Netflix - Making a murderer (11 Viewers)

[Otis]

Anyone watching the show on BBC2? Conviction. It follows Inside Justice, a charity that deals with possible wrongful convictions.

All based on one case where a man was jailed for killing his lover.

Not sure how many episodes it is, but it is similar in a number of ways to Making a Murderer.

Of course only seen the one episode thus far, but I reckon he is guilty based on what I have seen so far. All the evidence though is circumstantial, with no forensic evidence at all.

 

---

[Nick]

No but I might have to, has only one been on or can I.binge?

 

[Otis]

No but I might have to, has only one been on or can I.binge?

First episode last night. As it is the Beeb you won't be able to do a job lot until the end.

Meant to say, this is a UK murder case and a UK charity.

It is a bit drawn out in places, but still holds that interest of the viewer.

The guy's tale doesn't quite sit right with me and some of the things he says don't quite come across as sincere.

Will see what next week brings.

 

[Otis]

Do watch it though, Nick. I need someone to talk to about it.

 

[Otis]

Just checked, it's a two partner, last night and then next Wednesday at 9.

 

[Nick]

I'll look on I player

 

[stupot07]

Just watched it. At the minute I'm leaning towards innocent.

Spoiler

The only bit I thought he came across a bit insincere was talking about his relationship with the victim but I put that down to knowing it was being recorded and feeling guilty about the affair so not wanting to big up being in lobe, etc in relationship to his partner who stood by him and confirmed his alibi. Too much circumstantial evidence and no forensics, a multiple stabbing would have blood everywhere, he wouldnt have had the time for a clean up operation in between stabbing her and getting to work. Can't wait for next weeks

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Otis]

Just watched it. At the minute I'm leaning towards innocent.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Weird though the way he talked.

Spoiler

When she asked him to be totally honest and say he was innocent, he didn't say 'I didn't do it, I didn't kill her' he said 'I didn't do what the police said I did.' Seemed like an avoiding answer.

Few other things bugging me. Surely the police checked to see if anyone else locally had a black Mitsubishi Shogun. Not the most common of cars.

Seems all the experts identified the car from the point of his leaving his home (later on a lot less certain), but that initial CCTV footage says 9.30 and yet he says he didn't leave until after 10.

His wife provided an alibi, but partners do cover up for each other and I do think the blood in the car is irrelevant to whether or not he killed her, It's just a question of where she was killed.

The police also say they had a big row on the same afternoon she died and she told friends she was meeting him that night, which he denies.

Just something about him and the way he spoke and the things he said that made me doubt him.

I see from the trailer for next week someone says he is a bit menacing or violent (or words to that effect).

 

[Otis]

Just watched it. At the minute I'm leaning towards innocent.

Spoiler

The only bit I thought he came across a bit insincere was talking about his relationship with the victim but I put that down to knowing it was being recorded and feeling guilty about the affair so not wanting to big up being in lobe, etc in relationship to his partner who stood by him and confirmed his alibi. Too much circumstantial evidence and no forensics, a multiple stabbing would have blood everywhere, he wouldnt have had the time for a clean up operation in between stabbing her and getting to work. Can't wait for next weeks

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Oops, forgot to put mine in a spoiler!!

Just rectified my error!!

 

[Marty]

I've just watched it Otis.

Don't know how to use the spoiler thing so. SPOILERS!!

Initially after looking at it, I'm really not sure why he was convicted. She was murdered in her car yet no blood, none of his DNA found inside. Something isn't right. Yes his wife covered for him, but even after finding out that he had an affair she didn't change her story. So if he did meet her, he killed her, cleaned up then changed, he only had 7 minutes to do all that on a busy well lit road.

 

[Otis]

I've just watched it Otis.

Don't know how to use the spoiler thing so. SPOILERS!!

Initially after looking at it, I'm really not sure why he was convicted. She was murdered in her car yet no blood, none of his DNA found inside. Something isn't right. Yes his wife covered for him, but even after finding out that he had an affair she didn't change her story. So if he did meet her, he killed her, cleaned up then changed, he only had 7 minutes to do all that on a busy well lit road.

Yep, it seems obvious she wasn't killed there.

I don't think he should have been convicted either. The evidence was a bit paper thin and no forensics to link him.

Still not convinced about him though as a person. He talks in an odd manner and all a bit passionless too. Something rather off about him to my mind.

 

[Pipehitterz]

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/duo-jailed-pub-car-park-11927796
our very own making a murderer
i know the guys involved are most unpleasant, but fuck me, 10 years inside on that evidence, i proven fantasist convicted them, and the prosecution hid that fact from the jury

now i can imagine that the law really 'wanted'these guys inside, but i would her legal team need to be done themselves now dont they?
law is an ass

 

[Otis]

Hmm, second episode of Convicted. Still not convinced.

Spoiler

It's just the way he words things. The woman investigating his case had the same problem. Especially the bit where he said something along the lines of 'If you do find evidence that proves my guilt then I would understand if you dropped my case.' Why talk like that?

Still a few things don't quite fit for me and I find he just comes across as rather cold and uncaring. Also a number of his answers had to be squeezed out of him. Don't think he has done himself any favours whatsoever.

Frustrating really, because nothing has come out that has changed anything really, other than maybe she was killed elsewhere and of course, that still doesn't mean it wasn't him that did it.

He just seemed an odd fellow anyway.

 

[Marty]

Just seen it myself, I think the show was a waste of time. whats the point in even showing it, when absolutely nothing changed and nothing will change after the evidence was either lost or destroyed.

The bloke did come across as odd, and his interview questions when he always referred to her in the past tense before they knew she was dead. I'm not convinced one way or another. For a show like that I think you need someone at least like able. I think that was what worked so well for making a murder.

 

[Nick]

Just seen it myself, I think the show was a waste of time. whats the point in even showing it, when absolutely nothing changed and nothing will change after the evidence was either lost or destroyed.

The bloke did come across as odd, and his interview questions when he always referred to her in the past tense before they knew she was dead. I'm not convinced one way or another. For a show like that I think you need someone at least like able. I think that was what worked so well for making a murder.

dont think ill watch the second, pisses me off when they do that and it isnt concluded or nothing makes a difference.

 

[Otis]

dont think ill watch the second, pisses me off when they do that and it isnt concluded or nothing makes a difference.

Yep. A bit pointless. It should have either concluded that an appeal was warranted or that the likelihood was that the conviction was safe.

This just sort of said it is what it is and didn't really shed any new light at all on the matter past a few dodgy texts and one old friend who talked of another bloke. That was it.

Can fully see why the police believe he did it.

Spoiler

1. He went to a different entrance for work than normally.

2. He ran into his work, appearing to be a little agitated.

3. Seemingly his car was seen at 9.30 leaving his house, giving him time to perpetrate the crime.

4. The victim had told friends she was meeting him that night.

5. They had apparently had a row that same afternoon.

6. When questioned by the police he referred to her in the past tense even though he body hadn't been found.

7. He used to text her every day and then suddenly when she disappeared he sent just one single text and then nothing.

Not convinced of his innocence to be honest. Would have helped me greatly if he shown a bit of emotion and a lack of coldness to it all. He was all matter of fact and rather emotionless when he talked about her. Almost like he wasn't bothered she was dead.

 

[Marty]

Yep. A bit pointless. It should have either concluded that an appeal was warranted or that the likelihood was that the conviction was safe.

This just sort of said it is what it is and didn't really shed any new light at all on the matter past a few dodgy texts and one old friend who talked of another bloke. That was it.

Can fully see why the police believe he did it.

Spoiler

1. He went to a different entrance for work than normally.

2. He ran into his work, appearing to be a little agitated.

3. Seemingly his car was seen at 9.30 leaving his house, giving him time to perpetrate the crime.

4. The victim had told friends she was meeting him that night.

5. They had apparently had a row that same afternoon.

6. When questioned by the police he referred to her in the past tense even though he body hadn't been found.

7. He used to text her every day and then suddenly when she disappeared he sent just one single text and then nothing.

Not convinced of his innocence to be honest. Would have helped me greatly if he shown a bit of emotion and a lack of coldness to it all. He was all matter of fact and rather emotionless when he talked about her. Almost like he wasn't bothered she was dead.

Just a answer to those questions raised.

Spoiler

I think a few of those points you raised have potential valid answers to them.

The lady seem genuine when talking about her other boyfriend, when she said Paula was scared of him.

1. He did say that was the quickest entrance from the car park, which they weren't meant to use but they did when running late.

2. He did go to the normal entrance before, saying he forgot his glasses and had to dart back to his car explains his running and use of the other entrance. Both covered by CCTV and he needed his pass to enter the car park.

3. Lets say he did go and meet her and murdered her, he had just 7 minutes to kill her, clean the car, dump her into the boot and change, all of this on a busy street with a taxi rank.

4. and 5 are just gossip.

6 and 7. That was strange. Not sure you can convict someone on that basis though.

I'm sure there's a few things that have been edited out and something things not touched upon to help show his innocence.

 

[Otis]

Just a answer to those questions raised.

Spoiler

I think a few of those points you raised have potential valid answers to them.

The lady seem genuine when talking about her other boyfriend, when she said Paula was scared of him.

1. He did say that was the quickest entrance from the car park, which they weren't meant to use but they did when running late.

2. He did go to the normal entrance before, saying he forgot his glasses and had to dart back to his car explains his running and use of the other entrance. Both covered by CCTV and he needed his pass to enter the car park.

3. Lets say he did go and meet her and murdered her, he had just 7 minutes to kill her, clean the car, dump her into the boot and change, all of this on a busy street with a taxi rank.

4. and 5 are just gossip.

6 and 7. That was strange. Not sure you can convict someone on that basis though.

I'm sure there's a few things that have been edited out and something things not touched upon to help show his innocence.

Yeah, get all that. Just saying I can see why the police believed him to be the killer.

And that lady sounding genuine doesn't mean much at all in the grand scheme of things. That's just her own perception.

I am not saying he is guilty, just that I am far from convinced he is innocent.

 

[Marty]

Yeah, get all that. Just saying I can see why the police believed him to be the killer.

And that lady sounding genuine doesn't mean much at all in the grand scheme of things. That's just her own perception.

I am not saying he is guilty, just that I am far from convinced he is innocent.

I'd be inclined to agree Otis with the last sentence.

 

[stupot07]

Having just watched it I am convinced he is innocent but is just an odd ball.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Otis]

Having just watched it I am convinced he is innocent but is just an odd ball.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

The thing I don't get is that there wasn't that much talk of the Mitsubishi Shogun, not in terms of who else locally had ownership of the same car in particular.

Surely it would have been possible to ascertain just how many people from that area had a black, or dark coloured Shogun. Can't have been that many.

Could have course been possible it wasn't a local vehicle, but the odds on it being so would surely have been quite high.

Guessing the police would have followed this avenue, but don't know why the investigator didn't.

 

[Otis]

The murder took place in Swanwick in Hampshire and reading up about the place, it is just a small village.

As I say, there couldn't have been many dark coloured Mitsubishi Shogun's owned locally you would have thought and all the experts agreed that in that first bit of CCTV footage at 9.30 it was indeed a Mitsubishi Shogun.

 

[stupot07]

The investigator also didnt really follow up on the other boyfriend that woman mentioned in the first episode either.

I also can't remember them showing the same CCTV angle of the car pulling out if the street as the bit of CCTV that shows a 4x4 coming out his road at 10.20 thr time he and his wife said he went to work. I might of forgotten but I also can't remember them showing CCTV of thr showgun coming back the other way past the chip shop later at the time he would have been making his way to work after he killed her.

We know the police don't always get it right. Absolutely no forensics, his car and clothes woukd have had traces of blood on it. I can't see how she was killed in the car, and if she was his he could do all that and clean himself up dump her in the boot on a busy street in 7 mins. If she wasnt killed there, he didn't do it and I don't believe she was killed there.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Otis]

The investigator also didnt really follow up on the other boyfriend that woman mentioned in the first episode either.

I also can't remember them showing the same CCTV angle of the car pulling out if the street as the bit of CCTV that shows a 4x4 coming out his road at 10.20 thr time he and his wife said he went to work. I might of forgotten but I also can't remember them showing CCTV of thr showgun coming back the other way past the chip shop later at the time he would have been making his way to work after he killed her.

We know the police don't always get it right. Absolutely no forensics, his car and clothes woukd have had traces of blood on it. I can't see how she was killed in the car, and if she was his he could do all that and clean himself up dump her in the boot on a busy street in 7 mins. If she wasnt killed there, he didn't do it and I don't believe she was killed there.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Don't necessarily agree with that, Stu.

Depends if his wife is lying or not. He could have gone out earlier and killed her and not necessarily gone out in the car, or indeed, his car.

 

[Otis]

As she wasn't found for days I can only assume the time of death was estimated.

She could have been killed earlier.

 

[stupot07]

She was spotted in asda, if she had been killed earlier it have likely been in asda car park, in which case it couldnt have been him.

I don't know why his wife would lie about the alibi, yes i know some do but knowing about the affair and knowing/suspected he did it I don't know why she would have given him an alibi and no changed her story. There was a 4x4 leaving their road at the time he said he went to work.

Based on hard evidence I can't see how he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Otis]

She was spotted in asda, if she had been killed earlier it have likely been in asda car park, in which case it couldnt have been him.

I don't know why his wife would lie about the alibi, yes i know some do but knowing about the affair and knowing/suspected he did it I don't know why she would have given him an alibi and no changed her story. There was a 4x4 leaving their road at the time he said he went to work.

Based on hard evidence I can't see how he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Yep, agree.

What time was she in the supermarket? It was Tesco I think rather than Asda.

The thing that bugs me the most about him is that he called her every day, up to 5 times a day and yet the minute she disappeared he stopped calling her and texting her. If he had nothing to do with her murder he wouldn't have known she was dead. The talking about her in the past tense stuff too was very, very odd.

Part of me wonders if he did have something to do with the murder but didn't actually carry out the deed himself.

 

[Otis]

Hmm, very interesting fact I just discovered.

According to the BBC coverage of the trial back in 2010 it is said that the following morning after work Kearney went straight home and washed all his clothing. That is a very crucial bit of information. He cleaned everything including his yellow hi vis jacket according to the reports.

Sent from my Hudl 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Otis]

Seems there are a few other things not covered by the investigator either.

Apparently there was a paranoid schizophrenic man who had been seen around the area near Paul Poolton's car and this was around the time of the murder and there was also a case of a previous abduction attempt in that exact same area. Surely very much worth following up.

 

[chiefdave]

Might interest some on here:
https://www.thsh.co.uk/event/dean-strang-and-jerry-bunting-from-making-a-murderer

 

[chiefdave]

A US judge has ordered the immediate prison release of Brendan Dassey, whose case featured in Netflix's Making a Murderer documentary.

The Wisconsin man's murder conviction was overturned this summer, however, prosecutors are appealing.

The 27-year-old, who has learning difficulties, and his uncle Steven Avery were convicted of murdering a young woman, Teresa Halbach, in 2005.

Avery and Dassey, who was 16 at the time, were sentenced to life in prison.

Judge William Duffin ordered that Dassey be freed from prison under supervision until the next steps in the case become clear, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Under his release conditions, he must submit to the court by midday on Tuesday the address where he plans to reside.

Dassey also must not have any contact with Ms Halbach's family, or co-defendant Avery.

 

[Marty]

Good to hear. Hes clearly innocent, they stole 10 years of his life, really hope he gets a decent pay out and the officers get what they deserve. As Avery was convicted by Dasseys coerced version of events. Then surely he must be released too?

 

[CCFC88]

Good to hear. Hes clearly innocent, they stole 10 years of his life, really hope he gets a decent pay out and the officers get what they deserve. As Avery was convicted by Dasseys coerced version of events. Then surely he must be released too?

Season 2

 

[Otis]

Hope it doesn't end up like Lost and they've been dead the whole time and merely living in limbo.

 

[CCFC88]

Hope it doesn't end up like Lost and they've been dead the whole time and merely living in limbo.

Thanks for ruining the ending, I've just watched 120 episodes and was watching the final tonight, no need now.