Making a Murderer

[Kevinicus]

Exactly.

In my opinion, you can tell a lot about a person based on their conclusions from this documentary. Right or left. I'm definitely a left leaning individual. Most on this board seem more right leaning.

I'd say more (on this topic) seem right/libertatian leaning to me. It's close though. But that's a whole other taboo issue.

 

[Nightman]

Who are JB and DS?

They are the filmmakers and of course they think he is innocent. That is why they went there to begin with but they can't separate the first case from the second case. They have invested 10 years into this story and are too close to be unbiased.

If you examine the evidence there should be no doubt of his guilt.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

They are the filmmakers and of course they think he is innocent. That is why they went there to begin with but they can't separate the first case from the second case. They have invested 10 years into this story and are too close to be unbiased.

If you examine the evidence there should be no doubt of his guilt.

no.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

Who are JB and DS?

Jerome Buting and Dean Strang...Avery's attorneys.

 

[jterrell]

Exactly.

In my opinion, you can tell a lot about a person based on their conclusions from this documentary. Right or left. I'm definitely a left leaning individual. Most on this board seem more right leaning.

cool story bro, except i am a card carrying liberal.
i just dislike animal abusers, rapists and murderers... first i have heard one must be a conservative to do so.

 

[jterrell]

Jerome Buting and Dean Strang...Avery's attorneys.

oh well if his attorneys say he is innocent my god he must be.

we have wandered off into lalaland in this thread now.
there were plenty of legal system issues here but you are very likely tilting at windmills trying to defend a murderer that has by his own voice doused a family pet in gasoline and tossed in in a fire then pulled a gun on his female cousin and assaulted both of his last (non-jailhouse) significant others.

this was an expose on a system being pretty screwed up... but none of that makes steven avery a good guy.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

oh well if his attorneys say he is innocent my god he must be.

did you read their quotes or are you just talking out of nowhere again?

 

[jterrell]

did you read their quotes or are you just talking out of nowhere again?

Yes, I did. The initials were used for two quotes.
In one a goofy lawyer claims no one but God knows... ignoring that Dassey stated he was there... VERY questionable but he did state that he saw her arrive and other things which are likely true even if some of the rest was insane made up police banter. Dassey told his mother he saw her arrive.
We also know her call log and that she arrived there then made no further calls.
If he was super-framed by a special alien being perhaps that dude was God or at least knows what happened?? One of the most meaningless quotes that could exist.


In the other the guy says no one can know 100%. So, uh, I agree. But reasonable doubt does not mean 100% irrefutable evidence.
It means the evidence is strong enough to make any reasonable person believe one is guilty. The evidence is very strong circumstantially and applies over time and with a myriad of people. MC had little to do with most of that. The stuff they touch is corrupted for sure but the car being on the property and the body being in the fire pit actually happened, that's not in question. --dude having rage issues with women and liking to burn things (like the family cat)... not in question. His specifically requesting her, did happen. Her quitting the job, was happening. His jail house letter telling his ex-wife he would KILL her exists and is signed by him. His ex-fiancee saying he strangled her unconscious and dragged her to a car is very real.

The documentary left out or glossed over enough key data that it is hard to feel it is any more accurate than the sad criminal justice system in rural Wisconsin.

But having family members and ex-fiancee's believe you are guilty is pretty telling of your character.

I welcome the continued digging here and absolutely believe a ton of people are incorrectly convicted.
But on that jury given ALL the data I have today... I vote Guilty.

 

[NextGenBoys]

I'd say more (on this topic) seem right/libertatian leaning to me. It's close though. But that's a whole other taboo issue.

We're in the off topic zone, is discussing political ideology ban worthy?

 

[NextGenBoys]

cool story bro, except i am a card carrying liberal.
i just dislike animal abusers, rapists and murderers... first i have heard one must be a conservative to do so.

If you're a liberal, I can't understand your way of thinking on this topic. He should def not be locked up for life.

 

[Kevinicus]

We're in the off topic zone, is discussing political ideology ban worthy?

politics are off limits in any zone.

 

[jterrell]

If you're a liberal, I can't understand your way of thinking on this topic. He should def not be locked up for life.

It's not complicated. I've spelled it over about 20 posts in this thread... I think he is guilty of murder.
Murderers may not all deserve severe sentences (extenuating circumstances do exist) but he is a career criminal found guilty of murder.
Life it is.

In Texas and many other states, he'd be on Death Row.
I don't think he should be given the court proceedings but a life sentence is exactly what I'd expect.
He has access to appeals and his story has been made as public as can be.
He's not some unknown victim hidden in the system.

 

[Nightman]

They are the filmmakers and of course they think he is innocent. That is why they went there to begin with but they can't separate the first case from the second case. They have invested 10 years into this story and are too close to be unbiased.

If you examine the evidence there should be no doubt of his guilt.

no.

Doesn't change my answer one bit.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

But reasonable doubt does not mean 100% irrefutable evidence.

I think some folks are confusing these two principles.

I was on a jury trial this past summer and that point was stressed... Beyond reasonable doubt is what the prosecution is striving for.

The percentage of cases where 100% irrefutable evidence exists are few and far between... especially in a murder investigation.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

I think some folks are confusing these two principles.

I was on a jury trial this past summer and that point was stressed... Beyond reasonable doubt is what the prosecution is striving for.

The percentage of cases where 100% irrefutable evidence exists are few and far between... especially in a murder investigation.

Sure...but I'd say few of us are confusing them.

Not a single drop of her blood recovered anywhere on his property is 100000000% not beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the exact definition of doubt.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

It's not complicated. I've spelled it over about 20 posts in this thread... I think he is guilty of murder.
Murderers may not all deserve severe sentences (extenuating circumstances do exist) but he is a career criminal found guilty of murder.
Life it is.

In Texas and many other states, he'd be on Death Row.
I don't think he should be given the court proceedings but a life sentence is exactly what I'd expect.
He has access to appeals and his story has been made as public as can be.
He's not some unknown victim hidden in the system.

7 people went to deliberation ready to vote not-guilty.

People dont just magically change their mind because they are behind closed doors.

Just like none of us in here have really changed each others minds.

AKA, the majority thought he should be free.

 

[Seven]

oh well if his attorneys say he is innocent my god he must be.

we have wandered off into lalaland in this thread now.
there were plenty of legal system issues here but you are very likely tilting at windmills trying to defend a murderer that has by his own voice doused a family pet in gasoline and tossed in in a fire then pulled a gun on his female cousin and assaulted both of his last (non-jailhouse) significant others.

this was an expose on a system being pretty screwed up... but none of that makes steven avery a good guy.

/end thread.

 

[BlindFaith]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...oys-prosecution-case-on-twitter-a6829741.html

It's on.

 

[BlindFaith]

http://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/Making-Murderer-Theories-39585210#photo-39585210

The first one is very interesting.

I don't believe Avery did it.

I don't necessarily believe the cops did it. I do believe they did frame him for it though.

So this is what we are supposed to believe.

Avery meets TH. She takes photos. (The car is seen driving away)
So either, 1. eyewitness testimony is false, she doesn't drive away, or 2. he somehow follows her in his car and tracks her down?

1a. He does what with her? Beats her up enough that she is bloody, throws her in the back of her own car (her blood found in the back of the car) and then does what? Pulls her right out again and takes her where? To his trailer or to the garage? So she is bloody already and there is no trace of blood anywhere on the road or leading up to his trailer or to the garage. Not a single spec? Even though there is blood all over the back of her car. And no blood is found anywhere inside his trailer or garage. Not a single spec.

1b. Or does he drive her somewhere else? Drives somewhere in her car with her in the back. Finds somewhere quiet and kills her? Why not just bury the body there? Why drag her back to his trailer and burn her? I mean come on, right next to his freaking house? How stupid would that be? Not to mention if he had shot her in the head there would be pools of her blood in the car. Not blood stains that were the result of a struggle.

1c. Now either way, he has her car. So instead of hiding it in any one of his storage sheds until morning and then crushing the car beyond recognition and placing somewhere amongst the thousands of other crushed up cars. He decides to simply stash it away from the other cars and throw some tree branches on it. Making sure that you can still identify exactly what kind of car it was. And then just leaves it there for a couple days.

2a. So if she did actually drive away as witnesses attested to, then he followed her. Caught up to her. Somehow got her to pull over. Beat her up. Threw her in the back of her car. Drove back to his house. Shot her. Burned her. Burried the remains. Drove her car to the not so hidden spot. Then walked back to wherever his car was. Then drove back to his place. All without leaving a trace of her blood anywhere in his car. Or anywhere else for that matter.

Doesn't add up one bit.

 

[Dodger12]

Sure...but I'd say few of us are confusing them.

Not a single drop of her blood recovered anywhere on his property is 100000000% not beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the exact definition of doubt.

Wait....are you trying to tell me the police planted evidence but didn't plant it in the most damning place which would solidify there case? Interesting......