Jump to content
The Education Forum

Similarities of Making A Murderer and the JFK Case

Michael Walton

By Michael Walton
in JFK Assassination Debate

 Share

Recommended Posts

Michael Walton Newbie

Michael Walton

Posted
Posted
I wanted to take a moment here to post about the new Netflix series "Making A Murderer." As I've been watching the various episodes, it's amazing to me how there are so many similarities between this case and the JFK case. When Steven Avery was first accused of the rape of his victim, there was no DNA evidence available to him in 1985. Eighteen years later, when DNA evidence became available, it freed him because the DNA evidence proved that it was another guy named Allen who did it.


Just as Avery's lawyers were ready to file the wrongful civil lawsuit against the county, he was accused again of a horrendous murder. During one of the episodes, one of the former cops who was involved in the first case was called to testify. When the defense lawyer asked him about the first case and how the DNA evidence exonerated his client, the cop on the stand actually had the nerve to say to the effect, "I have doubts about that evidence, but..."


There are numerous other examples that I've seen - how Avery was railroaded (even though he was convicted of the murder I still don't believe had anything to do with it);tampering of evidence, and so on. One chilling example is how, when one of the cops discusses the possible planting of evidence against Avery, he says to the effect, "It's harder to plant evidence. If we'd wanted to make him go away, it'd be easier to just kill him." For Lee Harvey Oswald, getting rid of him *and* planting evidence was the way to go in the JFK case.


Here is the trailer on YouTube:




Disclaimer: I do NOT work for Netflix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greg Parker Newbie

Greg Parker

Posted
Posted
I wanted to take a moment here to post about the new Netflix series "Making A Murderer." As I've been watching the various episodes, it's amazing to me how there are so many similarities between this case and the JFK case. When Steven Avery was first accused of the rape of his victim, there was no DNA evidence available to him in 1985. Eighteen years later, when DNA evidence became available, it freed him because the DNA evidence proved that it was another guy named Allen who did it.
Just as Avery's lawyers were ready to file the wrongful civil lawsuit against the county, he was accused again of a horrendous murder. During one of the episodes, one of the former cops who was involved in the first case was called to testify. When the defense lawyer asked him about the first case and how the DNA evidence exonerated his client, the cop on the stand actually had the nerve to say to the effect, "I have doubts about that evidence, but..."
There are numerous other examples that I've seen - how Avery was railroaded (even though he was convicted of the murder I still don't believe had anything to do with it);tampering of evidence, and so on. One chilling example is how, when one of the cops discusses the possible planting of evidence against Avery, he says to the effect, "It's harder to plant evidence. If we'd wanted to make him go away, it'd be easier to just kill him." For Lee Harvey Oswald, getting rid of him *and* planting evidence was the way to go in the JFK case.
Here is the trailer on YouTube:
Disclaimer: I do NOT work for Netflix.

Michael, I was going to comment in your other thread that it goes nowhere except in endless speculation unless there is some sort of software that can show a match/mismatch. But there has been ample opportunity for someone to do that if it were possible.

Then I saw this thread. Here, you hit it out of the park.

I recently gave a talk at a JFK conference comparing Oswald to various cases taken on by the Innocence Project. I have since started a much expanded work on that same theme. This is where the discussion should be now. And it should be hammered home at every opportunity. Well done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Michael Walton Newbie

Michael Walton

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Greg, thank you. I'll always believe that if Oswald hadn't been assassinated himself on 11/24, and if a legal dream team had been available to him, there is no way in the world he would have been found guilty. Thankfully, because of people like Lane, Meager, Thompson - and onto DiEugenio and many others seeking the truth, they and many others did it for him.

Good luck with your innocence work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greg Parker Newbie

Greg Parker

Posted
Posted

Greg, thank you. I'll always believe that if Oswald hadn't been assassinated himself on 11/24, and if a legal dream team had been available to him, there is no way in the world he would have been found guilty. Thankfully, because of people like Lane, Meager, Thompson - and onto DiEugenio and many others seeking the truth, they and many others did it for him.

Good luck with your innocence work.

Michael, the DA's office and DPD were used to having their way in the justice system. That means they didn't have to worry too much about the quality of their frames.

Oswald was killed because they couldn't get a confession out of him and there was no way they could have him go to trial with a plea of "innocent" in front of an impartial world-wide media.

I'll be going step-by-step through what was really going on in those interrogation sessions, among many other areas this can of worms opens up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Michael Walton Newbie

Michael Walton

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I agree about the DPD dishonesty, Greg, and it started the minute Fritz broke the supposedly four-point ring - with him in the lead - during the parade in front of millions of TV viewers, leaving the door wide open for Ruby to walk up and shoot LHO. Fritz's expression in the Jackson photo speaks a million words and if you watch the live shooting on YouTube, you'll notice the kid right next to Fritz jerk from the loud pop of Ruby's gun. Fritz just cooly stands there, does a slow turn to look at what he most probably already knew what was going to happen, and takes in the event.




One other thing - I agree with you about not going off on tangents with wild speculation. Throughout the many years I've studied the JFK case, when something seems untrue, it usually is untrue. That's why I ignore many of those pretty wild ideas of how Jim Files was an assassin, the Zapruder film was faked, the SS agent shot JFK, and so on.


At the same time, I know that dogged hunches can often lead to discovering the truth. For example, during one of the episodes in Making A Murderer, Avery's girlfriend mentioned on-camera that during the time Avery supposedly was raping and murdering the girl at his home, she checked her phone bill and there were two calls of 15 minutes where she talked to Avery on the phone. The real kicker was that both calls were recorded because she called from jail while serving a DUI charge.


The show plays the recording and right then and there, I knew this guy could not have murdered this girl in his home because he supposedly was with his nephew raping this poor girl, cutting her throat, taking her outside, shooting her twice, and then burning her body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greg Parker Newbie

Greg Parker

Posted
Posted
I agree about the DPD dishonesty, Greg, and it started the minute Fritz broke the supposedly four-point ring - with him in the lead - during the parade in front of millions of TV viewers, leaving the door wide open for Ruby to walk up and shoot LHO. Fritz's expression in the Jackson photo speaks a million words and if you watch the live shooting on YouTube, you'll notice the kid right next to Fritz jerk from the loud pop of Ruby's gun. Fritz just cooly stands there, does a slow turn to look at what he most probably already knew what was going to happen, and takes in the event.
One other thing - I agree with you about not going off on tangents with wild speculation. Throughout the many years I've studied the JFK case, when something seems untrue, it usually is untrue. That's why I ignore many of those pretty wild ideas of how Jim Files was an assassin, the Zapruder film was faked, the SS agent shot JFK, and so on.
At the same time, I know that dogged hunches can often lead to discovering the truth. For example, during one of the episodes in Making A Murderer, Avery's girlfriend mentioned on-camera that during the time Avery supposedly was raping and murdering the girl at his home, she checked her phone bill and there were two calls of 15 minutes where she talked to Avery on the phone. The real kicker was that both calls were recorded because she called from jail while serving a DUI charge.
The show plays the recording and right then and there, I knew this guy could not have murdered this girl in his home because he supposedly was with his nephew raping this poor girl, cutting her throat, taking her outside, shooting her twice, and then burning her body.

What makes it worse is that it was Fritz's idea to have a tight 4 man protective ring - and then he broke it. There is one video which shows a slo-mo of Fritz with hand behind his back giving what looks like a little signal - then Ruby jumps out. It is less obvious at normal speed, but like Ruby may have been doing, if you're looking for it, you can see it.

If what I'm working on is done right, it could change the way this case is viewed. It only took you two posts to find the right battle-ground. It's taken me thousands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...