How does “evil incarnate” talk to his mother? Does he scream and scold the defenseless women on the end of the line, or does he joke lightheartedly and reassure her of his safety. Taken out of context and given no background, into a person’s personality and values become subjective to the viewer’s scrutiny. Making a Murderer follows the life of Steven Avery, a man who has had a convoluted and troubling experience with the Manitowoc county justice system. After being released from prison for a crime he did not commit, he is soon put on trial for the murder of a young Autotrader photographer two years later. From the public’s limited scope of news reports, the Avery family is depicted as the uneducated, poor junkyard family that lives on the …show more content…
With his many conversations with his family, there is an abundance of “Oh”’s and “Yeah”’s littered in their phone calls. Although some may see this as an indication of a lower class or lack of education, the banality of these filler words seem to cast doubt in the viewer’s mind. Following Avery’s second accusation of raping and killing Teresa Halbach, the plan that the prosecution presents almost seems too complex and too dastardly for a common man whose conversations are incredibly simple. Because the previous episodes that document his resolved first case establishes his lovable oaf personality, the viewer almost wants to believe that the simple minded Avery is innocent. A person with surface knowledge of the Avery family and the previous case may assume him to be taking advantage of the idea of feigned ignorance, but his simple sentences and overall aloofness in his phone calls contrasts the idea of a clever and despicable mastermind. Moreover, because the documentary seems to antagonize the Manitowoc justice system, there is an underlying feeling of hope where the viewer wants to see the simple hero (Avery) triumph over the overbearing force that has demonized and shown malicious intent to, “end the gene pool here”(Ep. 10). This underdog attempt to clear his name is appealing to the audience …show more content…
However, one crucial character, Avery’s nephew Brendan Dassey, serves as the incriminating factor in this case. To the general public, this sixteen year-old “eyewitness” confirms Avery’s involvement in the death of Teresa Halbach. However, Making a Murderer soon incorporates Dassey’s recorded phone conversations that further support the idea of malpractice while also garnering sympathy and support from the viewer. From his introduction, Dassey is seen as a young, aloof kid with an IQ of 73 and a potential learning disability, similar to Steven Avery. However, what separates the two is their awareness of the situation. As Avery is adamant about proving his innocence and returning to his life, Dassey seems to not grasp the severity of his involvement and is almost living in his own world. By including his conversations, the audience not only sees the progression of his fabricated stories that are constructed through police coercion, but also his impressionability and his lack of judgment. Consequently, Brendan is established as an unreliable source that is swayed by the last person he has a conversation
He believes that a kid from a place like that isn’t any good. The next character is Edward James Olmos (#11) for the first half of the movie he was very quiet and walked around, but once he changed his vote to not guilty he became very kind and helpful. Something he said when he was standing up for the kid was, “ to say one is capable of committing murder
As typical human beings we all want to know why someone could randomly take the lives of several innocent people all at one time. It is frightening and scientists figure if they can figure out why, then it can be prevented in the future. The documentary, Mind of a Rampage Killer, tries to solve the mystery and really dive deep into the minds of people who could potentially create such a horrifying situation. Through the use of ethos, logos, and pathos, this documentary concludes that every killer had something in common; they all struggled with mental disorders, depression, or outbursts of violence, all stemming from early childhood or an internal battle throughout growing up, some could have even just been born with a violent rage.
The psychological abuse that the four suspects were exposed to made them make a wrong confession. In addition, being in an environment where the interrogation room is tight and dark increased the suspect’s anxiety. Moreover, the Frontline documentary stated that the suspects were held in custody for long hours with Robert Ford who used threatening language in order to make them confess. Not only that the suspects made a false confession, but they also told Ford different stories on how they murdered the victim. The coercive interrogatories, led Joe Dick to accept the label Ford put on him and the others. Although Ford was supposed to act just, he acted upon his self interest. Thus, he denied all facts because of fear of embarrassment of being wrong. However, after serving many years in prison, the four suspects were released to face stigmatization and labeling from the society. Indeed, this case proved that there is a malfunction in the justice system and that there’s a need for an immediate
As I was completing this assignment, I was watching the infamous Netflix documentary entitled Making a Murderer. The documentary follows the story of Steven Avery, who is currently in prison for the death of a woman, Teresa Halbach, in 2005. Steven Avery has been denying any involvement in the murder of Teresa Halbach for the past eleven years. In the middle of the reading, the documentary was exploring and analyzing Steven Avery’s deviant behavior as a young man (Making). As I observed what was being discussed about Steven Avery, I was able to build the connection between how society, and the community from which he came from, perceived Steven Avery and what Kai Erikson discussed in the first couple pages of the book with regards to deviance and its relation with regards to society.
Billy Joel once sang, “Only the good die young”. In life, it is true, the young and innocent seem to touch more lives around us than anyone else. In the Casey Anthony trial, Anthony was a suspect in the murder of her daughter Caylee. Caylee’s life shouldn’t be counted in years, it should be counted by how many lives she affected, the love she has gained, and the support the country has given her to find out what really happened. In the play, Twelve Angry Men, a boy killed his father; however, both cases were challenged by the obvious and the abstruse evidence. Large cities towards the east coast, in 1982, Twelve Angry Men, and 2008, Casey Anthony Trial, affiliated with two major trials able to modify the lives of the living and the dead. For that reason, during the Casey Anthony case, jurors were conflicted throughout the trial.
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
The story begins in a small town in America. The Fowler family is faced with the burden, frustration and pain of having to bury their twenty-one year old son, Frank. The inward struggle faced by Matt Fowler, his wife, and family drives him to murder Richard Strout, Frank's killer, in order to avenge his son's murder and bring peace to himself and his family. Matt faced a life-time struggle to be a good father and protect his children from danger throughout their childhood. Dubus describes Matt's inner ...
In the documentary, Making a Murderer, a young man named Brendan Dassey is convicted for assisting in the murder of Teresa Halbach. He
Schulz present’s in her article that “Making a Murder” attempts to point out that it’s concern over the jury finding with certainty that Steven Avery had committed the murder when there is some evidence that he did not commit the
Does the name Ted Bundy ring a bell? A Handsome smart and conniving young man that’s responsible for about forty murders between 1964 through 1978. Ted (Theodore) Bundy was born November 24, 1946 in Burling, Vermont. Mother Eleanor Cowell was at the stage in her life where she was a single mother that could take care of her child. So she let her parents step in and raise young Theodore. With this happening Theodore grew up believing his birth mother was his sister and his grandparents where his parents.
The murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman were clearly committed by a man called OJ Simpson.Orenthal James Simpson has done a serious injustice to the families of both of these victims.Nicole Brown was the ex-wife of former football star, minor film star, and celebrity pitchman O.J Simpson. O.J was one of the first person to be caught under immediate suspicion in the murders and there is overwhelming evidence that support the fact that OJ was, in fact responsible for the crime of which he was acquitted.
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
In Death of an Innocent, Chris McCandless goes on a memorable and tragic journey into Alaska, but for most of his expedition he was known, not as Chris McCandless, but as Alexander Supertramp. The reason that he changed his name for his journey was because he is running away from his past and wanted to become the person he believed he really was.
The Narrator’s family treats her like a monster by resenting and neglecting her, faking her death, and locking her in her room all day. The Narrator’s family resents her, proof of this is found when the Narrator states “[My mother] came and went as quickly as she could.
The movie “12 Angry Men” examines the dynamics at play in a United States jury room in the 1950’s. It revolves around the opinions and mindsets of twelve diverse characters that are tasked with pronouncing the guilt or innocence of a young man accused of patricide. The extraordinary element is that their finding will determine his life or death. This play was made into a movie in 1957, produced by Henry Fonda who played the lead role, Juror #8, and Reginald Rose who wrote the original screenplay. This essay will explore some of the critical thinking elements found within the context of this movie, and will show that rational reason and logic when used effectively can overcome the mostly ineffective rush to judgment that can be prevalent in a population. The juror that seemed interesting is Juror #8, who was played by Henry Fonda. Juror #8, or Davis, is an architect, the first dissenter and protagonist in the film. He was the first one to declare that the young man was innocent and he managed to convince the other jurors to see his point of view. Durkheim states that when we respond to deviance, it brings people together (Macionis, 2013, p. 159). We affirm the moral ties that bind us together, which was seen in the movie. At first, almost all of the jurors were so bent on convicting the young man based on their feelings, but they then started to analyze the facts and they came together to make their final decision.