Making a Murderer - NetFlix series

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by Locke

Agreed. It has to come down the evidence. Not hearsay and especially not persuasive oration and conjecture.

Right, just how Averys case came down to evidence? This is an internet forum I can speculate all I want this isn't legally binding, it was my initial reaction hence why I said I feel.

Don't care if you disagree. This isn't a public trial I'm not legally obligated to do anything, unlike say a policeman under oath.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by AcGold

Right, just how Averys case came down to evidence? This is an internet forum I can speculate all I want this isn't legally binding, it was my initial reaction hence why I said I feel.

Don't care if you disagree. This isn't a public trial I'm not legally obligated to do anything, unlike say a policeman under oath.

No thats completely true, I'm not saying that you're not entitled to your opinion or that you should be held to the same standard as an attorney or law enforcement just that theres been a ton of conjecture in this case already.

Really, in a lot of ways they convicted this man for a serious offence, locked him up and threw away the key, based on a lot of suspicion and conjecture.

And thats terrifying.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Locke

No thats completely true, I'm not saying that you're not entitled to your opinion or that you should be held to the same standard as an attorney or law enforcement just that theres been a ton of conjecture in this case already.

Really, in a lot of ways they convicted this man for a serious offence, locked him up and threw away the key, based on a lot of suspicion and conjecture.

And thats terrifying.

All because a family squabble turned into the biggest screw job in Wisconsin law enforcement history. That's even worse.

A smarter man would've skipped town once freed, why put up with any more of the crap. If anything, I blame Avery for not taking the smarter path to live out the rest of his life. He set himself up for doom the second he refused to leave town. If you know the entire counties law makers have it out for you, why stay?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I'm 6 episodes in. I haven't fully formed my opinions on the case.

I did want to clarify something.

Not-Guilty and Innocent are NOT the same thing.

Not-Guilty means that you were not found beyond reasonable doubt to have done an alleged something.

Innocent means you didn't do the alleged something.

It's possible that Steve Avery killed the victim, but the police department fracked up the investigation so bad that there is reasonable doubt.


Additionally. Are these judges elected? The concept of electing judges boggles my mind, but I know in the States some are. I also find it strange that the justice system is set up in a left and right leaning way. Republican judges and Demoncrat judges and not a "the law is the law" sort of way which we strive for here in Canada. (Not saying out system is perfect by any means).



I'll finish on this note. I once had a professor tell the class that the easiest conviction to get is murder. It's almost as if the standard is lowered because people want "the killer" found and behind bars.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Like a few have mentioned, prosecutors argued that she was killed in the garage. No blood in the garage, so obviously he would have had to do an incredible job cleaning up. But then he forgets or doesn't clean up the couple drops of blood in the rav 4?

I think he did it, but I also think the cops did some evidence tampering because they knew he did it and wanted it to stick.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Just finished episode 4 where it was hinted, or rather blatantly stated, that the blood vial from his 1985 trial was tampered with. Presumably by the crooked ass Sheriff and his cronies.

I'm at a loss for words. Not to mention the scene earlier in the episode where Brendan's lawyer, who is incompetent by the way thank God he got let go, actually hired an investigator who coerced Brendan into drawing those pictures of the murder.

The sheer number of incompetent people from police, sheriffs, investigators, judges, defence lawyers who were involved to convict clearly innocent people is mind blowing. And yes I think Steve is innocent. Hold on I take back incompetent. Incompetent implies ignorance. These people were willfully and knowingly screwing Steve but especially Brenden.

I'm afraid to watch the remaining episodes lest I lose my mind. Hard to imagine how many other innocent people are in jail in similar type situations.

[Methanolic]

Avery files New "Wide Ranging" Appeal

"The appeal, filed Monday in an appeals court in Madison, bears Avery's signature and contains numerous spelling and grammar errors. His new attorney's name doesn't appear on it."


http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/steven-a...peal-1.3401052

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Methanolic

Avery files New "Wide Ranging" Appeal

"The appeal, filed Monday in an appeals court in Madison, bears Avery's signature and contains numerous spelling and grammar errors. His new attorney's name doesn't appear on it."


http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/steven-a...peal-1.3401052

He also said Judge Angela W. Sutkiewicz made misleading statements and that his lawyers were ineffective.

Careful about burning those bridges, Steven. You don't have very many left to cross.

I thought Strang and Buting were very effective (given the portrayal), but the justice system failed them all.

[GreenLantern]

Ya I agree, I thought his lawyers did the best job they could given the evidence they were up against. They exposed a lot, but apparently not enough.

[Locke]

Yeah, Strang and Buting were great but from what I understand this appeal is a carpet-bomb. You've got to hit every button in hopes of getting a new trial and claiming ineffective counsel is one of the better ways of doing that.

Its nothing personal.

[Komskies]

Technically they were ineffective as he believes he is innocent and they weren't able to get him that verdict.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah, Strang and Buting were great but from what I understand this appeal is a carpet-bomb. You've got to hit every button in hopes of getting a new trial and claiming ineffective counsel is one of the better ways of doing that.

Its nothing personal.

I've been involved in a few appeal trials, and it's very common to attempt to appeal on every potential ground available and then later narrow things down. It's pretty difficult to prove "ineffective counsel". You have to have some pretty egregious errors from your counsel.

It should be clarified here, that Avery is only filing for leave to appeal at this point. He still needs to be granted leave before any appeals go on.

It also looks like Avery is filing the appeal without any assistance from lawyers:

The appeal, filed Monday in an appeals court in Madison, bears Avery's signature and contains numerous spelling and grammar errors. His new attorney's name doesn't appear on it.

He's also, however, retained a new lawyer. The appeal is a little weird.

[normtwofinger]

Doubt = Not guilty. How can jurors sit through those trials and be completely convinced they both are guilty? I couldn't.

Also you slit someone's throat on a bed and there's no blood to be found on the mattress?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by normtwofinger

Doubt = Not guilty. How can jurors sit through those trials and be completely convinced they both are guilty? I couldn't.

Also you slit someone's throat on a bed and there's no blood to be found on the mattress?

Or the pillow. Or the floors or carpet. Or the walls. Wheres the knife?

Oh yeah, and she was shot in the garage! Or her throat was slit in the bedroom? Which was it?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Locke

Or the pillow. Or the floors or carpet. Or the walls. Wheres the knife?

Oh yeah, and she was shot in the garage! Or her throat was slit in the bedroom? Which was it?

Apparently, Brendan and Avery were incapable of slitting her throat properly. This was despite Avery having lots of hunting experience. They then dragged her from a bedroom to the garage, with a partially cut throat and stab wounds, and managed to not leave a trace of blood anywhere in the house.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

Apparently, Brendan and Avery were incapable of slitting her throat properly. This was despite Avery having lots of hunting experience. They then dragged her from a bedroom to the garage, with a partially cut throat and stab wounds, and managed to not leave a trace of blood anywhere in the house.

Yeah the 'simpleton from rural Wisconsin schtick' is just an act, hes actually a criminal mastermind to rival Moriarty!

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Komskies

Technically they were ineffective as he believes he is innocent and they weren't able to get him that verdict.

Good point, but it seems like an odd complaint to make in the appeal. Basically equates to "my lawyer(s) didn't win, so..."

Another thing that bothers me, that I believe has already been brought up in this thread, is the contradictory convictions. Found guilty on first-degree murder, but not for mutilating a corpse. However, in order for you to believe the prosecution to the point that eliminates all doubt in their theory, then you have to...HAVE TO...convict on the mutilation of corpse charge. That is the basis of the murder charge (Dassey's confession that led to the theory of torture, murder, and dismemberment). You can't have it both ways.

As soon as the jury announced their decision it should have immediately been called a mistrial.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Yamer

Careful about burning those bridges, Steven. You don't have very many left to cross.

I thought Strang and Buting were very effective (given the portrayal), but the justice system failed them all.

These must be his more recent court appointed lawyers for the appeals he filed, since the Judge named is not Judge Patrick Willis, who presided over his trial.

[calf]

He left the Rav 4 right near the car crusher that he was operating earlier that day!!

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

These must be his more recent court appointed lawyers for the appeals he filed, since the Judge named is not Judge Patrick Willis, who presided over his trial.

Never even thought of that.