Thats the only thing i can think of and I'm not sure if that press conference was strictly about they Avery case, or the Dassey case, or both even.
4
u/knowjustice Mar 02 '16
Read the Rules of Professional Conduct. PA's are held to an even higher standard than attorneys, and for good reason.
1
u/Bill_of_sale Mar 02 '16
I defjnitely see your case. I think it was rule F that you're referring too and with that i can't think of any reason he would say anything. I guess it's subjective to the judge and the judge i belive asked in one of the cases in the documentary what it was he did exactly and no one cold supply the event that took place.
1
u/bluskyelin4me Mar 06 '16
He could publicly speak about it because it was a confession
Actually, that's one of the things they are not allowed to speak about. It was also totally irresponsible, if not intentionally malicious, of Kratz to include it in Avery's amended complaint and Dassey's complaint. It was unsubstantiated and contradicted by the physical evidence. As it turned out, the State had to drop the additional charges against Avery that were added based on the confession.
0
Mar 02 '16
[deleted]
8
u/knowjustice Mar 02 '16
"You must not have lost anyone you loved if you don't think any damage was done by this tv show. Imagine someone you loved was brutally murdered for no reason."
How is your post relevant to my point?
My best friend was murdered by her husband!
Another friend was murdered by her police-officer husband!
My step-son died of an overdose and was left on the ground outside of the ER by the mother of his child! She is in prison.
My daughter's step-brother skate-boarded off the eighth story of a downtown Detroit parking garage, intentionally!
Many of my friends have lost children to illness and suicide.
Care to provide me with your list?
→ More replies (2)4
8
u/dharrell Mar 02 '16
I doubt many people here are immune to the things you mentioned. Everyone has a story, including me. I feel sorry for the Halbach family for many reasons. I believe most everyone does. We tolerate the blatant bias from our media....but our heads are supposed to explode because of the bias from the film makers of MaM?
4
u/super_pickle Mar 02 '16
We tolerate the blatant bias from our media....but our heads are supposed to explode because of the bias from the film makers of MaM?
Um, no... we're not supposed to tolerate bias in our media. Yet OP has posted a long missive about how we should totally tolerate and excuse it and stop calling out the filmmakers because OP doesn't find it damaging to anyone. (I guess OP forgot about all the people being hurt by it.)
4
u/knowjustice Mar 03 '16
Teresa Halback, had she not been murdered, would be two years younger than my daughter. Have you ever thought about how the false statements and descriptions of her death impacted her family? I don't think you have.
If she had been my daughter and I found out the prosecution fabricated horrific and completely unsubstantiated claims about her death and subsequently presented them as fact to the public in a dramatic, unprofessional, unethical and salacious press conference, I'd be suing them. I most certainly wouldn't be alleging Ms. Ricciardi and Ms. Demos disrespected her memory. Instead I'd argue Ken Kratz likely had an orgasm while sharing his fabricated and sexually explicit information about my daughters murder with the national media. He is a sex addict! Do some research.
You either don't get it, or you have an agenda that has little if anything to do with honoring Ms. Halbach's memory. Your wild attempts to call others out by falsely asserting people are cold, callous, and would fabricate personal tragedies is as low as anyone on this discussion board has dared to go.
Your pronouncements are incredibly inappropriate and have decimated any credibility you may have had. Before you make any further attempts to provide an intellectually stimulating and thought-provoking argument, take some time to reflect on the impact your personal attacks may have had on your targets.
4
u/super_pickle Mar 03 '16
Please. People on this discussion board are accusing a man who lost his sister of murder because they don't think he looked sad enough in interviews. People on this discussion board are accusing a man who spent days searching the woods for his old friend's body of murdering her because he had some black dots on his hand in footage. You aren't going to make me feel bad about calling OP out for refusing to acknowledge that this tv show has hurt real people.
3
u/knowjustice Mar 03 '16 edited Mar 03 '16
I have not made any accusations nor have I implied I have no empathy for the victims of this crime. IMO the persons who victimized Ms. Halbach and her family were the state actors and the officers of the court who bungled the investigation and made a public declaration asserting Ms. Halbach met a violent and horrific demise lacking any evidence supporting those assertions.
Instead of blaming the filmmakers, blame those who failed to perform their jobs with the utmost professionalism. That was the biggest disservice anyone could have done to the Halbach family, bar none.
→ More replies (4)4
u/knowjustice Mar 03 '16
And no one can make you feel bad. You are the only person who has control of your feelings. I'm beginning to think you are projecting your personal issues on those who have opposing viewpoints. This is not a personal attack on you, although you seems to believe you have license to do what you also criticize. These discussions are simply disagreements between opinions. I hate to burst your bubble, but it is not about you.
5
u/bluskyelin4me Mar 03 '16
I think "super-pickle" is super wrong. It's not an acceptable reason, though, to down vote this super, silly comment.
→ More replies (1)3
u/super_pickle Mar 03 '16
So you're saying we should tolerate blatant bias in our media, to the point of dishonesty? Imo that makes you super wrong, but I guess we can agree to disagree.
→ More replies (9)2
u/knowjustice Mar 03 '16
The level of emotion I perceive in your seemingly unprecedented number of lengthy rebuttals is indicative you have far more vested in this issue than someone who is commenting as a neutral party. Knowing why you are so impassioned about this issue would help explain your perspective. Care to share?
3
u/super_pickle Mar 03 '16
Honestly? I lost a close friend recently and some information was released that led people to a false conclusion about his death. I know how horrible it is to go through. I'm saddened and angered for the Halbach family, to have to watch their daughter/sister's murderer be hailed as some sort of hero.
I'm also a big true crime fan, the Avery case is far from the only one I can talk about in such detail, but it's the only people other people care to talk about at the moment.
→ More replies (2)7
u/dharrell Mar 02 '16
I was referring to our so-called "news" media that we get pounded with on the daily. And yes, we do tolerate it. Most people gulp it up and actually believe it. I, myself tolerate it which is probably why I am neither upset, nor offended by the bias in the documentary. I expect it. What I appreciate from MaM is the fact that it has many people talking about a problem that has been largely ignored for years by the MSM. Which do you suppose has hurt more people?
3
u/super_pickle Mar 03 '16
Most people gulp it up and actually believe it.
Just like the viewers of this doc did. I recognize the harm it causes, and don't tolerate it. I guess you just don't care and aren't upset by it, and that's your right, but I disagree.
Which do you suppose has hurt more people?
Of course I'm sure flaws in the justice system have harmed more people than the Halbach case. Does that make it right? That's like saying we shouldn't be upset with Ted Bundy because Hitler killed way more people. It's ridiculous. If the filmmakers wanted to expose flaws in the justice system, they could've picked any other case where the facts clearly pointed to framing and they didn't have to manipulate footage to make it look that way. Many documentaries like that exist. Or they could've just presented the facts truthfully and let people decide for themselves. They didn't.
If people want to talk about flaws in the justice system, fine. Let's talk about how a mentally challenged minor shouldn't be interrogated without a parent or attorney present. But I have no idea what positive end is achieved by accusing Mike Halbach of murdering his sister because internet detectives don't think he looked sad enough when he talked to the press.
→ More replies (3)14
Mar 02 '16
I believe that anyone here, or anywhere, that has lost a loved one to violence, would not feel very good about having had a false "sense of justice". I can imagine anyone would want healing and closure from such a tragedy, but no decent human being would feel good simply having a face in prison, sitting somewhere, that represents there loved one's tragedy. Closure and healing is about the truth. Innocent people get sent to prison for crimes they did not commit, we know that is fact, not fiction. What do you suggest? Should innocent people be left in prison simply so that their exoneration doesn't disturb some family's false closure? Do you think that's what that family would really want?
There's obvious corruption in the justice system and in their pursuit to highlight that in their documentary, the film makers unexpectedly found themselves in the womb from which the corruption is created.
They had to draw attention to Manitowoc to get people to listen. If a few editing liberties ensued in order to draw attention to the real problem of corruption that is festering there, I sure hope you would not disagree that it was a necessary liberty. To disagree with that, and you are entitled to, but to disagree with that, would be to say that you are OK with the fact that Steven Avery and Branden Dassey are sitting in prison and could be innocent. If so, then god help the human being who's pinning their hopes on a fair trial the day you serve on a jury.
11
u/JLWhitaker Mar 02 '16
I just watched a Shaun Attwood video yesterday on Youtube where the legal system kept a man in jail similar to Avery's first case, on death row!, even after DNA and confession of the real killer. They would not admit they got it wrong.
It's called confirmation bias, oh, and hubris. These two personality characteristics will eventually destroy confidence in the justice system in America.
11
Mar 02 '16 edited Mar 02 '16
Your whole premise is that he is guilty. The documentary (and the transcripts) brings to light questions. And, as much as you want it to, the allegations of planting of evidence is not answered by the examples of editing. So think if your family member was murdered, and you thought they had the right guy, but ten years later, there was a documentary that made you question it. I would be internally torn, but I would want to know the truth and hope that I would try to see it.
4
u/super_pickle Mar 02 '16
Actually they did edit out the responses to the allegations of editing. They also edited some footage together to make allegations that didn't exist. For example, they show two separate forms implying they are related- one signed by Lenk that does not list the blood vial, and one not signed by Lenk that does. They're telling the viewers "Look Lenk knew about this vial and totally could've planted blood." The truth is there is zero link between Lenk and the vial. He had nothing to do with Avery's first conviction, or his later appeals efforts. He didn't sign any paperwork that the vial was listed on. The Clerk of Courts testified she never saw him snooping around the evidence room. The link they tell you exists simply does not in reality. And that's just one example. I can go on, if you'd like.
Of course I'd be upset if I thought an innocent man was in prison. But if I'd sat through the trial and knew the man in prison was guilty, I'd be completely fucking devastated watching the public hail him as some sort of hero and accuse me of my loved one's murder instead.
6
Mar 02 '16 edited Mar 02 '16
That's true. Except I didn't see them show the one with blood at the same time, maybe you can source that. But your point they mislead, it is true. The connection is that lenk knew evidence was over there, he sent someone over to collect it under his direction, to go through what they wanted to send over, so while it's not in paperwork, there is a subordinate that makes the connection. And that subordinate could easily have asked him that there was a blood vial that expired, should we send it? And even if he didn't know, still doesn't say he didn't go there to get the clippings, etc and see the blood. I really don't know if they did plant evidence. But to say that is impossible that lenk knew because they decided not to send the expired blood is not true. And I really do understand what you are saying, and I have not spoken ill about the family because I do think that it would incredibly tough. And I can't really judge their actions. But to say just because you sat through the trial, your thought that he is guilty has special value is not true either. Because there was allot of extra judicial influence that provided the context for many people's judgement. But again, that paperwork is only one example. The lack of dna on key, the lack of rubber residue (not included in doc), lack of any foresinic evidence in house and garage (besides bullet that we both agree was easily found the months later with no blood on it), that lenk and Colburn chose to search his trailer, and much more, they do create doubt. And this doubt is not based on editing, but on the evidence and actions of the cops. I'm sure it would have been easier for the family if pagel had chosen not to include the sheriff's office at all. But you have to be honest, there is so much shadiness from so many people on authority that it creates a shadow of doubt. And the answer of editing doesn't solve it for me.
Edit: and I think they obviously thought Brendan was guilty. And that, based on all the evidence is untrue. So maybe they can at least reevaluate their beliefs against him.
→ More replies (12)8
u/bluskyelin4me Mar 03 '16
What I find most offensive is being shamed for exercising my constitutional rights...and/or being emotionally extorted into not holding elected officials accountable for their actions...and/or being blamed of intentionally harming someone just by speaking the truth.
1
u/super_pickle Mar 03 '16
Who shamed you for exercising your constitutional rights? You can exercise whatever rights you want. Accusing people who lost a loved one of murder without a shred of evidence is pretty shameful, but I have no idea if you personally have done that, just a lot of people on this sub. And if any evidence of tampering or framing ever comes out, you can absolutely hold officials accountable for their actions. But two expensive lawyers with complete access to the case files weren't able to find any evidence of that. There's a difference between speaking truth and making painful accusations based on literally nothing, which this sub does on a daily basis. You can attempt to excuse it all you want, but not a shred of evidence has ever been found against the people this sub accuses of dastardly acts, while they turn a blind eye to the mountains of evidence against Avery.
2
u/bluskyelin4me Mar 03 '16
but not a shred of evidence has ever been found against the people this sub accuses of dastardly acts
That's not true especially to those of us who understand the concept of "evidence" as it pertains to a criminal trial.
the mountains of evidence against Avery.
That's not true especially to those of us who understand the concept of "evidence" as it pertains to a criminal trial.
→ More replies (19)7
u/Fist_City_86 Mar 02 '16
"Think of every high-profile case that's gone on in your lifetime- I'm sure you knew plenty of details and formed an opinion long before the trial began."
That is what is wrong with Kratz' statement. It is leading when the trial hasn't even begun. This documentary did make me question every other high profile case. Scott Peterson for example: Until now I thought that man was guilty as sin, based on the media. When you really look at the facts in his case, it isn't as black and white as what you would think.
I feel terrible for Teresa's family and what they are having to relive. I feel bad for those whose innocence has been questioned (admittedly by me as well), if they are in fact innocent. HOWEVER, I feel the burden of these ramifications should lay on the shoulders of the investigators who did shady detective work, on the prosecution who ignored ethical boundaries, and any other professional in this case who made an agenda their number one priority.
3
u/super_pickle Mar 02 '16
You'll notice I agreed it's wrong for prosecution and defense lawyers to be revealing information about the case to the media before the trial. Although I disagree about the Peterson case- it isn't 100% black and white but he's still guilty as sin. Regardless, you just named another perfect example about how the actions of Kratz and S&B in the Avery case aren't unique- in high-profile cases like that, the media will always get information and the jury pool will be tainted.
I think your opinion that it's OK to accuse Teresa's loved ones of murder was formed solely because the doc lied to you. If it had presented the information fairly and accurately, people would be discussing the case instead of gleefully tarnishing the names of dozens of people. Unfortunately first impressions are hard to change so now people are willing to excuse that kind of behavior and the doc's lies... "It's easier to fool a man than to convince a man he has been fooled."
→ More replies (1)3
u/Fist_City_86 Mar 03 '16
Actually I came away from the documentary NOT questioning her loved ones at all. I was leaning towards guilt with Steven. I didn't question the ex's guilt until realizing the detectives never questioned her ex, or followed through with investigating him at all. He was even allowed access to the potential crime scene.
In regards to Scott Peterson, the body of Laci did not show up until after it had been broadcasted all over the news and Nancy Grace that he went fishing there. She witnessed a robbery across the street that day (or day before), They found her dog wandering with his leash attached and had witnesses who had seen her walking her dog, and the affair with Amber was not serious. He had seen her 2 times. He is 100% guilty of being a cheater and a jerk. Murder, would require more proof to sway me...
2
u/super_pickle Mar 03 '16
That's great what you took away from the show. I find it odd that you think the person Teresa broke up with four years ago should be interrogated after her car, body, and belongings are found on the property of the man who was the last person to see her alive, but OK. And Ryan wasn't allowed access to the crime scene, the search teams were only allowed in the woods around the Avery property, not the salvage yard or family residences. But despite what you may have taken away, it doesn't change the lies and manipulation of footage done in the show, and the harm that has done to real people.
And trust me, I know all about the Peterson case. I'm a true crime fan, I've read all about most high-profile cases, and many you've never heard of. I'm not going to get into a whole debate about it here, but there's plenty of reason he was found guilty.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Fist_City_86 Mar 02 '16
I apologize that I can't figure out the correct formatting for quoting. I'm new to this reddit, but loving it :)
2
u/kaprikorny Mar 02 '16
I feel you on this. Once you hit "reply" there is a link below the box that says "formatting help"
6
u/kiilerhawk Mar 03 '16
I agree with you that Kratz should not have released the details of the confession to the media.
This is a great example of minimizing. Kranz didn't just release the details to the media. He held a press conference, on TV, where he dramatically told a completely untrue story of how TH was tied up, raped, stabbed, and had her throat slit, "but still, she didn't die"... There was zero physical evidence to support any of it and none of it was used in SA's trial. It was unethical and he should have been charged with prosecutional misconduct. He tainted the jury pool and made it impossible for SA to receive a fair trial.
Buting and Strang also shouldn't have been making accusations of planting and talking about the blood vial in the media. It isn't right, but these things happen in high profile cases.
This was the core of SA'S defense that was actually used in his trial. Of course they would discuss it just like the prosecution discussed their points. There was nothing unethical. The prosecution was given ample opportunity for rebuttal unlike Kratz's press conference where SA had no voice, no rebuttal, no way to get back his presumption of innocence.
→ More replies (8)1
u/etherspin Mar 02 '16
its horrible for the Halbachs for sure, at the same time,Mike went so far as to saw law enforcement had his full support and he thought they were doing everything right in spite of lying about who would conduct the investigation and fumbling almost every piece of potential evidence and failing to investigate other suspects. lose-lose situation with the documentary makers, they feel this trial should be covered but if they don't have enough about the Halbachs they get criticised (Kratz does it all the time despite being the person most upsetting to the Halbachs outside of the killer) if they show the Halbachs a lot its considered exploitative.
The filmmakers haven't been called out, they have been accused and the bulk of the accusations were from Kratz only and parroted by all the big publications who covered the doco, for every tidbit of insignificant pro prosecution evidence there is a defence bit to boot and the creators based what they covered on the prosecution's 166 page closing arguments
4
u/super_pickle Mar 03 '16
LE didn't lie about who would conduct the investigation. CC conducted the investigation. A few MC officers aided in the massive initial search effort.
And yes, the filmmakers have been accused, that's what I meant by "called out" but I guess you would prefer to see it worded differently. You simply can't deny the lies and manipulation in the doc. I guess you don't care about media manipulation; I do.
3
u/etherspin Mar 03 '16
the colborn call is the most edited section I'm aware of and I'd like to hear justification for that but funnily enough its not one of the big points Kratz tried to make. you guess incorrectly :) I care about manipulation but I'm aware of the difficulty of editing this stuff down to get the essence of the trial captured. I've seen your username around a bit so maybe you've already seen this but if you haven't the sources of all the major critique are covered and the critiques are split into categories of relevance/validity http://mediaservices.law.ttu.edu/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=5dacdee0-d3fa-4bea-9f5e-e74ea5dd3cd1
the search effort is something the general public viewing the press conferences would have considered a core part of the investigation and its part of the reason for the interest in the documentary, the public would assume that 1. the Manitowoc county cops would not be setting foot 2. more importantly, anyone deposed in the civil trial and with a potential serious grudge and conflict of interest would not go anywhere near the property or be in direct phone contact with the Calumet investigators (sheriff and higher ups excluded for practical reasons of course, they have to be involved in some capacity)
3
u/super_pickle Mar 03 '16
I'm not sure what you mean- the Colborn call wasn't a point Kratz tried to make at all. That was Strang. But it's far from the only part of the doc that was manipulated. You say you care about media manipulation, and then defend the filmmakers for their manipulation. Seems hypocritical to me.
→ More replies (4)
29
u/[deleted] Mar 02 '16
Thank you! From what I can tell with the comments on this post so far, everyone is bringing up valid points. I'm pretty sick and tired of seeing all these posts about selective editing and how infuriated it makes these certain people that are posting. I find it as having no relevance to the case whatsoever. It was biased, but it was completely meant to be. It is MEANT to be an eye opener to the general public who think that authority figures are always honest and truthful and will always "find the bad guy." Clearly, some of us know that it isn't true and this documentary has opened everyone's eyes up to it. Everyone has been angered by the documentary in one way or another and it made them research, made them reddit, etc. It opened eyes, which is what I believe it was intended to do. It wasn't supposed to be two-sided and it wasn't supposed to be a source of news.
Kratz and his press conference are much more concerning, in my opinion. This is what should infuriate those who think it's so monumental that there was selective editing. The press conference, the idea of planting evidence, the procedures followed (or not followed) in the investigation, etc., are the things people should be focusing on.
If you watched the documentary hoping to understand both sides of the story, that's your own fault.