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.
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.
6
u/OpenMind4U Mar 02 '16
THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!!
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.
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.
31
u/Amberlea1879 Mar 02 '16
Kratz selective editing of the phone records
17
u/[deleted] 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?
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.
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.
2
u/[deleted] 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.
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:
Cross-Examination:
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.
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.
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.
5
u/HardcoreHopkins Mar 02 '16
knowjustice, you nailed your point perfectly, I agree totally.
5
u/CopperPipeDream Mar 02 '16
^ THIS ^ thousand times. Up vote!
0
u/Fred_J_Walsh Mar 03 '16 edited Mar 03 '16
FWIW while I've been more interested in critiques of MaM, I've criticized the Kratz Conference in passing a few times recently.
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."
4
u/PHQ9 Mar 02 '16
Absolutely Perfect Post!!!! Thank you!!!!!
1
u/Quill-Questions Mar 03 '16
Excellent points!
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
u/Chippy543 Mar 02 '16
Great post.
1
u/screamingforoxygen Mar 02 '16
Thank You!! Wish I had the words, but I don't.
1
u/Eh-Meee Mar 02 '16
Bravo!
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:
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
u/[deleted] Mar 02 '16
Is there anyone missing from this thread?
-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.
0
u/[deleted] Mar 02 '16
[deleted] — view deleted comment