Sunday, December 27, 2015

Making A Murderer Questions

Long term readers of Statement Analysis should:

a.  Be able to discern if Steven Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey killed the victim or not;

b.  If police were deceptive in attempting to prove this...

This next one will take a bit more analysis:  

c.  If it is known how the victim died outside of the use of a gun from the words revealed in the documentary.  This is something that deeper analysis should be able to have a strong opinion about and cite the specific reason for their opinion based upon principle.  

d.  Readers should be able to discern not only deception, but be able to properly assess the interview of the 16 year old and give details about it based upon principle.  

Some deeper analysis:

*If you concluded police deception, did you learn why?

*Do you know specifically who was deceptive, and in what statements (topics) that deception was indicated?

*Did the prosecutor reveal information of a personal nature of his own, via language?  


John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey Jude said...

I'm so appalled at how poor Brendan's lack of intelligence and general slowness were taken advantage of, and by the willingness of LE to do that to anyone, let alone a kid who was so non-comprehending that he actually imagined he would be free to go back to his afternoon classes after being cajoled into his false confession. That he should then be appointed a smug, useless defence lawyer who did not give a damn about his 'client ' and who might as well have been working for the prosecution is similarly incomprehensible, to me. Just about to watch episode 5 online via project Free TV - i hope it turns out that everyone who behaved corruptly ended up in the slammer.

A Wow! moment was when one of the LE guys mused that it would have been easier to 'eliminate' Steven, if someone wanted him gone or dead, than It would have been to frame him.

I felt sad that people of such low intelligence were so vulnerable to deceit and manipulation by those who are meant to uphold the law. Brendan's IQ must be considerably lower than Steven's seventy). Couldn't resist commenting, but I'll have to watch it all again as I didn't take any notes. I thought the victim's husband/boyfriend might have been a bit shifty, but it was only a thought.

Anonymous said...

After hackers destroy the county, they will have plenty of statements to analyze. If you don't mind receiving stolen goods that is.

Hey Jude said...

Well, for the greater good, perhaps they might say, Anon @ 9.22 - hackers are not all bad. I think they should slow down and not act upon the strength of a documentary - it presents only a fraction of the material and information available. I have hardly begun to look at what there is, so even though the documentary made me feel sympathy, and that injustice had been done, especially to Brendan, really I don't know that for myself, though there's a lot of related material to read and listen to in the public domain. Knee jerk reactions are not always the best - hackers should slow down, but they do like a cause for which to hack. I won't be above reading their stolen goods if they do hack him, it's not as if they are going after his personal communications.