Talk:Making a Murderer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Not adept at this

Just watched the series and was pretty impressed. I know this must be a young article, as the series just premiered a week ago. I notice there are some omissions, such as the defense lawyers for Brendan during the original trial. I don't really want to scan the episodes to find them, but I guess that is called "research." Sorry I didn't watch it sooner (binged it last night and today) as I was on vacation and would have had the time. Don't know who wrote this, but I understand it's a work-in-progress at this point. I may dabble with it a little as I dig a little more. I'd also like to see the content expanded (as appropriate), as there are some VERY disturbing things revealed in the show. I will post any changes here before I add them. Like the heading says, I'm not super well-versed in the ins and outs, and won't mind a little verbal wrist-slap when appropriate. Jororo05 (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your enthusiasm, Jororo05. Any help would be appreciated.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This page has been vandalized. Someone added "Donald Trump", "78 years", and "kitten" to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCB2:EEB0:9DA2:289C:6B72:CAEE (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

"First season"?

The lead paragraph refers to the current release of 10 episodes as being the first season. Has it been reported or mentioned anywhere whether there will there be a season two? I imagine it would be hard to follow up a show that took ten years to produce. Threephi (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't look as though a second season has been announced as of yet, but Netflix refers to the currently released episodes as "Season One" within the site's navigation.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's remove the 'first season' reference unless/until we know there will be future iterations. TheBlueCanoe 22:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Season 2 has been mentioned in this Variety article and here.--CanningIO (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. It was premature when it was first put on the page, but would be entirely appropriate now. TheBlueCanoe 02:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional articles

Does it seem worthwhile to create additional articles about personalities associated with the cases? Dean Strang, for example? In addition to his involvement with the case, he has published several books, and is a professor to boot.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

He's an adjunct, not a member of the regular faculty. 32.218.40.110 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Weight on Ken Kratz's Comments

What's with all the weight on Kratz's comments versus the response from the defense and documentary makers? The article presents Kratz's claims like they're some kind of truth, whereas the reality of the situation regarding the "evidence" is likely to have not been nearly as straightforward. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Kratz wasn't editorializing, he was pointing out important evidence that the documentary filmmakers chose not to include. WriterWithNoName (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

...Evidence that was introduced during the trial... WriterWithNoName (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The section could be rewritten to add more weight to what Ricciardi and Demos have said, as they have issued responses to Kratz's statements. Some information here: Ricciardi + Demos response--MainlyTwelve (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

But, as WriterWithNoName has said, Kratz's comments are legitimate.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm certain that as this article evolves, more weight will be given to rebuttals on both sides. WriterWithNoName (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

According to the defense, Kratz was indeed editorializing, and some of the evidence he mentions was in fact mentioned in the documentary. It also doesn't mention that the documentary makers straightforwardly questioned Kratz's character in general in their response to Kratz's documentary response, specifically mentioning Kratz's "I'm the prize" sexting scandal situation post-trial. Right now, the article is strongly stacked in favor of Kratz's prosecution and Kratz's comments—and essentially anyone who has decided that Avery is guilty—which is not OK. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If you provide a source or two, I'll add the information.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It's in the filmmaker's response to Kratz reference. It was here before but was removed. In fact, the section has been shortened over time while the prosecutor's side has been expanded. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Kratz's sexting scandal has nothing to do with the trial. Two reporters who were at the trial corroborate Kratz's statements and are cited in the article. WriterWithNoName (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

According to Kratz, it has nothing to do with the trial. According to the documentary film makers, it says a lot about the former DA's character, and it was even mentioned in the documentary. We don't get to take sides here. ~ :bloodofox: (talk)

We deal in verifiable facts here. WriterWithNoName (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, what we do is report from sources. In this case, the sexting scandal has been repeatedly mentioned by the film makers in response to Kratz's prosecution and as an aspect of his character, which most certainly makes it relevant to discussion occurring on this Wikipedia article. Wikipedia isn't censored because someone did something horrible and it makes them look bad. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, what does setting a cat on fire say about Avery's character? WriterWithNoName (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Huh? It sure sounds a lot like you're out to demonize Avery here while defending Kratz. For the record, the documentary also mentions the incident with Avery and the cat, but it hasn't come up in the section we're talking about. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand that you are arguing from a position of absolute moral authority, and the simple fact that I am arguing against you indicates that I am the one who is somehow biased. The cat is mentioned in Kratz's rebuttal and goes to Avery's own character. WriterWithNoName (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The cat is also mentioned in the documentary.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I see the cat reference has been removed. It is in this version:

Kratz outlined evidence that the documentary left out, including how Avery soaked his cat in gasoline or oil, and put it on a fire to watch it suffer; Avery used a fake name in his call to AutoTrader to trick Halbach into coming to his home; Halbach's phone, camera and PDA were found 20 feet from Avery's door, burned in his barrel; Avery telling another inmate of his intent to build a "torture chamber" so he could rape, torture and kill young women when he was released, and how Avery was told to get rid of a body is to "burn it"..."heat destroys DNA"; the victim's bones in the firepit were "intertwined" with the steel belts, left over from the car tires Avery threw on the fire to burn, as described by Dassey; Halbach's tooth (ID'd through dental records) was found in the fire pit, including a rivet from the jeans she was wearing that day; three calls from Avery were placed to Halbach's cell phone on October 31; Avery's DNA was on the victim's hood latch; and ballistics reported the bullet found in the garage was fired by Avery's rifle.

I'm done following this article WriterWithNoName (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, as pointed above, the situation with the cat, repulsive as it is, was in fact mentioned in the documentary, despite what Katz says here. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, I removed the reference to the cat because it is referenced in the documentary, even if a huge amount of time isn't spent on it. Seems to make sense that a great deal of time wouldn't be spent, anyway, given that the event took place some twenty years before the Halbach murder--MainlyTwelve (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the cat, there are a few relevant considerations here. If this is to be included in the article, where should it be? In a 'response' section, as an example of how the filmmakers may have downplayed the crime? Or in an episode-by-episode synopsis (which has not yet been written)? I would vote for the latter, and suggest that it be mentioned in the same manner as in the Steven Avery article. But if we do this, we need to be mindful not to place undue emphasis on this incident which–although awful—is not central to the story. We should also avoid the kind of editorializing that's contained in the suggested version above (i.e. "to watch it suffer"; "to trick Halbach", etc.).

As for Kratz, the relevance of the sexting scandal isn't related to his character. It's used as another example of the corruption within the judicial system, and of their willingness to bend the rules to protect their own. The filmmakers included it because "the Depart of Justice knew [about Kratz' actions] for a year and covered it up.[1] Still, on the question of whether to mention this in the article, the only place where I see it being relevant is if we do a summary of each episode, in which case it could be included briefly.TheBlueCanoe 00:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Balance

This article is about the documentary, not about the event (the murder trial). As such, it should include info about Kratz's sexting scandal because it was included in the documentary. On the other hand, details about Avery's relationship with his girlfriend are tangential. That she asserted that she lied during the documentary is certainly relevant, but whether he choked her, or or whatever else she claims, is not. Further, blow by blow critiques by every tom, dick, and harry related to anyone in the documentary is unencyclopedic, sensationalistic, and way off base. 32.218.43.53 (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article if you think it is inadequate.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say it was inadequate. I said it included sensationalistic and tangential information. I have already tried to trim the excess, but have been reverted carte blanche by those who are more interested in getting their way than in producing a quality article. That's why I decided to try to initiate a discussion about the merits of some of the content. You're not required to respond to every comment here. If you have nothing to say about my commentary, then don't say anything. 32.218.43.53 (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to be so acerbic. I do agree with you, and if you are interested in precedent for a major overhaul of the writing in question, the reception sections for Serial (podcast) and The Jinx (miniseries) might be worthwhile reading. Both are considerably shorter and not subdivided.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the tone, but it sounded to me like you were being pretty curt. I do think both the Steven Avery article and this one could be improved by creating a Murder of Teresa Halbach article. That way, all of the details of the case itself that don't really belong in either article could be subsumed in one place. 32.218.43.53 (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Didn't mean to be curt, I just wasn't sure if you were unsure if you were allowed to edit given that you're working from an IP. That's actually a great idea...I will happily edit it with you if you'd like to create it. It looks like that link currently redirects to Steven Avery's page, and I'm wondering if there was a conversation about that redirect.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like no such conversation took place.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I know I'm allowed to edit (barring the occasional protection of these contentious articles), but I'm pretty sure I can't create articles. I'd also want more consensus from other editors that it's worth a separate article. 32.218.43.53 (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. I'll keep watching this page to see if anyone else agrees. Thank you for your edits!--MainlyTwelve (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Since the prosecution response is currently covered in more detail, here are two articles quoting Jerry Buting with his perspective on what was left out, if anyone would like to use them to add to the article: ·http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/see-making-a-murderer-lawyer-talk-evidence-prosecutors-sour-grapes-20160115 ·http://www.people.com/article/jerry-buting-making-a-murderer-some-interesting-information-surfacing Knope7 (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are the reporters listed under the "Response from prosecution" section?

The series theme is about vested interests. I haven't watched the series, so I wouldn't know if for some reason these two reporters should be assumed to be biased towards the prosecution side. If so, this should be referenced and explicitly stated in the article. If not, then the article should not list their reactions to the series under a section that by many would be assumed to be biased towards prosecution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.138.201 (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is problematic. They're included for unclear reasons—keep in mind that they also widely (and as it turns out quite falsely) reported that Avery was guilty of rape, for example. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I think moving them to local response and not quoting, just mentioning some reporters feel things were left out is sufficient. They really don't add substantive or helpful details. Knope7 (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a mistake to use terms such as "some reporters" when the source quotes one reporter (as in The Rolling Stone interview with Angenette Levy.) It is not a vote, anyway. Another noted reporter had not even seen the series when interviewed by Rolling Stone.Parkwells (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Controversy sources

Can the Breitbart source (currently note 14) be removed? The cited USA Today article provides plenty of information on the information prosecutors say was omitted from the doc, and Breitbart is a notoriously unreliable, biased source. The article currently cited is more a vitriolic editorial than a legitimate piece of criticism. 67.87.173.135 (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right. I've removed the source. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)