- 12 january 2016 -
redditt post on Making A Murderer
i was interested in the Making A Murderer docu-whatever on Netflix when it came out. this week when i fell ill i got sucked into it completely. i had my reservations from the beginning. is this manipulating me to a certain viewpoint? of course, it's TV... i already have a healthy distrust of government / politicians and the show gives you a decidedly slanted view of the government in Manitowoc County. i have done more research and found that there seems to be collusion between *A LOT* of the players here.
that said, I don't know how legit this show is in portraying reality or how genuine the people that are in this real life scenario are in relation to the way they are portrayed. there was one particular scene that, whether the real deal or some scripted prose, is amazing and spot on...it's when Dean Strang responds to Kratz's "swimming upstream" comment.
there's more here than needs to be in this Redditt post, but the part i'm keying on here is highlighted (BOLD text and highlights added by me)...
Ken Kratz: "...if we have to start this case swimming upstream, if you will, in the face of some instruction given to the jury that they should be taking some negative view of the state, then we intend to proceed on all six counts."the Redditt poster then comments and sums it up well...
Dean Strang: "All due respect to counsel, the state is SUPPOSED to start every criminal case 'swimming upstream'. And the strong current against which the state is supposed to be swimming is the presumption of innocence. That presumption of innocence has been eroded—if not eliminated—here by the spectre of Brendan Dassey, and that's why the court needs to take further curative action.
Up through the WFRV report last night, for example, Steven Avery has been presented as the man who allegedly raped, mutilated, and murdered Theresa Halbach. How many times will Steven Avery be charged in Manitowoc County with rapes he didn't commit? This makes two.
Now forget getting the 18 years back on the first one: where do we go to get the last 10 months back? Where do we go to get our presumption of innocence back from a public who believes—and has heard time and again—that he's an alleged rapist, even before murder."
- Ken Kratz / Dean Strang -
Regardless of your opinion on Avery's innocence or otherwise, this is one of the most eloquent, brilliantly delivered arguments I've ever heard in a court room. Even fictional cases aren't written this well.
In this speech, Strang cuts to the heart of what, I think, is the key of the entire series: the truth of Avery's role in Halbach's death isn't something we're going to find out. The role of the justice system isn't to be our best attempt at omniscience, it's to establish if the default innocence of a free citizen can be proven invalidated. It's not about if Avery did or didn't do it, it's about a system which rewards misconduct and unethical practice with convictions, and which has forgotten the basic tenet of innocent until proven guilty.
In other words, Dean Strang is bae.
- TheMentalist10 @ www.redditt.com -