Printable View
In my experience this is simply not true. I'm sure there's d-bags in most offices, including DAs, but most are good people doing good things. This DA was FOR SURE though.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaky fossil
As for this series, I think SA did it...And should not have been convicted. The BA sub-story made me sad...that kid got fucked. And for the Wisconsin supreme to refuse to hear it...that's BS of the highest order.
Gut and not necessarily a 'conclusion'... I think it's plausible he was totally framed, but probable that he did it and the cops made sure he went away.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDon
I think the guys moral compass spins like a top... which is sad, and unfortunate.
Gut feeling ≠ beyond a reasonable doubt
I'm not saying it is. I think the process failed him (Steven) and was totally fucked up for the kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Steve
I'm sure there are other examples, but was blown away that evidence garnered by actions that can get your public defender fired from your case end up still admissible was a shock.
Based on what I've watched and read I'd probably acquit b/c of 'reasonable' doubt.
https://twitter.com/tometrics/status/686561339838365696
The scotch tape and tiny syringe hole in the blood sample tube lid are pretty damning. There are at least 10 things that should have made this case be dropped.
Right. But was the body not dismantled, thrown into a fire, and ultimately mutilated? Just seems reasonable if you're going to convict a guy for doing the murder that you'd follow through with the handling of the body too. Big inconsistency, regardless of Dasseys testimony.Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronWright
Pretty fucking damning. Regardless if he did it or not, that pretty much plants reasonable doubt on the only physical evidence that links him to the crime. Same with the key thats been scrubbed clean of everything but his DNA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski to Be
And fuck... Dassey is painful to watch. Full stupid mode engaged.
And can we have an IQ test for jurors? God forbid I ever be brought to trial and have to put my fate in the hands of a bunch of morons that dwell in a world of Kardashian and other dumbfuckery.
I can't get over Colborn calling Halbach's license plate/vehicle in, even though he claims he didn't see it. He just called it in from memory for no reason? Am I missing something?
And then there is this:
http://decider.com/2016/01/14/making...s-nancy-grace/
Quote:
‘Because he threatened to kill me and my family and a friend of mine.’
Basically hearsay. Nancy Grace thinks everyone is guilty. I don't know either way but regardless the case was extremely tainted.
Very few people that threaten to kill someone or inflict domestic abuse are or become murderers. And it hasn't even been confirmed and she's made completely contradictory comments. Wonder what she got paid for that interview.
Again, I think he got railroaded (Steven)... but he was pretty effed in the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindahl
She ends up just disappearing half way through the series when they cut off her contact... she really didn't fight for it.... that was telling. Even if you take what she said at 50% of face value it still tells me he would be capable.... And again, If I were on the jury I'd look at shit like the vile of blood and the lack of blood in the garage and who found the key and find most of the state's witnesses non-credible.
Wasn't there a no contact order drawn up as part of her probation? Pretty sure thats why she disappeared.
Holy shit, Lindahl's not just an expert on MTBs and skis, but also on teevee, fiction, writing, plot development, and hollywood gossip.
Forget Joe Biden. Brian Lindahl can cure cancer with one flick of a booger from his nose.
We just finished watching. A very immersive series that has the internet lynch mob in full effect.
A few thoughts:
The entire Avery family is dumb as a sack of bricks. That's not illegal, but holy shit, that certainly didn't help the case. Brendon was all over the map. Bobby and Scott testify against Steve. Barb was an emotional train wreck. Steve's girlfriends and ex were all batshit crazy. Kayla lies on the stand.
If this was a conspiracy theory that involved several parties, was it really to avoid a potential $35m lawsuit? Say Avery wins that case, what does that mean for the county? Do they go bankrupt? Is it worth killing Halbach, framing Avery, having a ridiculously public and costly trial afterwards in efforts to avoid the lawsuit? I say nope. This doesn't even account to how Brendon fits into the conspiracy.
If there's one thing to take away, it's how often law enforcement continued to deviate from SOP in their investigation. It has nothing to do with if Avery did it. Improper logs, changing testimony, the DNA test commotion, Colburn's failure to report the detective report years back, the broken evidence tape, continued involvement by Manitowoc, etc. If this is fairly common in police investigation, there lies the problem.
Checkout my bro's Op-Ed in the Washington Post about the lessons we can learn from this series: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...18d_story.html
"Millions of people are talking about this documentary now, but discussion is not enough. We need to take a hard look at our criminal justice system — a much harder look than a 10-episode documentary allows.
"We can and must, for example, change the way police collect eyewitness identification evidence — as many departments are beginning to do — to eliminate suggestion by law enforcement and comply with science-based best practices. We must mandate that all law-enforcement agencies record interrogations and that police change interrogation practices so they are less coercive, suggestive and presumptive of guilt. We must ensure that the forensic disciplines we rely on are based on science and that forensic analysts are shielded from biasing information and allegiances that can taint their analyses. We must ensure that the use of incentivized witnesses is regulated and that promises of leniency in exchange for testimony are disclosed to the defense. We must ensure that we provide adequate financial support for prosecutors and defense lawyers alike, so that prosecutors can adequately screen cases and that competent defense lawyers can present vigorous defenses. We must expand criminal discovery — the process by which the parties share evidence before trial — to avoid trial by ambush, and then we must hold state officials accountable when they conceal evidence pointing to a defendant’s innocence. We must make the system more responsive to post-conviction claims of injustice and less bound by blind obedience to finality."
This too blew me away. The direct questioning and his responses. Why, for any reason, would a cop call in a plate number to identify a vehicle if he wasn't looking at the car? He provided the number to dispatch, did he just randomly remember the number and decide to call in for no reason like he said? This was one of the most damning and obvious things that made me believe there was a police conspiracy to frame Avery, whether he did it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapp
Seems thoughtful, but the author is talking down to the viewers of the series, like everyone who watched the show has been led to believe they were innocent. I don't know if Avery killed Halbech but I do think he deserves a new trial. Also she talks about the moral implications of making a spectacle of violent crimes and it's victims. Why is she even writing the piece if she thinks this? It just adds to the spectacle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lev
The author, who appears to have zero legal training, misses the mark with this concluding statement:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lev
She erroneously turns the process on its head. In a criminal action, the prosecutor has the burden of poof, and it is a high one: reasonable doubt. The prosecution is required to prove guilt by such standard, but the defense is not required to prove innocence. It is beyond question that the prosecutor and the cops had "unwarranted certitude," but IMV the documentary did not portray that Steve Avery's attorneys had an absolute belief of SA's innocence. Good criminal defense attorneys don't think that way. (Indeed, in E10, Strang said that part of him "hopes that Steve Avery actually committed the crime.")Quote:
Toward the end of the series, Dean Strang, Steven Avery’s defense lawyer, notes that most of the problems in the criminal-justice system stem from “unwarranted certitude”—what he calls “a tragic lack of humility of everyone who participates.”Ultimately, “Making a Murderer” shares that flaw; it does not challenge our yearning for certainty or do the difficult work of helping to foster humility. Instead, it swaps one absolute for another—and, in doing so, comes to resemble the system it seeks to correct.
Instead, the film revealed many irregularities and lots of circumstantial evidence suggesting that SA was framed. Hell, as evinced by this thread, many viewers walked away with the notion that the cops may well have framed a guilty man.
And the author glosses over Brendan Dassey's confession and the larger issue that many are rotting in prison based on false confessions extracted via manipulation and deception, e.g., the Central Park Five and thousands of others about whom there is not documentary.
Late to the party and already knew the outcome. Wasn't super interested in it but ran out of shit to watch on Netflix. Only 20min into episode 5 right now and Ho. Lee. Fuck. I have no faith in our court system, fucking sad.
That said I echo basically everyone here in that he probably had some play in it, but to lose that case on a reasonable doubt is insane.
Oh and FUCK THA POLICE
Couple of observations as we sit down to watch episode 10.
1. Seems like there should be a little more to Avery getting 38 years for the sex assault in the 80's. Seems pretty steep unless he had a prior record or a completely terrible defense.
2. The DA Kratz looks and sounds like Janet Reno. I tried to post pictures of them side by side but was defeated by the TGR. I wonder if they've ever been seen in the same room?
I was riding my moto around Wisconsin last weekend dodging storms on an afternoon of pop-up scattered thunderstorms, aimless of final destination, letting the Gods lead me to a day of adventure. I got pushed south and East of Green Bay, and decided to ride out to Avery’s. That area is indeed creepy, with dark shady hollows, farmland giving way to thick hilly forest, a kind of insular provincial feel with a lot of hard, hollow-eyed stares from random roadside folk on porches and outside the bar in Michicot. I didn’t go all the way in because the Avery road sign is gone and the sign for the business is also no longer out on hwy 147, leading me to suspect the family isn’t interested in somebody like me riding in there just to look around.
I got a good immersive feel for the area though, and now it’s especially easy for me to understand how more-urban/suburban Manitowoc or Appleton or Green Bay locals would have harbored a kind of unspecific nervousness about that part of the county, and also (now that I try to write this) how the overall sense you get from being someplace can be difficult to adequately relate. It reminded me of an area of far-southern Ohio I got the creeps traveling through, an area where I later learned they were in the midst of extremely severe heroin and meth problems.
It reminded me of a creepy spot near where I grew up that I pointed out to my wife when we drove past it this spring. She didn’t get it and wanted to drive in and see what I meant, so I drove us into this creepy old road and as it narrowed and narrowed toward the bridge-out at the end, we ended up getting boxed in by a shitty old car driven by a probable meth cooker who had followed us in there with a shotgun….and having to very carefully talk our way out.
Something is off out there, the setting, the people…the well water(?). I was happy to point it the other direction and glad I didn’t get a flat tire or run out of gas.