All Things Movie/Documentary Reviews/Recommendations Thread

This story is the gift that keeps on giving. The filmmakers appeared on the Today Show. From an article:

"The juror contacted us directly and told us the verdicts in Steven's trial were a compromise," Ricciardi revealed in a later Today interview. "That was the actual word the juror used and went on to describe the jurors ultimately trading votes in the jury room. Explicitly discussing, 'If you vote guilty on this count, I will vote not guilty on this count.' That was a significant revelation.

"Demos said they have not spoken to other jurors to confirm the story yet. "They told us really that they were afraid if they held out for a mistrial that it would be easy to identify which juror had done that and they were fearful for their own safety. What they explained to us is they believed that if there was a split verdict like this, that this would send a message to the appellate courts and they thought that Steven would get a new trial," she said. "That was sort of their plan and it didn't work out that way."


This is essentially what I'd speculated in another post based on my own jury experience - that it was a split jury room and that the people holding out for an acquittal caved. I hadn't considered the possibility of horse trading votes, which of course has nothing to do with the evidence and is basically improper. It may have even been that there was a majority for acquittal at one point in the deliberation, but there was an immovable minority who would never throw cops under the bus or even consider the possibility of misconduct or corruption. It's easy for me to say, but the best thing would have been for the not-guilty voters to hold out themselves and force a hung jury.

The citizen jury system is our way, but we have to recognize its flaws, not the least of which is that these jurors just want to finish and get back to their lives.

You also have to put yourself in the place of the jurors. Let's say you believe that the Manitowoc Sheriff's Department was corrupt and framed Steven Avery for murder. That would be a scary proposition as a resident of the same county. What's stopping them from finding out you were one of the jurors who didn't want to convict Avery. If they are capable of railroading a guy twice, what are they capable of doing to you?
 

You also have to put yourself in the place of the jurors. Let's say you believe that the Manitowoc Sheriff's Department was corrupt and framed Steven Avery for murder. That would be a scary proposition as a resident of the same county. What's stopping them from finding out you were one of the jurors who didn't want to convict Avery. If they are capable of railroading a guy twice, what are they capable of doing to you?

Exactly. Avery could get a new trial if it were found that the local government threatened them or pressured them directly, but there can't be a new trial on account of the jurors' fears, even if they may be justified by the Sheriff's Office's conduct.
 

I don't practice criminal law, and I don't know Wisconsin's criminal or ethics code. But here are some thoughts:

- I don't believe for a second that Dassey did anything illegal. He's a victim of a system that routinely chews people like him up.

- Avery may have committed the murder, but he should have gotten off from reasonable doubt. The judge either wasn't very able or has a bias toward prosecutors, as most judges do, based on his rulings. The cops also clearly tampered with evidence. The prosecution's expert witnesses were atrocious. The FBI crime lab guy and the lab test were a travesty. The Wisconsin lab woman's handling of the DNA was beyond inexcusable. This is the biggest case in her career, and she's supposedly training people and deviating from protocol for the first time in her career. The DNA should have been thrown out. If preponderance of the evidence is 51% certainty, clear and convincing evidence is 75-80% certainty, and reasonable doubt is 90-95% certainty, then there is no way jury members should be unanimously 90-95% certain that Avery committed the crime from what we saw.

- The criminal justice system is a very flawed system. Prosecutors have too much power, police interrogation tactics are flawed, and poor and/or stupid people are completely up sh*t creek in a system like this. Also, the quality of state district court judges varies wildly. Some are excellent. Some are so stupid that you would question how they got where they are. I'm very leery of counties with only one or two judges. The quality of the judges are generally weaker than bigger counties, and the good ole boy, parochial factor ratchets up quite a bit. If I had a client like Avery in such a county, I would be trying to change venue as fast as possible. If that didn't work, then I would have the judge removed if he was a poor judge. This is the one tactical question by Avery's team that I didn't understand. But I don't know Wisconsin law, so maybe they didn't have a good chance or any chance of succeeding. In Minnesota, you can remove the first judge appointed without question as long as you do it in a timely manner, before trial and certain hearings. Moreover, most judges are former prosecutors. They're naturally predisposed to the prosecution. Big city judges have more talent to choose from, but they're still hit or miss. The Federal district court judges are typically far superior.

- Never settle for a public defender unless it's your only option. It's not because public defenders are all bad attorneys, in fact, many of them good. The problem is, they handle a caseload that is too big to manage, so they cannot give their clients the best possible representation. Even though Minnesota hired more public defenders this year, they didn't hire enough. We probably need to hire another 75 across the state for public defenders to have a chance at defending their clients. Also, you'll never get a team of lawyers or access to first rate investigators and expert witnesses with a public defender (defendants often refer to them as public pretenders). If you're facing serious time, it's worth draining your retirement or other accounts if you have to in order to field good private defense attorneys. You don't need great attorneys like Friedberg or Colich for small time or mid-level offenses unless you can easily afford them. If you don't know who a good one is, check Super Lawyers. Anyone who earns the honor of Super Lawyer is held in high regard by judges and his peer attorneys. A very small minority of attorneys are awarded Super Lawyer status every year. 5% or less of all attorneys can be honored as a Super Lawyer. This is a great resource to find excellent attorneys who are just as skilled as those at the big law firms at a much cheaper rate due to lower overhead.

- Len Kachinsky should be disbarred. He's a stain on the profession.

- Ken Kratz is your typical small town prosecutor. He's very average in the courtroom, and he's interested in the appearance of justice. He abuses his power, but most prosecutors do. It's a systemic problem. Kratz is also borderline unethical in how he handles his prosecution. He's completely unethical for the text messages he sent. He probably should have been sanctioned by the Wisconsin Supreme Court with at least a suspension of his license.

- Prosecutors seeking conviction through the media are despicable. Gag orders should be mandatory for all pending matters in criminal court.

good post. i agree, as the information was presented by the documentary, i probably would have voted not guilty if i was a juror. i'm just not sure how much i trust the narrative of the documentary. something tells me that one could make a pretty convincing documentary that tells a completely different story.
 

here's the information that i can't get past. the girl was killed and her remains were found in a burn pit behind avery's house in which, it is accepted, avery had a bonfire the night of the girl's disappearance after avery was the last person to see her. now i am all about conspiracy theories, but i find it interesting that so many people who mock "conspiratards" are so quick to accept them when the source is considered fashionable.

so here is what i am expected to believe. 1. either the police, or someone in the police, was so upset at the $36 million case that they somehow figured out that this woman was going to see steven avery at the end of the day on that day. killed her after she left. burned the body on the property, moved the remains to a spot right outside the avery house (amidst all the other avery trailers), drove the car onto the property and covered it after planting blood without being noticed by anyone. then the entire police department and district attorney's office became implicit in the murder by covering up obvious evidence tampering and possibly letting a murderer go free, all the while endangering their own careers and livelihoods. or 2. the actual killer was savvy enough to know that the last person to see this girl alive was steve avery and went through the above actions to frame steven avery. judging from the fact that everyone in this part of wisconsin seem rather inbred, that is a tough pill to swallow (i apologize for making generalizations).

since i seem to only get one side of the story, and -- even though our legal system is the worst of all time (except for every other legal system ever) -- i am going to go with the principle of parsimony instead of a netflix documentary and sleep well tonight knowing that the inbred police of that county have been exposed and a killer is in prison until there is some evidence that says otherwise.
 

here's the information that i can't get past. the girl was killed and her remains were found in a burn pit behind avery's house in which, it is accepted, avery had a bonfire the night of the girl's disappearance after avery was the last person to see her. now i am all about conspiracy theories, but i find it interesting that so many people who mock "conspiratards" are so quick to accept them when the source is considered fashionable.

so here is what i am expected to believe. 1. either the police, or someone in the police, was so upset at the $36 million case that they somehow figured out that this woman was going to see steven avery at the end of the day on that day. killed her after she left. burned the body on the property, moved the remains to a spot right outside the avery house (amidst all the other avery trailers), drove the car onto the property and covered it after planting blood without being noticed by anyone. then the entire police department and district attorney's office became implicit in the murder by covering up obvious evidence tampering and possibly letting a murderer go free, all the while endangering their own careers and livelihoods. or 2. the actual killer was savvy enough to know that the last person to see this girl alive was steve avery and went through the above actions to frame steven avery. judging from the fact that everyone in this part of wisconsin seem rather inbred, that is a tough pill to swallow (i apologize for making generalizations).

since i seem to only get one side of the story, and -- even though our legal system is the worst of all time (except for every other legal system ever) -- i am going to go with the principle of parsimony instead of a netflix documentary and sleep well tonight knowing that the inbred police of that county have been exposed and a killer is in prison until there is some evidence that says otherwise.

Honest to goodness, this is what's so compelling about the story. We know that a woman is dead under these strange circumstances. She got dead in some way by somebody's hand, and every known alternative explanation is fantastic and unbelievable in some way, shape or form. Besides the obvious political implications, that's why the Kennedy Assassination is a topic of such interest - no matter what you believe, it's like, whoa!
 


here's the information that i can't get past. the girl was killed and her remains were found in a burn pit behind avery's house in which, it is accepted, avery had a bonfire the night of the girl's disappearance after avery was the last person to see her. now i am all about conspiracy theories, but i find it interesting that so many people who mock "conspiratards" are so quick to accept them when the source is considered fashionable.

so here is what i am expected to believe. 1. either the police, or someone in the police, was so upset at the $36 million case that they somehow figured out that this woman was going to see steven avery at the end of the day on that day. killed her after she left. burned the body on the property, moved the remains to a spot right outside the avery house (amidst all the other avery trailers), drove the car onto the property and covered it after planting blood without being noticed by anyone. then the entire police department and district attorney's office became implicit in the murder by covering up obvious evidence tampering and possibly letting a murderer go free, all the while endangering their own careers and livelihoods. or 2. the actual killer was savvy enough to know that the last person to see this girl alive was steve avery and went through the above actions to frame steven avery. judging from the fact that everyone in this part of wisconsin seem rather inbred, that is a tough pill to swallow (i apologize for making generalizations).

since i seem to only get one side of the story, and -- even though our legal system is the worst of all time (except for every other legal system ever) -- i am going to go with the principle of parsimony instead of a netflix documentary and sleep well tonight knowing that the inbred police of that county have been exposed and a killer is in prison until there is some evidence that says otherwise.

What are your thoughts regarding Dassey?
 



What are your thoughts regarding Dassey?

It's tough to come to any concrete conclusions on the kid because even less information was presented on his trial. I was concerned about the police interrogating him without a parent present, but it was stated that his mother was informed that she could be present. She dropped the ball. Whether or not the investigators gave her an honest assessment of what was going on or not is not clear. It is clear that his cousin told the police that dassey admitted to her that he had taken part in the murder. She later changed her story saying that she lied, but at that point the police had this information that dassey was involved. It is their duty to pursue it to furthest extent possible. That information even seems to shine some light on the fact that investigators were so adamant about dassey admitting to it, because the had information that he had already admitted to it.

I do think that his original counsel should have been punished for allowing his client, especially an underrated client, to be questioned without insisting on being present. I think dassey probably should have gotten a new trial because of that as well.

Again, it is tough to come to any serious conclusions because the information all seems so one-sided.
 



My wife and I have plowed through 6 episodes of. Although I'm well aware that the directors are choosing what is presented, I'm left with so many puzzling questions. Among the oddest:

1) The key. Somehow missed in the first 6 searches, then found in plain sight and somehow showing none of Teresa's DNA, only his.
2) The fact that the bones were moved.
3) His blood in the car with zero fingerprints or other signs of him.
4) Why Colburn would call to inquire about the license plates if he didn't happen upon the vehicle.
5) the odd, incorrect and rehearsed testimony of the other Dassey/Scott.

...and so much more. It's just so bizarre and riveting. Can't wait to watch the last 4.
 

Put me in the camp that thinks Avery is probably guilty, but that there is no question the police tried to frame him. The most glaring thing to me is how this county's investigators were the ones who found the most important pieces of evidence, after several searches, and after they'd supposedly removed themselves from the investigation due to conflict of interest.

Here is a great listen, Ron Rosenbaum discusses the case and Joel Friedburg joins him around 19 minutes.

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/6/c/d/6cd...52701450&hwt=50a4ab82def1b6af7b61a1e47dbbc460
 


I work in a field where I come into contact with documentary film makers. Every single one is very ready to bend the facts for a better story. Every single one (and these topics are much more local and benign than Making a Murderer). Print and TV media are pretty much the same. They want facts that back their narrative, rather than look at the totality of the evidence.

This contrasts dramatically with people writing books who are generally scrupulous in their accuracy.

Haven't seen Making a Murderer so this is a general statement rather than a specific one.
 



The Making a Murderer Creators Answer Stephen Colbert's Question: Is Avery Guilty?

From The Late Show with Stephen Colbert via Esquire. Watched them on the show myself and they were really reluctant to answer the question which takes place about halfway in the interview.

Many of us haven't held a job for 10 years straight. Beyond breathing, eating, regularly sleeping, and living, the list of things we've done for a decade is probably pretty short. Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos filmed their documentary series Making a Murderer for 10 years. For a decade, they embedded themselves into the story of Steven Avery—who was exonerated of murder, then convicted of murder again. They know every detail of his case, they know everyone involved, they even moved back and forth from NewYork to Wisconsin to be close to the story. It's safe to say Ricciardi and Demos know as much or more than the lawyers, police, judges, and even families—some of whom are busying themselves making horrible rap songs—involved in the complex, lifelong case.

Last night on The Late Show, Stephen Colbert asked Ricciardi and Demos the one question that can't objectively be answered by anyone with any stake in the outcome of the case: "Is he guilty?" It's not a simple yes or no question, as Ricciardi and Demos showed with their response...


http://www.esquire.com/entertainmen.../?mag=esq&list=nl_enl_news&src=nl&date=011416
 

I saw 13 Hours (the Benghazi movie) today, excellent (8 out of 10). Saw it at the Burnsville Paragon theater with those awesome leather recliners in all their theaters. Highly recommended!
 

I saw 13 Hours (the Benghazi movie) today, excellent (8 out of 10). Saw it at the Burnsville Paragon theater with those awesome leather recliners in all their theaters. Highly recommended!

Been putting off seeing 13 Hours but I really have to get out to see it before it's gone.


Is anyone watching "Billions", the new series on Showtime? 4 episodes in right now and I think it's fascinating. Great writing, good drama, very witty at times, good characters. I'm am fully engaged, and so is Mrs. Ogee. I'd highly recommend at this point.
 

Watched Merchants of Doubt over the weekend. A very good documentary about the people and methods large corporations employ to cast doubt on scientific studies. From tobacco to global warming and lots of stuff in between.

Here's the trailer:

 

Just finished "Little Girl Blue", a documentary on Janis Joplin. Lots of interviews with former band mates and friends, also the reading of the letters she sent back to her family. I liked it.
 



Really good documentary on an independent baseball team called "Battered Bastards of Baseball". Bing Russell, father of Kurt Russell, was the owner. The town is Portland and it takes place in the 70's when they were the only independent team operating in baseball. Netflix is streaming it.
 

Trailer of an upcoming 7.5 hour documentary on OJ by ESPN/30 for 30:


Go Gophers!!
 

Just watched Prescription Thugs last night. A documentary about prescription drug abuse and the roll big pharma plays in America's addiction to easy quick fixes. The guy had a prescription drug addiction himself and lost his brother to an overdose of prescription drugs. The message carries the same sentiment about big pharma that I've had since pharmacy school.
 

I think I'm late to the game but I watched the Duke Lacrosse documentary yesterday. The whole time I couldn't help but wish Twitter was around in 2006, so I could see which media guys would make fools of themselves.
 

Just watched a documentary called Fastball. Lots of interviews with pitchers and hitters and opinions on who threw the fastest. Really enjoyed the interviews with Nolan Ryan and Bob Gibson. Both such fierce competitors. Gibson basically said he was unhittable in 1968. Won 22 games that year and 13 were shutouts. Ryan had an ERA of 2.91 at the age of 44. Both worked inside and relied on intimidation. Ryan said if he got to an 0-2 count on a hitter, the next one was going to move him off the plate. Henry Aaron and Ernie Banks are interviewed and admit to their fear when up at the plate against the premier hard throwers. Some footage on Walter Johnson and guess I never knew he was somewhat of a sidearmer.
 

Just watched a documentary called Fastball. Lots of interviews with pitchers and hitters and opinions on who threw the fastest. Really enjoyed the interviews with Nolan Ryan and Bob Gibson. Both such fierce competitors. Gibson basically said he was unhittable in 1968. Won 22 games that year and 13 were shutouts. Ryan had an ERA of 2.91 at the age of 44. Both worked inside and relied on intimidation. Ryan said if he got to an 0-2 count on a hitter, the next one was going to move him off the plate. Henry Aaron and Ernie Banks are interviewed and admit to their fear when up at the plate against the premier hard throwers. Some footage on Walter Johnson and guess I never knew he was somewhat of a sidearmer.

Sounds very interesting. Don Drysdale was also that type of pitcher. Always wondered how many times the three of them hit each other? Bet the number was very low.;)
 

Sounds very interesting. Don Drysdale was also that type of pitcher. Always wondered how many times the three of them hit each other? Bet the number was very low.;)

Totally forgot about Drysdale. Think I read something once where the manager wanted a hitter walked and it was Drysdale or Gibson on the mound. First pitch and the batter is hit. Manager said something like, "I told you to walk him" and the reply was that they "weren't going to waste any pitches".
 

Totally forgot about Drysdale. Think I read something once where the manager wanted a hitter walked and it was Drysdale or Gibson on the mound. First pitch and the batter is hit. Manager said something like, "I told you to walk him" and the reply was that they "weren't going to waste any pitches".

:)
 

That does sound good. How did the old timers like Gibson and Ryan play so long without all the injuries that are occurring now? Is it the slider? Or so much emphasis on throwing your hardest on every pitch?
 

Wow this documentary looks powerful:


Go Gophers!!
 




Top Bottom