Making A Murderer

[Iamtdg]

lol, no shit, absolutely astonishing.

When I watched that part, I thought it was the police investigator, when I found out it was his attorney my head about exploded with shock

That was probably the one single thing about it all that stood out to me. It was like they just used Brendan to convict Avery. Weirdest shit I have ever seen.

 

[Sheik]

I'm reading that Avery has a new lawyer claiming she has an airtight alibi for Steven. Who knows. Something to do with GPS proving that Halbach left the Avery property alive while Avery and Dassey never did that day.

There's also some cryptic claims of a new person of interest. Also read that the new lawyer, Zellner, has very convincing evidence in the way of new DNA testing that will clear Avery.

Zellner apparently has a great record of overturning wrongful convictions.

 

[yimyammer]

 

[Midswat]

The one time I sat on a jury in a capital murder trial, I was the lone holdout for "not guilty" on the first vote. It literally was a "12 angry men" situation. The prosecution in my view did NOT do its job, presenting the case to the meter of reasonable doubt.

I had fellow jurors literally telling me our job was to help the prosecutor! I was like nooooo, our damned job is to be a CHECK on the prosecutor! The defendant is PRESUMED INNOCENT.

Anyhow, four days and many votes later, we had a hung jury due to 3 guilty votes left after many voting sessions and much, much argument.

So yeah, with a jury full of idiot sheep just about any prosecutor can convict a ham sammich of murder.

Nice to know a guy who thought 4 wins could win the NFCE is hanging juries on the side.

Way to waste taxpayers money, momo

 

[Dodger12]

For someone that admitted they didn't watch the show, you sure have a lot of opinions about it.

Two things. First, I've read up on it and there are opposing views on-line. I haven't really posted many opinions here but I do have them. One thing I won't do is jump to Avery's defense until someone gives me more than multiple police departments and District Attorney's Offices planted evidence. Avery was set free the first time as a result of DNA evidence and DNA evidence put him in jail the second time. It cuts both ways. I've also read the appeal written by Avery and the guy is a nut job. His story is outlandish and he's counting on all these folks that have an anti-police agenda to believe his story. If you have a distrust of law enforcement, then you'll buy his nonsense.

Second, he was found guilty at trial by a jury that heard ALL the evidence. Not just snippets here and there by film makers that are more interested in making a story and creating controversy. For now, unless some new evidence comes up, that's what I'm sticking with.

 

[peplaw06]

There wasn't any reasonable doubt at the trial

Oh. I forgot you were a jury member.

 

[peplaw06]

Pep, how is it that the jury could arrive at Avery being guilty of the murder, but not the mutilation of the body?

You can't have one without the other IMO.

I think the mutilation charge probably requires proof that he dismembered her (or something along those lines), which a murder charge doesn't require. It's an extra element that the state didn't prove.

 

[peplaw06]

One thing I won't do is jump to Avery's defense until someone gives me more than multiple police departments and District Attorney's Offices planted evidence. Avery was set free the first time as a result of DNA evidence and DNA evidence put him in jail the second time.

You're putting the burden of proof on the defense. That's not where it lies. It's not up to Avery to prove something like planting evidence or bring in DNA evidence that someone else did it.

 

[Doomsday]

Nice to know a guy who thought 4 wins could win the NFCE

If you do the math, you'll see the possibility.

hanging juries on the side.

They re-tried him on a lesser charge, and lost. The dude was just flat out, not guilty. Better hope there's someone like me on any trial for your life you might encounter, and not the gang of idiot, government trusting sheep I had as co-jurors in the first trial.

Way to waste taxpayers money, momo

It was prosecutorial overreach, that was the waste of taxpayer monies.

 

[Doomsday]

You're putting the burden of proof on the defense. That's not where it lies. It's not up to Avery to prove something like planting evidence or bring in DNA evidence that someone else did it.

As you know I am sure it can be brought by his defense, as a way to plant reasonable doubt though. If they can show it's even a possibility, that's reasonable doubt. But yeah, they don't have to actually prove, jack shit.

 

[Dodger12]

Oh. I forgot you were a jury member.

I'm sorry, I didn't know he was found not guilty. I must have missed that.

 

[Dodger12]

You're putting the burden of proof on the defense. That's not where it lies. It's not up to Avery to prove something like planting evidence or bring in DNA evidence that someone else did it.

It is at this point. He'll need to bring up new evidence to get a new trial. You act as if he wasn't found guilty.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

There wasn't any reasonable doubt at the trial and he was found guilty.

Same could be said for his first trial, right?

Keep going, please.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

Maybe the testimony of a mentally-deficient relative of Dodger will put him in the can for a few years and lets see if someone who just "read up on the story" can cast his opinions as facts... let's see if he still feels the same way.

 

[Dodger12]

Same could be said for his first trial, right?

Keep going, please.

Of course. The eye witnesses misidentified him. Folks had two choices. Either not proceed with the first trial and disregard the victim or go forward with the victim's testimony. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. He was eventually exhonorated based on DNA and DNA evidence put him back in prison.

 

[Dodger12]

Maybe the testimony of a mentally-deficient relative of Dodger will put him in the can for a few years and lets see if someone who just "read up on the story" can cast his opinions as facts... let's see if he still feels the same way.

What's the difference if I base my opion on one source (or multiple) print media sources and you base it off a TV program? Is your source better than mine in terms of information? Or did you base your opinion on something else, like maybe you were there? If that's the case, I'll gladly defer to your first hand knowledge.

The issue is that people go around this topic and others like it. You'll present the program and I'll present links that either add more facts or contradict the program and we still won't agree.

I won't argue with folks who want to claim that the system is, at times, flawed. I won't argue that Avery's mentally deficient cousin should not spend the rest of his life in prison. If there's another victim other than the young lady that was murdered, it's this kid. But spare me the critique of how I come to my opinion when you've come to your opinion the same way.

 

[peplaw06]

I'm sorry, I didn't know he was found not guilty. I must have missed that.

Just because a jury found him not guilty doesn't mean there wasn't reasonable doubt. A jury found there was no reasonable doubt that he was guilty, but you never know what that specific jury's deliberations were. According to the documentary, 7 of them voted not guilty on the first go round. So clearly some of them had doubts. Or do you have some sort of inside information about how deliberations went?

Juries are strange animals, and to think you know exactly what happened just because 12 people voted that way is naive.

 

[peplaw06]

It is at this point. He'll need to bring up new evidence to get a new trial. You act as if he wasn't found guilty.

The burden of proof has changed now, but I'm not the one speaking in absolutes about what happened at trial and what the evidence showed.

And now, he still doesn't have to "prove" a plausible alternative theory. You are correct that one particular way he can get a new trial is by bringing in new evidence... and that has to convince a court that a jury could have reached a different result on the basis of that evidence. But he doesn't have to prove his innocence to get a new trial.

Where have I acted like he wasn't found guilty? All I have said is that I'm unsure of what I think on his guilt/non-guilt based on what I've seen and read. You're in here acting like you know everything about the case. You may have seen or read more than I have, but the fact of the matter is that you don't know exactly what that jury heard or how the deliberations went. There are a lot of things that could have happened to result in a guilty verdict that have little to do with his guilt or innocence. I'm a proponent of our judicial system generally, but I don't act like it's infallible. You're acting like it is infallible. You're logical conclusion is that a jury held him guilty so there must not be any reasonable doubt. That's just flat out naivete.

Do you think that OJ must be innocent of murder because a jury found him not guilty?

 

[Dodger12]

Just because a jury found him not guilty doesn't mean there wasn't reasonable doubt. A jury found there was no reasonable doubt that he was guilty, but you never know what that specific jury's deliberations were. According to the documentary, 7 of them voted not guilty on the first go round. So clearly some of them had doubts. Or do you have some sort of inside information about how deliberations went?

Juries are strange animals, and to think you know exactly what happened just because 12 people voted that way is naive.

What do jury deliberations have anything to do with what we're discussing? He was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Juries can deliberate for hours, days or weeks. At the end of the day, Avery was found guilt and the evidence against him met that standard.

I don't have to know what happened in deliberations to get to the verdict. I do know the verdict.

And I'm assuming the bolded part is a typo.

 

[Dodger12]

The burden of proof has changed now, but I'm not the one speaking in absolutes about what happened at trial and what the evidence showed.

There is an absolute at trial. He was found guilty by a jury. That's the only absolute that counts. If that doesn't count for you, no sweat. I tend to think the folks who heard the evidence presented by both sides eventually decided on guilt. That has to account for something beyond a bunch of folks watching a program or reading some articles about the case.

And having his earlier conviction overturned is just as "absolute" based on the (new) evidence. It cuts both ways for me.

And now, he still doesn't have to "prove" a plausible alternative theory. You are correct that one particular way he can get a new trial is by bringing in new evidence... and that has to convince a court that a jury could have reached a different result on the basis of that evidence. But he doesn't have to prove his innocence to get a new trial.

I never said as much. I simply said he'll need to introduce new evidence. If he does and this conviction is also overturned, then I'll change my mind based on the new evidence and the facts of the case which will most likely have to be some type of DNA evidence.

You're in here acting like you know everything about the case.

Refer me to a post where you'd get that impression. I've mentioned that I've read print media. I've read opposing views. Nothing more, nothing less. And I formed an opinion just like you and every one else here and part of my opinion was based on a jury, which heard all the evidence presented, eventually came up with a unanimous verdict. I haven't gone into detail about the facts of the case here. So to say that I'm acting like I know everything about the case is silly.

I'm a proponent of our judicial system generally, but I don't act like it's infallible. You're acting like it is infallible.

Really? Please direct me to where I've said that because I posted something completely opposite.

I won't argue with folks who want to claim that the system is, at times, flawed.

You're logical conclusion is that a jury held him guilty so there must not be any reasonable doubt. That's just flat out naivete.

So you think the jury had "reasonable" doubt and still found him guilty?