View Single Post
Old 01-04-2016, 11:00 AM   #39
Krovikan
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest View Post
I posted this earlier about documentaries of today and I think this applies here.

http://www.cracked.com/podcast/why-4...-full-s232125/
I really do not this really applies Morgan Spurlock is a modern day snake oil salesmen in my opinion and Michael Moore while starts discussions are insanely one sided and mostly propaganda that sometimes does a disservice to the conversation. US isn't the only one that has horribly bad documentaries as well within the first 15 minutes of The Hole Story I had to shut it off as their comments kept on making me say wait one second I'm pretty sure that is either wrong or misleading and every time I fact checked it, it was either misleading or wrong.

That said, I couldn't really find anything that was critical that was left our of the documentary. They didn't pain Steven Avery as a saint, in fact that they painted him from the start as someone who was consistently in trouble with the law and someone who seem to have really poor decisions making skills, for example responding to harassment by a family member by running her off the road. Steven Avery doesn't seem like a nice guy.

I don't even know if he killed her or not after the documentary is over; and I don't think the documentary set out to say that. The documentary set out to investigate a story and they found a disaster of an investigation.

As for Ken Kratz comments about them leaving things out, of course they did; however he doesn't provide any details about what was left out. His comments seem like more garbage to me. As for his legal issues being included I think this was important to include, it shows a pattern of unethical and illegal actions, and does make you question Kratz's statements and motives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Person View Post
I find that regardless of the verdict, this wasn't a fair trial at all. Ken Kratz's statement about "reasonable doubt is for innocent people" is incorrect, the point of reasonable doubt is that you have to prove that someone is more than 50% likely to have committed the crime in order to claim they're guilty (hence the "beyond a reasonable doubt".
During college had a business law course and they explained, over 50% is civil court, reasonable doubt it is 100% sure they did it.
Krovikan is offline   Reply With Quote