charlie and i just finished the 10-hour documentary on netflix, “making a murderer.” if you liked “serial” first season, you will love this one. (so far, not entirely impressed with serial season two.)
i’m generally fascinated by court cases and facts as they unfold, so this documentary was really interesting to me. i took two law classes in college/grad school, so you’re dealing with that kind of nerd. i think it would be awesome to be a lawyer’s researcher for a respectable sounding place like Hastings Law Firm, reading up on old cases to make a connection.
slight spoilers. if you plan on watching this and plan to not google to find out what happened, now’s the time to back out.
read on…
it’s infuriating and blood-boiling to think about how the wisconsin local police and judiciary system in wisconsin failed a person not only once, but twice.
i know that this documentary was relatively one sided and contains slant, but based on what you see, and it’s pretty much court videos and interviews with people who were there, you wonder how on earth a jury decided what it decided. if you’re on a jury, you need to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty. there was definitely reasonable doubt, and for the majority of a jury to be influenced by its minority peers so much is pretty ridiculous (the initial guilty vs. not guilty vs. undecided vote was 3-7-2).
i’ve never been called for jury duty (knock on wood), but i have no doubt i would be thrown out from jury selection right away. (too pacifist. too liberal. too stubborn. too smart! [haha]).
we finished today and of course i’m off on the internet looking at reddit’s theories and making of articles and checking out the impartialness of the documentary (how slanted is it?).
one thing MaM didn’t have to do much to convince me of: government is sketchy even in local yokel wisconsin. (and this coming from local yokel neighbor, minnesota.)