Episode 9: Making a Murderer Parallels – Manipulation, Double Bind & Blind Faith

January 11, 2016

We look at the parallels between the Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey cases from Making a Murderer and those of other high-profile defendants such as Adnan Syed, Amanda Knox and the West Memphis Three, and at some of the defendant characteristics and police and prosecution tactics that heighten the likelihood of wrongful conviction, especially when minors and the mentally compromised are involved.

We examine why defendants succumb to false confessions, the unreliability of polygraph tests, media misrepresentation, and the tendency towards blind faith in the prosecution’s narrative by victims’ families, even in the face of absurd prosecution forensics, and in some cases, eventual exoneration.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 comments on “Episode 9: Making a Murderer Parallels – Manipulation, Double Bind & Blind Faith

  1. Sadly, it turned out that the prosecution in Hae Min Lee’s murder case used her family in exactly the way you described in this very interesting podcast episode.

    It seems that for some US State Attorney’s such as Prosecutor Thiru, winning is more important than being the upholder of justice that, theoretically, is an integral part of his job description.

    It seems Thiru used the family of Hae Min Lee as a mouthpiece to show that they thought Syed’s attorney was both effective and that Asia McClaine was a lair. I say this because the family have not been present at the trial and yet seem suspiciously on point on the topics that Thiru is failing to prove with the evidence.

    • Thanks, Sue for your comment. Yes, recently acknowledged on Twitter that had been premature in ascribing some kind of openness to Hae Min Lee’s brother. There had been inklings of his coming to the table, but alas, not followed through. Saw on Friday at the PCR hearing that the Korean community showing (only one elderly couple on Friday) was purely token, and not with any genuine interest in hearing the facts, given that they left at the first morning break. From what other people said that was what happened each day – merely making their presence felt, but without any constructive purpose. It is sad when victims’ families swallow the prosecution-fed attitude that anyone questioning whether the correct person has been convicted is automatically “against” them. Particularly in this case, the people concerned about the defendant’s possible wrongful conviction are equally concerned that the victim’s true killer should be found because that is essential for her respectful commemoration. Hae’s memory and legacy is only besmirched if the wrong person, particularly someone she cared about, is in the wrong place. She would no doubt want her family to listen to and consider the alternatives, and to work towards the truth. Ethically, prosecutors, with their conflict of interests, have no business making statements on the behalf of victims’ families. These should be made directly via the media or via their lawyers.

Routing Out © 2015