Making A Murderer

[Iamtdg]

Too many words in this conversation. I'm out.

 

[peplaw06]

What do jury deliberations have anything to do with what we're discussing?

Oh, I don't know... everything.

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.

This isn't a zero sum game. The thought that if the jury says guilty, then there must be no reasonable doubt, is elementary. All kinds of things could have happened in deliberations that influenced the verdict. You glossed over my statement that 7 jurors voted not guilty on the first vote. So at least some of them thought reasonable doubt existed. Did those 7 ultimately vote a different way? Yes. Does that mean that there wasn't a reasonable doubt in their minds when they voted the last time? No. It MIGHT mean that.... or it might mean that they were beaten down by one juror that was more stubborn than they were. It might mean that they were just tired and wanted to go home. It might mean that there was jury misconduct. There are endless things that could have happened.

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

Nope, not a typo. At the end of the day, the BARD standard is a subjective standard and a guilty/not guilty verdict can turn on any of thousands of variables. That's why jury selection is so important. If it were objective, then you could pick any 12 jurors and they would probably get it right. If you think they were right, fine. But don't act like you have some trump card over those who might disagree, simply because he was found guilty. As was already stated in this thread, he was found guilty once before when he wasn't.

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.

It's not an absolute... if it was absolute then he wouldn't have been released from jail the first time.

Obviously the verdict counts for something, in that Avery is in jail. But that doesn't mean that it was right, and it doesn't mean that reasonable minds can't reach different conclusions.

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

"Absolute" isn't a moving target. Absolute doesn't change. Absolute doesn't get overturned.

Which, coincidentally, is why the burden of proof isn't that the state has to absolutely prove a person's guilt. It would be an impossible standard.

I never said as much. I simply said he'll need to introduce new evidence.

No, you said...

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.

You're talking about defense theories to the case. That's not simply an introduction of new evidence.

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.

When you say "there wasn't any reasonable doubt at trial," that is an absolute and implies that you know everything that happened at trial... which can only really be obtained by being a participant in the trial, a juror, that you watched the trial in person every day, or that you purchased and read the reporter's record. I have a reasonable doubt that you fall in to any of those categories.

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

First, you just said you "wouldn't argue..." That doesn't mean you think it's flawed. Really beside the point... the point is if you think the system is "at times, flawed," then why would you act like if the jury found him guilty, then he must absolutely be guilty?

Like, for the sake of argument, let's assume that you will admit in your next post that the system is indeed flawed... Why are you so dismissive of opposing viewpoints, simply because he was found guilty? You would have to believe that no person was ever wrongly convicted in order to believe that those who believe reasonable doubt might have existed are wrong because the jury said so.

Your actions are speaking louder than your words in this instance.

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

Yeah, I think some of the jurors did. 7 voted him not guilty first rattle out of the box in deliberations. And one of the jurors was dismissed because of some kind of family emergency or something, and he's been a vocal proponent of Avery. So yeah, I think some jurors had reasonable doubts. The jury as a unit found him guilty, but I don't believe that the 12 people who were on the jury are all of the same mind.

 

[Dodger12]

This isn't a zero sum game. The thought that if the jury says guilty, then there must be no reasonable doubt, is elementary. All kinds of things could have happened in deliberations that influenced the verdict. You glossed over my statement that 7 jurors voted not guilty on the first vote. So at least some of them thought reasonable doubt existed. Did those 7 ultimately vote a different way? Yes. Does that mean that there wasn't a reasonable doubt in their minds when they voted the last time? No. It MIGHT mean that.... or it might mean that they were beaten down by one juror that was more stubborn than they were. It might mean that they were just tired and wanted to go home. It might mean that there was jury misconduct. There are endless things that could have happened.

I didn't gloss over your statement. The fact that some folks had a "doubt" until they reviewed the evidence and deliberated with the other jurors is not uncommon. If it was, it wouldn't take days or weeks for a jury to come to a decision. And the rest of your point is sheer speculation. They could have had a hung jury; you and I both know that happens but it didn't in this case. It might just be that after reviewing all the evidence that not all of us here are privy to and doing their due diligence and duty, they came to a guilty verdict.

If you think they were right, fine. But don't act like you have some trump card over those who might disagree, simply because he was found guilty. As was already stated in this thread, he was found guilty once before when he wasn't.

I never insinuated that I had some trump card. I mean, that's just a silly statement considering I've brought up limited details. I have my opinion, you and others can have yours. The fact that he was found guilty the second time (again) and reading about the evidence that wasn't brought up in the "documentary" are pieces that help me formulate my opinion. You stating that I insinuated or stated that I have a trump card is just a way for you to move an argument by introducing something I never stated or inferred.

As to the first conviction that was overturned, new evidence was introduced which is something I said I would need to see to change my mind with regards to his second arrest and conviction. Again, that's just me.

It's not an absolute... if it was absolute then he wouldn't have been released from jail the first time.

Obviously the verdict counts for something, in that Avery is in jail. But that doesn't mean that it was right, and it doesn't mean that reasonable minds can't reach different conclusions.

The conviction is "absolute" unless new evidence is presented which was the case the first time. Or unless the judge thought the jury made the wrong decision with a guilty verdict and overturned the decision. The verdict, based on the evidence at hand, passed muster with both the jury and the judge who was satisfied with the verdict.

As for reasonable minds, I'm not going to assume the jury and judge were both unreasonable. For me to believe Avery was innocent, I'd have to buy the theory that the jury was unreasonable, the judge didn't see it either, the police planted evidence with the complicity of multiple officers and departments, that the FBI analysis was flawed, that someone dumped the victim's body onto Avery's property....and so on and so forth. Now who's being unreasonable?

No, you said... You're talking about defense theories to the case. That's not simply an introduction of new evidence.

I guess you just like to argue. That statement was in regards to what I would like to see in order for me to change my mind. I couldn't be any more clearer than this:

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.

That was in response to your statement that it wasn't the defense's burden of proof and it is at this point. That is, unless new exculpatory evidence is discovered by the police and/or prosecutors in which case they would be required to disclose it to the defense.

When you say "there wasn't any reasonable doubt at trial," that is an absolute and implies that you know everything that happened at trial... which can only really be obtained by being a participant in the trial, a juror, that you watched the trial in person every day, or that you purchased and read the reporter's record. I have a reasonable doubt that you fall in to any of those categories.

This is a bunch of hogwash. A guilty verdict, in it's essence, implies guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." You may not like it but it is what it is. You're interjecting that "trump card" argument again and it's nothing more than fluff and misdirection. I don't expect Avery's defense attorneys to agree but because they have a doubt doesn't mean that it was a reasonable doubt and, quite frankly, they present their defense and the jury made their decision and it was confirmed by the judge who could have overturned it.

First, you just said you "wouldn't argue..." That doesn't mean you think it's flawed. Really beside the point... the point is if you think the system is "at times, flawed," then why would you act like if the jury found him guilty, then he must absolutely be guilty?

Like, for the sake of argument, let's assume that you will admit in your next post that the system is indeed flawed... Why are you so dismissive of opposing viewpoints, simply because he was found guilty? You would have to believe that no person was ever wrongly convicted in order to believe that those who believe reasonable doubt might have existed are wrong because the jury said so.

Well, when I say that "I wouldn't argue the system is, at times, flawed," or that the "system was far from perfect," a reasonable (there's that word again) person would be able to infer that I don't believe the system is perfect. I mean, are we really going to debate that? Is this not clear enough for you?

While the CJ system is far from perfect,

I've stated before that the guilty verdict was only part of the reason I believe he's guilty, simply because 12 people plus the judge heard and reviewed ALL the evidence and testimony in this case. I think the evidence against him is pretty solid (just from what I've read). Some of that evidence was withheld from the "documentary"....I wonder why that is? Avery's defense is that the evidence was planted. Multiple departments were involved in this case, including the FBI. I'd have to believe that there was corruption at various levels and among multiple officers. I'd have to believe the body was planted. I'd have to believe the car keys were planted. I'd have to believe the bullet (which ballistics matched to his gun) was planted. I'd have to believe the blood evidence was planted. Except the cops who planted the blood evidence were so stupid as to not plant evidence in the most damning places (ie: Avery's garage). That's a lot for me to overcome to think he's innocent.

I'm not "dismissive" of anyone's viewpoint. I haven't been disrespectful in any way. Folks have their opinion and I have mine. We disagree, It happens all the time.

Yeah, I think some of the jurors did. 7 voted him not guilty first rattle out of the box in deliberations. And one of the jurors was dismissed because of some kind of family emergency or something, and he's been a vocal proponent of Avery. So yeah, I think some jurors had reasonable doubts. The jury as a unit found him guilty, but I don't believe that the 12 people who were on the jury are all of the same mind.

Doomsday just told you he was a juror in a case where they found someone not guilty after 11 people initially voted guilty. It works both ways. And it's interesting how you were dismissive of my opinion because, in your opinion, it could only be obtained "by being a participant in the trial, a juror, that you watched the trial in person every day, or that you purchased and read the reporter's record. I have a reasonable doubt that you fall in to any of those categories," yet you can claim that 12 people on the jury were not "of the same mind," even after they unanimously voted to convict. I guess you'd have to be part of the jury or were present for the final jury deliberations to come to that conclusion. I too have a reasonable doubt that you fall into any of those categories.

 

[SixisBetter]

Too many words in this conversation.

Ha!
Good stuff though IMO.

 

[peplaw06]

I didn't gloss over your statement. The fact that some folks had a "doubt" until they reviewed the evidence and deliberated with the other jurors is not uncommon. If it was, it wouldn't take days or weeks for a jury to come to a decision. And the rest of your point is sheer speculation. They could have had a hung jury; you and I both know that happens but it didn't in this case. It might just be that after reviewing all the evidence that not all of us here are privy to and doing their due diligence and duty, they came to a guilty verdict.

Of course it's speculation... that's why I said "might." Again, I'm not the one speaking in absolutes in here.

I never insinuated that I had some trump card. I mean, that's just a silly statement considering I've brought up limited details. I have my opinion, you and others can have yours. The fact that he was found guilty the second time (again) and reading about the evidence that wasn't brought up in the "documentary" are pieces that help me formulate my opinion. You stating that I insinuated or stated that I have a trump card is just a way for you to move an argument by introducing something I never stated or inferred.

Please... you've acted from the jump in this thread like your opinion is the only right one because the jury said so. You're backing off of it now. It's fine if you back off of it, just man up and admit you're doing it and that you misspoke.

As to the first conviction that was overturned, new evidence was introduced which is something I said I would need to see to change my mind with regards to his second arrest and conviction. Again, that's just me.

Now you need to admit that juries don't always get it right, and just because they found him guilty here doesn't mean there couldn't have been reasonable doubt.

The conviction is "absolute" unless new evidence is presented which was the case the first time. Or unless the judge thought the jury made the wrong decision with a guilty verdict and overturned the decision. The verdict, based on the evidence at hand, passed muster with both the jury and the judge who was satisfied with the verdict.

"It's absolute... unless... or unless..." That means it's not absolute.

As for reasonable minds, I'm not going to assume the jury and judge were both unreasonable. For me to believe Avery was innocent, I'd have to buy the theory that the jury was unreasonable, the judge didn't see it either, the police planted evidence with the complicity of multiple officers and departments, that the FBI analysis was flawed, that someone dumped the victim's body onto Avery's property....and so on and so forth. Now who's being unreasonable?

You fundamentally misunderstand the justice system... Juries don't find defendants "innocent." They find them guilty or not guilty. A verdict of not guilty does not mean the defendant is innocent. It just means the state didn't meet the burden of proof.

I'm sure you've probably read a bunch of media articles about the case, which all have their own slant, and bought the idea that Avery's theory has to be proven. It doesn't. None of the allegations from Avery's side have to be true, or even plausible. It's all on the state's case. Like Sheik said, if you don't find doubt in a theory that the dimwits Avery and Dassey carried this all out and eliminated all traces of DNA evidence in the alleged kill site, or that the only person's blood found anywhere is Avery's, or that the Manitowoc County offices were supposed to have nothing to do with the investigation because of a conflict of interest, and STILL not only participated, but found the key pieces of evidence used to convict him, then there's something wrong.

I've never called anyone unreasonable in this thread... And you imply I'm unreasonable because I don't like that you speak in absolutes in a situation where absolute truth is impossible to glean?

You should really bow out here... You're out of your element.

I guess you just like to argue. That statement was in regards to what I would like to see in order for me to change my mind. I couldn't be any more clearer than this: "He'll need to bring up new evidence to get a new trial."

I just like to argue? You engaged me in this thread after I said "in my opinion, there was enough doubt presented at trial," and responded with "there wasn't any reasonable doubt at trial." And you have the nerve to turn this on me liking to argue? GTFO here with that bullshit.

And your statement of "he'll need to bring up new evidence to get a new trial" is in no way regarding what YOU would like to see to change your mind. New evidence isn't presented to Dodger12 so he'll change his mind, and you have no authority to grant a new trial. This is backtracking plain and simple.

That was in response to your statement that it wasn't the defense's burden of proof and it is at this point. That is, unless new exculpatory evidence is discovered by the police and/or prosecutors in which case they would be required to disclose it to the defense.

I wasn't talking about what the burden of proof is after trial. I was clearly talking about the burden of proof at trial. You're lame attempt at reframing your position into that is embarrassing.

This is a bunch of hogwash. A guilty verdict, in it's essence, implies guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." You may not like it but it is what it is. You're interjecting that "trump card" argument again and it's nothing more than fluff and misdirection. I don't expect Avery's defense attorneys to agree but because they have a doubt doesn't mean that it was a reasonable doubt and, quite frankly, they present their defense and the jury made their decision and it was confirmed by the judge who could have overturned it.

It's not hogwash, and I don't give a shit how many times you repeat yourself, you're still wrong.

Well, when I say that "I wouldn't argue the system is, at times, flawed," or that the "system was far from perfect," a reasonable (there's that word again) person would be able to infer that I don't believe the system is perfect. I mean, are we really going to debate that? Is this not clear enough for you?

Did you read what I posted, or do you just read the first sentence in a paragraph and shut off your brain? I said that was beside the point. I explicitly said, the point is if you think the system is flawed, then why do you act like there was absolutely no reasonable doubt just because the jury found him guilty? Those two points of view are diametrically opposed... which is why when you argue that way, it is perceived you believe the system is infallible.

I've stated before that the guilty verdict was only part of the reason I believe he's guilty, simply because 12 people plus the judge heard and reviewed ALL the evidence and testimony in this case. I think the evidence against him is pretty solid (just from what I've read).

Well, well, well.... look who's not speaking in absolutes any more. This whole back and forth would have probably been prevented if in response to my statement of opinion that I thought there was doubt, you simply said "I believe he's guilty," or "I think the evidence against him was solid." Instead you haughtily declared "pffftt... there was no reasonable doubt at trial." Like you know. You only know what you've voluntarily educated yourself on the case, just like me. You don't know any more than I do on the subject. Don't act like you do.

Some of that evidence was withheld from the "documentary"....I wonder why that is?

How do you know what was in the documentary and what wasn't, if you haven't seen it?

Avery's defense is that the evidence was planted. Multiple departments were involved in this case, including the FBI. I'd have to believe that there was corruption at various levels and among multiple officers. I'd have to believe the body was planted. I'd have to believe the car keys were planted. I'd have to believe the bullet (which ballistics matched to his gun) was planted. I'd have to believe the blood evidence was planted. Except the cops who planted the blood evidence were so stupid as to not plant evidence in the most damning places (ie: Avery's garage). That's a lot for me to overcome to think he's innocent.

So all that is so implausible... but you believe that these two dimwits were smart enough to scrub the entire alleged kill site, the car, the keys, etc. of all traces of Teresa's DNA, yet dumb enough to leave the car poorly hidden on their own property and burn the body in the backyard and leave the remains? Does the fact that the Manitowoc Co Sheriff's Office bowed out because of a conflict of interest, yet still was intimately involved in the investigation -- finding all the crucial pieces of evidence -- mean nothing to you?

I'm not "dismissive" of anyone's viewpoint. I haven't been disrespectful in any way. Folks have their opinion and I have mine. We disagree, It happens all the time.

Bullshit. I said in my opinion there was doubt presented at trial, and you directly responded with "there was no doubt at trial." Like there's not even a discussion. That's completely dismissive.

Doomsday just told you he was a juror in a case where they found someone not guilty after 11 people initially voted guilty. It works both ways.

What does any of this have to do with whether I believe some jurors had doubts? Sure, people can legitimately change their minds. I even said so in my previous post. They may have been convinced. But they might not have as well. I don't know what really happened in deliberations. But I'm not acting like I know what the jurors thought or whether they had doubts at the final vote. I have said I believe that they had doubts at some point, because that's what they said. I haven't seen anything that disputes my positions on these things, other than you... and sorry, that's not real compelling to me.

And it's interesting how you were dismissive of my opinion because, in your opinion, it could only be obtained "by being a participant in the trial, a juror, that you watched the trial in person every day, or that you purchased and read the reporter's record. I have a reasonable doubt that you fall in to any of those categories," yet you can claim that 12 people on the jury were not "of the same mind," even after they unanimously voted to convict. I guess you'd have to be part of the jury or were present for the final jury deliberations to come to that conclusion. I too have a reasonable doubt that you fall into any of those categories.

Yeah, I've been dismissive of your opinion that you absolutely know that there was no reasonable doubt at trial. I said I believe that the 11 jurors who delivered the final verdict were not of the same mind. I don't think that's real earth-shattering to think that 11 people may not think the exact same things about the case. But again, I'm not speaking in absolutes. Hint: I use the words believe, think, and in my opinion for a reason.

 

[Sheik]

How scary is it that anyone, any of us, could at any time be wrongly accused of a serious crime and be put away for the better part of a lifetime?

Not speaking about Avery at all, just saying.

Scary stuff. All it takes is victim's word and a jury's decision.

 

[peplaw06]

How scary is it that anyone, any of us, could at any time be wrongly accused of a serious crime and be put away for the better part of a lifetime?

Not speaking about Avery at all, just saying.

Scary stuff. All it takes is victim's word and a jury's decision.

There's been a concerted effort in a number of states to fix this problem of wrongful convictions. If you get a chance check out the Michael Morton story from Georgetown, Texas. Guy spent 25 years in prison after being wrongfully convicted in the murder of his wife.

Here's the link to the Texas Monthly story... long read. http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-innocent-man-part-one/

Morton is speaking at the Texas State Bar Meeting this June. I haven't heard him before, but I'm planning on going to this one.

 

[junk]

Barry Beach is another interesting one

 

[Dodger12]

Please... you've acted from the jump in this thread like your opinion is the only right one because the jury said so. You're backing off of it now. It's fine if you back off of it, just man up and admit you're doing it and that you misspoke.

So now I don't have some kind of trump card. That's good to know. I've brought up multiple reasons, from the jury decision, to the evidence, to the conspiracy theory which I don't necessarily buy for various reasons, to the slanted "documentary" and lord knows what else. If you can't follow along, that's not my problem. If you want to keep the argument very singular (ie: the jury) because that helps your argument, that's on you but don't sell it off as my only reason.

Now you need to admit that juries don't always get it right, and just because they found him guilty here doesn't mean there couldn't have been reasonable doubt.

That would hold true if someone, other than the jury (and the judge) believed there was reasonable doubt. Because I have a hard time believing a jury would vote unanimously to convict on a murder charge while having reasonable doubt.

You fundamentally misunderstand the justice system... Juries don't find defendants "innocent." They find them guilty or not guilty. A verdict of not guilty does not mean the defendant is innocent. It just means the state didn't meet the burden of proof.

Two things. First, in the context of this case, Avery's defense is that evidence was planted; that he didn't commit the crime. The argument was not that there wasn't enough evidence, but that the evidence was corrupted by the police and an "innocent" man was framed.

Second, I can appreciate your "legal" interpretation but that's really just lawyer hogwash and lawyer speak to justify/explain not-guilty verdicts for people like Casey Anthony. I've seen it, I've read it and I get it. But in the eyes of the law, innocent and non-guilty get you the same result, as the defendant can't be retried for that crime and he/she is viewed as "innocent in the eyes of the law."

And for you claiming I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the justice system, you completely minimize and overlook the very foundation of the CJ system itself; the fundamental and sacred belief that one is "innocent until proven guilty." In other words, there is a presumption of "innocence." It's not, "not guilty until proven guilty." It's not a presumption of "not-guilty." When someone is found not guilty, he's viewed as "innocent in the eyes of the law." When a judge first starts a criminal trial and gives directions to the jury, he/she almost always begins with informing the jury of the defendant's presumption of "innocence."

You should really bow out here... You're out of your element.

You have no idea what my element is. And for someone who thinks he's in his element, you're having a real hard time understanding basic criminal law.

I just like to argue? You engaged me in this thread after I said "in my opinion, there was enough doubt presented at trial," and responded with "there wasn't any reasonable doubt at trial." And you have the nerve to turn this on me liking to argue? GTFO here with that bullshit.

And your statement of "he'll need to bring up new evidence to get a new trial" is in no way regarding what YOU would like to see to change your mind. New evidence isn't presented to Dodger12 so he'll change his mind, and you have no authority to grant a new trial. This is backtracking plain and simple.

I “engaged” you? You make it sound like I drew a sword and challenged you. Or were your senses offended by a mere response because we may not have agreed? You should stop being so sensitive; it’s a message board.

In any event, please follow along. I’ve linked the replies in my previous post. They were two separate issues and it’s pretty clear. If that’s too complicated for you to understand, I can’t help you.

I wasn't talking about what the burden of proof is after trial. I was clearly talking about the burden of proof at trial. You're lame attempt at reframing your position into that is embarrassing.

So you were telling us of what it would take for Avery to be convicted even after he’s been convicted? The problem with that is you were responding to my post where I was clearly talking about the present. That’s like us discussing what it would take for the 2015 Dallas Cowboys to win the SB even after we know the results of the season. Nice one.

It's not hogwash, and I don't give a shit how many times you repeat yourself, you're still wrong.

Are you really arguing the point that a guilty verdict, in it’s essence, implies guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt?” I mean, to even argue against that point is really asinine.

Did you read what I posted, or do you just read the first sentence in a paragraph and shut off your brain? I said that was beside the point. I explicitly said, the point is if you think the system is flawed, then why do you act like there was absolutely no reasonable doubt just because the jury found him guilty? Those two points of view are diametrically opposed... which is why when you argue that way, it is perceived you believe the system is infallible.

I guess you have to keep the discussion between the four corners of your debate or you’ll leave your comfort zone, as you keep coming back to the jury as my sole deciding factor. I have repeatedly said that it’s my opinion is not just based on the fact that the jury found him guilty, although I do add the opinion of a unanimous group of people who heard ALL the evidence to be a factor. DNA evidence, the keys, the car, the bullet, the body, etc. Individually, these items may not necessarily prove guilt. But taken in their totality, I feel the evidence is pretty solid.

Now divert the above statement back to (only) the jury and continue on. Use words like embarrassing and lame. It probably makes you feel like you’re really making a solid point even though you have nothing.

Well, well, well.... look who's not speaking in absolutes any more. This whole back and forth would have probably been prevented if in response to my statement of opinion that I thought there was doubt, you simply said "I believe he's guilty," or "I think the evidence against him was solid." Instead you haughtily declared "pffftt... there was no reasonable doubt at trial." Like you know. You only know what you've voluntarily educated yourself on the case, just like me. You don't know any more than I do on the subject. Don't act like you do.

Again, please point me to where I even infer that I know more than anyone else. I’ve stated before that I have an opinion just like everyone else.

You think he was convicted by a jury and the guilty verdict concurred to by the judge with the presence of reasonable doubt. I mean, I get that you may not like the system but to accuse a unanimous jury and a judge of convicting someone for murder which didn’t meet the element of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is absurd. The judge could have overturned the conviction if he didn’t feel the evidence presented met the threshold. But just because you say there was doubt doesn’t make it true to those folks who were there and responsible for rendering a decision.

Now you need to admit that juries don't always get it right, and just because they found him guilty here doesn't mean there couldn't have been reasonable doubt.

That would hold true if someone, other than the jury (and the judge) believed there was reasonable doubt. Because I have a hard time believing a jury would vote unanimously to convict on a murder charge while having reasonable doubt.

You fundamentally misunderstand the justice system... Juries don't find defendants "innocent." They find them guilty or not guilty. A verdict of not guilty does not mean the defendant is innocent. It just means the state didn't meet the burden of proof.

Two things. First, in the context of this case, Avery's defense is that evidence was planted; that he didn't commit the crime. The argument was not that there wasn't enough evidence, but that the evidence was corrupted by the police and an "innocent" man was framed.

Second, I can appreciate your "legal" interpretation but that's really just lawyer hogwash and lawyer speak to justify/explain not-guilty verdicts for people like Casey Anthony. I've seen it, I've read it and I get it. But in the eyes of the law, innocent and non-guilty get you the same result, as the defendant can't be retried for that crime and he/she is viewed as "innocent in the eyes of the law."

And for you claiming I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the justice system, you completely minimize and overlook the very foundation of the CJ system itself; the fundamental and sacred belief that one is "innocent until proven guilty." In other words, there is a presumption of "innocence." It's not, "not guilty until proven guilty." It's not a presumption of "not-guilty." When someone is found not guilty, he's viewed as "innocent in the eyes of the law." When a judge first starts a criminal trial and gives directions to the jury, he/she almost always begins with informing the jury of the defendant's presumption of "innocence."

You should really bow out here... You're out of your element.

You have no idea what my element is. And for someone who thinks he's in his element, you're having a real hard time understanding basic criminal law.

I just like to argue? You engaged me in this thread after I said "in my opinion, there was enough doubt presented at trial," and responded with "there wasn't any reasonable doubt at trial." And you have the nerve to turn this on me liking to argue? GTFO here with that bullshit.

And your statement of "he'll need to bring up new evidence to get a new trial" is in no way regarding what YOU would like to see to change your mind. New evidence isn't presented to Dodger12 so he'll change his mind, and you have no authority to grant a new trial. This is backtracking plain and simple.

I “engaged” you? You make it sound like I drew a sword and challenged you. Or were your senses offended by a mere response because we may not have agreed? You should stop being so sensitive; it’s a message board.

In any event, please follow along. I’ve linked the replies in my previous post. They were two separate issues and it’s pretty clear. If that’s too complicated for you to understand, I can’t help you.

I wasn't talking about what the burden of proof is after trial. I was clearly talking about the burden of proof at trial. You're lame attempt at reframing your position into that is embarrassing.

So you were telling us of what it would take for Avery to be convicted even after he’s been convicted? The problem with that is you were responding to my post where I was clearly talking about the present. That’s like us discussing what it would take for the 2015 Dallas Cowboys to win the SB even after we know the results of the season. Nice one.

It's not hogwash, and I don't give a shit how many times you repeat yourself, you're still wrong.

Are you really arguing the point that a guilty verdict, in it’s essence, implies guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt?” I mean, to even argue against that point is really asinine.

Did you read what I posted, or do you just read the first sentence in a paragraph and shut off your brain? I said that was beside the point. I explicitly said, the point is if you think the system is flawed, then why do you act like there was absolutely no reasonable doubt just because the jury found him guilty? Those two points of view are diametrically opposed... which is why when you argue that way, it is perceived you believe the system is infallible.

I guess you have to keep the discussion between the four corners of your debate or you’ll leave your comfort zone, as you keep coming back to the jury as my sole deciding factor. I have repeatedly said that it’s my opinion is not just based on the fact that the jury found him guilty, although I do add the opinion of a unanimous group of people who heard ALL the evidence to be a factor. DNA evidence, the keys, the car, the bullet, the body, etc. Individually, these items may not necessarily prove guilt. But taken in their totality, I feel the evidence is pretty solid.

Now divert the above statement back to (only) the jury and continue on. Use words like embarrassing and lame. It probably makes you feel like you’re really making a solid point even though you have nothing.

Well, well, well.... look who's not speaking in absolutes any more. This whole back and forth would have probably been prevented if in response to my statement of opinion that I thought there was doubt, you simply said "I believe he's guilty," or "I think the evidence against him was solid." Instead you haughtily declared "pffftt... there was no reasonable doubt at trial." Like you know. You only know what you've voluntarily educated yourself on the case, just like me. You don't know any more than I do on the subject. Don't act like you do.

Again, please point me to where I even infer that I know more than anyone else. I’ve stated before that I have an opinion just like everyone else.

You think he was convicted by a jury and the guilty verdict concurred to by the judge with the presence of reasonable doubt. I mean, I get that you may not like the system but to accuse a unanimous jury and a judge of convicting someone for murder which didn’t meet the element of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is absurd. The judge could have overturned the conviction if he didn’t feel the evidence presented met the threshold. But just because you say there was doubt doesn’t make it true to those folks who were there and responsible for rendering a decision.

So all that is so implausible... but you believe that these two dimwits were smart enough to scrub the entire alleged kill site, the car, the keys, etc. of all traces of Teresa's DNA, yet dumb enough to leave the car poorly hidden on their own property and burn the body in the backyard and leave the remains? Does the fact that the Manitowoc Co Sheriff's Office bowed out because of a conflict of interest, yet still was intimately involved in the investigation -- finding all the crucial pieces of evidence -- mean nothing to you?

One of the investigators accused (by Avery) of planting evidence wasn’t even on the PD when Avery was arrested for rape. And the primary investigative agency for the murder case was the Calumet County Sheriff’s Office and the Wisconsin Division of Criminal Investigation. It’s not uncommon for the lead agency to get assistance from other agencies including Manitowoc County, the Wisconsin State Patrol, the Manitowoc Police Department and the Wisconsin State Crime Lab. That’s a heck of a lot of investigative agencies to be involved in a cover up.

And are you really asking me why a couple of crooks made mistakes and didn’t completely cover their tracks? Or why they were dumb enough to not completely dispose of the body or the victim’s vehicle?

Not all the crucial evidence was found by Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Office. You can point to the key to the victim’s car and folks have accused the Sherrif’s Office of planting that evidence. Where would they have gotten the key? If they had the key, then they must have found the car and are we to assume that they moved the car to Avery’s lot? And, if so, where did they find the car and were the keys still in the car? And why “plant” the car in Avery’s lot and the keys in Avery’s trailer instead of following the lead to the real killer? So Manitowoc County found the car AND the keys; drove the car and planted the same in Avery’s lot; later planted the keys in Avery’s trailer. Oh, and they also planted blood evidence but they decided to plant the blood evidence after they “officially” found the car and planted it at Avery’s lot. Then they miraculously found a bullet with the victim’s DNA which ballistics showed was fired from Avery’s gun and planted that in Avery’s garage as well. But where did they get the victim’s DNA to plant on the bullet that was planted in Avery’s garage? And if they had the victim’s DNA and were able to plant it on the bullet, why not plant some more of the victim’s DNA in Avery’s garage? I mean, they went to all this trouble to plant evidence but they didn’t plant it in the most damning places that would make their case against Avery even more solid? Oh….who cares about those minor details.

And the blood that was supposedly planted tested negative for EDTA which is a preservative found in blood vials to prevent clotting. This testing was done by the FBI. Are they also co-conspirators in a conspiracy to frame Avery? And the body in the fire pit with the victim’s personal belongings? Planted as well, obviously.

This whole argument is absurd.

Bullshit. I said in my opinion there was doubt presented at trial, and you directly responded with "there was no doubt at trial." Like there's not even a discussion. That's completely dismissive.

Sorry. I didn’t know you were so sensitive.

Yeah, I've been dismissive of your opinion that you absolutely know that there was no reasonable doubt at trial. I said I believe that the 11 jurors who delivered the final verdict were not of the same mind. I don't think that's real earth-shattering to think that 11 people may not think the exact same things about the case. But again, I'm not speaking in absolutes. Hint: I use the words believe, think, and in my opinion for a reason.

OK. I typed a lot before I got to this point so I can’t change it all now. But how about this: I think Avery’s guilty. I believe Avery is guilty for the reasons mentioned above. I believe there is solid evidence against Avery which can not be fully reconciled under this nut job’s conspiracy theory.

But, in my opinion, I don’t believe that a unanimous jury and a judge convicted this man even though they had a reasonable doubt.

I believe this is my last long response in this thread.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Too many words in this conversation. I'm out.

No shit.

 

[junk]

There's been a concerted effort in a number of states to fix this problem of wrongful convictions. If you get a chance check out the Michael Morton story from Georgetown, Texas. Guy spent 25 years in prison after being wrongfully convicted in the murder of his wife.

Here's the link to the Texas Monthly story... long read. http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-innocent-man-part-one/

Morton is speaking at the Texas State Bar Meeting this June. I haven't heard him before, but I'm planning on going to this one.

That's a good read, pep. Heartbreaking. I couldn't imagine losing your wife and, essentially, your kid like that.

 

[peplaw06]

OK. I typed a lot before I got to this point so I can’t change it all now. But how about this: I think Avery’s guilty. I believe Avery is guilty for the reasons mentioned above. I believe there is solid evidence against Avery which can not be fully reconciled under this nut job’s conspiracy theory.

But, in my opinion, I don’t believe that a unanimous jury and a judge convicted this man even though they had a reasonable doubt.

I believe this is my last long response in this thread.

I never asked you to change it. All I asked was not to act like your opinion was right or that there were any absolutes. If that's not what you intended, then man up and say you misspoke.

That wasn't so hard was it?

 

[peplaw06]

That's a good read, pep. Heartbreaking. I couldn't imagine losing your wife and, essentially, your kid like that.

Yep, the parts about his son growing up when he was in prison were difficult to read. At least some saving grace is that their relationship appeared to have as happy an ending as you could expect from this situation.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

I think the biggest issue I have with the case, along with them relying on the testimony of a dim-witted relative as their sole eyewitness, is the fact that the prosecution's theory that they slit her throat in Avery's trailer bedroom yet not a trace of blood was discovered there. That to me is even more disturbing than the fact that her key had ONLY Avery's DNA on it, and not hers.

I'd probably just recommend that Dodger WATCH THE GODDAMN MOVIE before he throws his opinion out only to have Pep pretty much take down every point he has tried to make.

 

[Dodger12]

I think the biggest issue I have with the case, along with them relying on the testimony of a dim-witted relative as their sole eyewitness, is the fact that the prosecution's theory that they slit her throat in Avery's trailer bedroom yet not a trace of blood was discovered there. That to me is even more disturbing than the fact that her key had ONLY Avery's DNA on it, and not hers.

No murder case is perfect and not every question could be answered. The only people that know exactly what happened and how it happened are the murderers themselves, which I believe is Avery and Dassey. I get the crime scene question. It's a point worthy of discussion. But what's so earth shattering about the keys? Were they not the victim's keys? Do we need her DNA on those keys to prove they were her keys and were the keys to her car? What evidentiary value does anyone gain by finding her DNA on her keys other than showing she used the keys which we can probably assume she did since they were her keys?

I'd probably just recommend that Dodger WATCH THE GODDAMN MOVIE before he throws his opinion out only to have Pep pretty much take down every point he has tried to make.

I have no doubt that if I watched the show I'd have the same questions. And then when I'd dig a little deeper I'd still come to the same conclusion that the show was slanted and left out facts that were critical to the case.

The potential assailant that Avery and his defense team put out there as an alternate theory was Avery's brother. Of course, Avery has recently come out and apologized to his brother for trying to use him as a scapegoat.

And props to Pep for discussing the case but, frankly, Pep didn't knock down many of the points that dealt with the evidence. I believe he himself said that the case against Avery was pretty solid and didn't look good for him. The only thing Avery and his defense team had left was to attack the police and accuse them of planting the evidence because the evidence pointed to one man's guilt (leaving Dassey out of the equation).

 

[Dodger12]

I never asked you to change it. All I asked was not to act like your opinion was right or that there were any absolutes. If that's not what you intended, then man up and say you misspoke.

That wasn't so hard was it?

I figured from your post(s) that you appreciated a certain decorum when going back and forth. Of course I think my opinion is right. Otherwise, why would I post it? Does everyone that posts an opinion here at DCU have to qualify it with "I believe" or "in my opinion?" I figured that was implied since we don't work for the team. But if I have to qualify that in future posts, I'll do it to maintain board decorum and not seem insensitive to everyone's opinions. We'll make it a kinder, gentler DCU.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

What evidentiary value does anyone gain by finding her DNA on her keys other than showing she used the keys which we can probably assume she did since they were her keys?

Someone obviously wiped any trace DNA off the keys so that there would be no way Avery's DNA could be contaminated. That's just the point... there was no DNA there (hers) where there absolutely should have been. Why?

And the lack of blood at the scene is not something that could be glossed over. It was the PROSECUTION'S THEORY that that's where the killing took place, yet there is a staggering lack of evidence that it happened that way.

 

[peplaw06]

I figured from your post(s) that you appreciated a certain decorum when going back and forth. Of course I think my opinion is right. Otherwise, why would I post it? Does everyone that posts an opinion here at DCU have to qualify it with "I believe" or "in my opinion?" I figured that was implied since we don't work for the team. But if I have to qualify that in future posts, I'll do it to maintain board decorum and not seem insensitive to everyone's opinions. We'll make it a kinder, gentler DCU.

Not everything that's posted on here is opinion.

And if you want to tie this into the Cowboys, ok... If you were in here acting like your opinions on certain players were fact or absolute, then I would have an issue with that as well. Just like we all tend to have issues with the All22 scout team over on CZ who act like their opinions are fact.

I'm not the one being sensitive here... I didn't agree with how you presented your "opinion," and I let you know about it. I wasn't being subtle about it either. But instead of recognizing how I was taking your posts and just correcting the "misunderstanding," you doubled down.

Don't hide behind decorum-whine. If you want a kindler, gentler DCU, then be clear in what you mean.

 

[Dodger12]

Someone obviously wiped any trace DNA off the keys so that there would be no way Avery's DNA could be contaminated. That's just the point... there was no DNA there (hers) where there absolutely should have been. Why?

And the lack of blood at the scene is not something that could be glossed over. It was the PROSECUTION'S THEORY that that's where the killing took place, yet there is a staggering lack of evidence that it happened that way.

Or Avery himself could have wiped the keys and the only DNA left on it was his. And a bullet with the victim's blood DNA was found in Avery's garage. Where did that come from? So if the police wiped the victim's DNA off the keys and planted it in Avery's house, we'd have to assume that they planted the bullet with the victim's DNA. Where did they get the victim's DNA? And if they planted her blood DNA on the bullet, why not plant the same in the garage which would have been the most damning physical evidence of all?

Look, I'm not saying anyone has all the answers (except for Avery). The reason police went to Brandon Dassey to interview him is that he told some relatives about the murder so the police were directed to Dassey. Dassey is intellectually challenged, to say the least. But he had details about the murder that only the murder would know. He knew how the body was disposed. He knew that she was cuffed in Avery's bedroom (Avery bought leg (?) cuffs before the murder). He knew that her phone and other personal belongings were dumped in the fire pit with the body and those items were there. He knew that tires and a cabinet were also placed in the fire (with the body) which they were. He said she was stabbed and then shot with the .22 rifle that Avery kept in his bedroom and a bullet, fired from that gun, with the victim's DNA, was found in the garage. He had bleach stains on his clothes and he mention that they cleaned the garage with bleach, gasoline and paint thinner (I think). He described how the car was initially "hidden" and how they placed items on top of the car to conceal it. He stated that Avery told him he was going to crush the car which is why Avery took it to his tow lot. He said Avery had a cut on his finger (in at least one interview he said it was from a struggle with Teresa Halbach) and police found Avery's blood in the car by the ignition. He said Avery popped the hood and police found Avery's DNA there. He described the victim's cloths.

So is it likely that police took all these details, decided which ones were accurate because he went back and forth on some details as the interviews progressed, and planted evidence in all the places that Dassey told them about to frame Avery? I guess that's what folks outside the judge and jury have to decide.

 

[Dodger12]

I'm not the one being sensitive here... I didn't agree with how you presented your "opinion," and I let you know about it. I wasn't being subtle about it either. But instead of recognizing how I was taking your posts and just correcting the "misunderstanding," you doubled down.

Don't hide behind decorum-whine. If you want a kindler, gentler DCU, then be clear in what you mean.

Listen, there was no misunderstanding. A disagreement, obviously. We're obviously on polar opposites of certain issues which, quite frankly, you should know better. If you don't like how I presented an opinion on an open forum, I could care less.