Netflix: Making a Murderer

[Don Corlemahomes]

Watch it. Now.

[The Rick]

Rebutting a Murderer:

Making a Murderer is a national obsession—a riveting, visually stunning masterpiece of documentary filmmaking.

But it is also one of the more slanted, one-sided pieces of storytelling in recent memory, so Dan O'Donnell goes episode-by-episode through it to systematically dismantle the series' vague allegations of a conspiracy by the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department to frame Steven Avery.

Over the course of these 10 episodes, Dan rebuts each one of Making a Murderer's claims and outlines the the evidence that the show omitted--evidence that proves once and for all that Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey raped and killed Teresa Haibach.

http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/co...erer-14280387/

[The Rick]

Why a Reporter Who Covered the Avery Case Is Launching a 'Making a Murderer' Rebuttal Podcast

Dan O'Donnell's new podcast on iHeartRadio, Rebutting a Murderer, isn't just some random person's take on the popular Netflix documentary series Making a Murderer. O'Donnell, a Milwaukee radio reporter, covered the case and appears throughout the series, at various news conferences and pacing around courthouse hallways.

The popular Netflix series, which is being prepped for new episodes, is both captivating and polarizing. O'Donnell, who was reluctant to watch at first, told Adweek that "half of Wisconsin" binge-watched the show within two days of its debut. After being urged by friends and colleagues to watch, he did. And he didn't agree with everything he saw. So that's how the 10-episode Rebutting a Murderer came to be.

"It's the most visually stunning, captivating documentary series I've ever seen. It's like, Fargo meets the Sopranos. It was beautiful," said O'Donnell, who now works for WISN radio. "But as I was getting into it, I was like 'wait a second. That's not how I remember it.'

Adweek: How did you come to cover the Steven Avery case?
Dan O'Donnell: I covered the Steven Avery case for the radio station I used to work for, news radio 620 WTMJ in Milwaukee. I had just graduated from law school in June 2006 and I loved radio and broadcasting. I decided, instead of practicing law, I'm going to go into broadcasting full-time. At that time the Avery case was very big. We knew this was going to trial, and a few months before, my boss said, "Hey Dan, you have a legal background. What would you say to sort of putting your life on hold for a good two months, going up to Calumet County and covering this for us?" At the time I was 24, 25-years-old and I said "Yeah, I don't have any kids. Let's do it." I covered it every day. I would do hourly reports. I would do live interviews on all of our shows, I was filing occasional reports for our network affiliate ABC News radio, and this was before Twitter. Instead of sending out tweets with all the updates, I was doing a minute-by-minute almost blog. It was sort of like a timeline of events. I covered it as a news reporter from pretty much start to finish.

Were you familiar with the case before covering it?
The Steven Avery case was huge. I think the film does a good job of portraying, when Avery was freed in 2003, [that] he was like a hero in Wisconsin. And then in 2005, when it became clear that he was the primary suspect in this 25-year-old woman's disappearance, it was like a punch to the gut.

Filmmakers Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi had been documenting the case since shortly after Avery's arrest in 2005. Did they ask you to participate in the documentary?
I recall we all had to sign releases. The filmmakers gave us all releases. Of course I signed it without even thinking about it. I kind of joked to them that I'm a radio guy so sometimes I won't be shaven and I certainly won't be wearing a suit. I'm the one that announces, I think in episode eight, that a verdict is in. They captured me pacing around on the phone giving a live report.

What issues do you have with the finished product?
I understand that the filmmakers acknowledge they were there with a narrative in mind. However, they selectively omitted what I believe to be key evidence. They selectively glossed over key evidence that tends to show Avery's guilt. Moreover, what they did with respect to their frame-up allegations/conspiracy theory was not to provide any actual affirmative evidence to support their conclusion. Rather, based on supposed motive and opportunity, they made insinuations and vague allegations of wrongdoing. The filmmakers are instead relying on us to supply the conclusion that they've already drawn.

So do you think Steven Avery is guilty?
Yes. There is literally no question in my mind. If you're really interested in Making a Murderer, watch the confession [Brendan] Dassey makes on March 1 with the two interrogators. He goes into extraordinary detail. I mean, painstaking detail. The series makes it seem like this guy's really dumb, right? He wouldn't have been able to make [those details] up. One of my favorite parts of the trial was when he's asked where he would have gotten these details. He says, "I don't know, I might have read it in Kiss the Girls." We've already established this kid reads at like a fourth-grade level; a James Patterson 464-page dense novel is not something he's going to be able to read and retain. My 8-year-old reads at a fourth grade level. There is no way he's going to be able to follow the intricacies of Kiss the Girls. If you go back and really watch the confession, there was no coercion. I have no doubt, reasonable or otherwise, that those two committed this heinous crime.

If Brendan isn't capable of retaining Kiss the Girls and reads at such a low level, why do you think it's possible he was able to participate in such a horrible crime?
Here's the thing—and this was never mentioned in the series—at one point in Dassey's phone call to his mother from jail, he says that Avery inappropriately touched both him and a female cousin. Avery had already been sent away to prison for life so there is no real reason to investigate this, but it seems as though it's possible at least that Avery was molesting Dassey. Dassey wasn't developmentally disabled; he was just cognitively disabled. I think that Avery possibly molesting him is a big part of why he would do this in front of his uncle. The uncle would be egging him on like, "Come on Brendan, do it kid, do it." It's another piece of the puzzle, the molester/victim relationship. [It's] really sick, it's almost like master/servant. I do think Brendan is a tragic figure in this. I really do. But I think he was victimized by his uncle, not the justice system.

Would you say the filmmakers are irresponsible?
It's not irresponsible. Well, that's a tough question. They're not responsible, obviously, for all of the threats and what their viewers have done since watching this film. They couldn't have possibly known that people would react so crazily, [that they'd be] sending threatening notes to Brendan Dassey's attorney Len Kachinsky, who is vilified throughout the film. He had people telling him they hope he dies of cancer. He's suffering from, I believe it's leukemia right now. The filmmakers don't bare any responsibility for that, but they make these allegations, and they make it very clear what they're alleging.

How did the podcast come together?
I remember thinking back to when I covered the trial and I was like, "Wait a second, that's not how I remember it." It was Steven Avery's story. It got me thinking that this was just one side of the story. This was one perspective. The Avery family's perspective. I think people owe it to themselves to get the other side of the story. To get another view on this. To take into account the evidence that was either omitted or glossed over. I decided to tell that other side of the story. Let's let people watch the series, listen to my podcast and decide for themselves.

http://www.adweek.com/news/televisio...podcast-169092

[notorious]

I see another 10 part series coming.


"The other side of 'Making a Murderer'"

Profit.

[GloucesterChief]

LOL at reporter basing his thinking of guilt being the Dassey confession, which the prosecution never submitted as evidence because the defense would rip it apart. What they got from it was poisoning the well of public perception before the trial.

It isn't coercion that is the issue, no one is saying he was coerced . It is that the detectives were feeding him all the details. He should go read up on the actual psychological studies about children being interrogated. They have a large need to please who they see as being authority figures to the point of making up stories that no reasonable person would believe because the authority figure suggested it. Same goes with the mentally impaired with low IQs. The satanic child abuse hysteria should of disabused any serious court of the notion. The Dassey confession basically reads like the detectives giving a lot of exposition with Dassey replying with one word or one sentence answers. Not exactly going into great detail.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

LOL at reporter basing his thinking of guilt being the Dassey confession, which the prosecution never submitted as evidence because the defense would rip it apart. What they got from it was poisoning the well of public perception before the trial.

It isn't coercion that is the issue, no one is saying he was coerced . It is that the detectives were feeding him all the details. He should go read up on the actual psychological studies about children being interrogated. They have a large need to please who they see as being authority figures to the point of making up stories that no reasonable person would believe because the authority figure suggested it. Same goes with the mentally impaired with low IQs. The satanic child abuse hysteria should of disabused any serious court of the notion. The Dassey confession basically reads like the detectives giving a lot of exposition with Dassey replying with one word or one sentence answers. Not exactly going into great detail.

The way those two cops treated that kid, knowing full well his mental capacity, is downright criminal.

[Trivers]

Just drove by the protest gathering point.

Clear and cold. 11 degrees.

One hour until protest starts.

NOBODY in parking lot.....except for four news trucks. One is from MKE..two hours away.

I guess the demands of outrage are easy to have when you are behind a keyboard...and not out in the cold.

Had breakfast this AM with someone who grew up knowing the Avery family. She absolutely believes that he is guilty. Apparently, he is an mean and abusive person.

[PAChiefsGuy]

Originally Posted by Trivers

Just drove by the protest gathering point.

Clear and cold. 11 degrees.

One hour until protest starts.

NOBODY in parking lot.....except for four news trucks. One is from MKE..two hours away.

I guess the demands of outrage are easy to have when you are behind a keyboard...and not out in the cold.

Had breakfast this AM with someone who grew up knowing the Avery family. She absolutely believes that he is guilty. Apparently, he is an mean and abusive person.

The Averys from my understanding had a bad reputation in town so it doesn't surprise me locals and the cops would think he did it which is more than likely why the real killer may have targeted him as a person to set up. Also it is my belief that that is one of the reasons the corrupt cops planted evidence. They truly believe he did it.

No question Avery was not a saint. I believe that completely. But to be fair you do 18 years in state prison surrounded by killers, drug dealers and rapists chances are you are when you get out you are not going to be Mr Nice Guy. He probably had a lot of anger at the world, I know I would. That doesn't mean he raped and killed that girl.

Also if he was that much of a psychopath I would think the first person on his list to kill would be the person who identified him as a rapist sending him to prison for 18 years, not some girl he barely knew.

[ModSocks]

Originally Posted by The Rick

http://www.adweek.com/news/televisio...podcast-169092

So do you think Steven Avery is guilty?

Yes. There is literally no question in my mind. If you're really interested in Making a Murderer, watch the confession [Brendan] Dassey makes on March 1 with the two interrogators. He goes into extraordinary detail. I mean, painstaking detail. The series makes it seem like this guy's really dumb, right? He wouldn't have been able to make [those details] up. One of my favorite parts of the trial was when he's asked where he would have gotten these details. He says, "I don't know, I might have read it in Kiss the Girls." We've already established this kid reads at like a fourth-grade level; a James Patterson 464-page dense novel is not something he's going to be able to read and retain. My 8-year-old reads at a fourth grade level. There is no way he's going to be able to follow the intricacies of Kiss the Girls. If you go back and really watch the confession, there was no coercion. I have no doubt, reasonable or otherwise, that those two committed this heinous crime.

Uhhmm....problem with that theory. Kiss the Girls was also a movie, and there's a good chance he can retain what he saw in a movie. Brendan mentioned cutting Teresa's hair....but i read on another site that the book makes no mention of cutting anyone's hair but the movie DOES.

Also, even if he did get the details from the book, who's to say he read the whole thing? We're talking about a stupid teenage boy. Who's to say he didn't pick up the book because someone pointed out the sex scenes to him?

[Jerm]

I would sure like to hear that guy rebut the key....only Avery's DNA on it and it was found on the what, seventh or eighth search of the property?

**** outta here with that...

That and the extremely ridiculous pre trial press conference where Kratz presented this horror story that he knew would convict Avery before the trial even began are things I still can't shake....

[Swanman]

Originally Posted by Jerm

I would sure like to hear that guy rebut the key....only Avery's DNA on it and it was found on the what, seventh or eighth search of the property?

**** outta here with that...

That and the extremely ridiculous pre trial press conference where Kratz presented this horror story that he knew would convict Avery before the trial even began are things I still can't shake....

The key sitting there IN PLAIN SIGHT that was missed several times. Let's not forget the magic bullet in the garage.

[Red Brooklyn]

The Prosecution denied access to the documentary team. No one gave interviews with them. Of course it focuses on Avery and his family and defense. They're the ones that granted access.

You can't have it both ways.

If the opposition had agreed to total access the doc would feel "more balanced." Couple their disinterest in cooperation with the Judge's ruling, disallowing the defense to name other suspects, and yeah, the documentary feels one sided. Of course it does.

[Jerm]

Originally Posted by Swanman

The key sitting there IN PLAIN SIGHT that was missed several times. Let's not forget the magic bullet in the garage.

I know that from previous law enforcement experience that the key would've been found within 5 mins. of the first search if it were there from the beginning.

So the Sheriff's Office and prosecution want us to believe that Avery hid the key there of all places...not anywhere else on his expansive property with an insane amount of places to hide said key but there...and he did this after knowing they had searched the room once and had access to it.

[BigRedChief]

Dateline NBC has the Avery case on tonight. 9:00 pm central.

[ragedogg69]

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy

likely why the real killer may have targeted him as a person to set up. Also it is my belief that that is one of the reasons the corrupt cops planted evidence. They truly believe he did it.

I find it really hard to believe that a guy killed the girl only to frame Avery. I agree more with the latter part. I could easily see the corrupt cops finding her murdered body in her the Rav4 elsewhere. Knowing they have a 30 million dollar knife coming at them, they take advantage of Avery being a POI. Cleaning the SUV, burning her body in the quarry then dumping it and the car on his property in the middle of the night and just wait for someone to find it 2 days later is possible.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy

And you mean to tell me Avery is smart enough to clean the body and area he killed her with bleach but not smart enough to get rid of her car?

That doesn't make much sense.

The other thing that doesn't make sense -- along with the blood that never was found and still hasn't been explained (in this thread or anywhere else) is why Avery involved this kid? Why involve anyone? I guess you could say that he was going to pin it on the kid or maybe he's just stupid, but never really understood why he would do it.

Innocent.