Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 16, 2018, 01:29:48 pm
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News: Brian Fein is now blogging weekly!  Make sure to check the homepage for his latest editorial.
+  The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums
|-+  TDMMC Forums
| |-+  Off-Topic Board
| | |-+  Making a Murderer
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Making a Murderer  (Read 119 times)
Pappy13
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 6287



« on: September 13, 2018, 05:18:40 pm »

All this talk of the Dallas cop got me to thinking of the netflix series about Steven Avery. Have any of you watched this documentary? If so, what did you think? Did you think the police convicted the correct man or do you think he was setup? Something else?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_a_Murderer

I watched this documentary after my kids told me to watch it. I came away with a very different opinion then they did. I'm curious if any of the rest of you have seen it and what your opinion is.
Logged

That which does not kill me...gives me XP.
Dave Gray
Administrator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 26371


It's doo-doo, baby!

26384964 davebgray@comcast.net davebgray floridadavegray
WWW Email
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2018, 11:48:47 am »

I watched it.

I think that the person Steven Avery is a shitty person.  And he may have been involved in that woman's death.  But judging on the documentary, there isn't evidence to support the story or timeline presented by the authorities.  Also, there are other potential suspects that were not gone after.  The cops wanted Avery for this, so they made it happen.

I also believe that the kid Brandon was coaxed into his confession and isn't mentally competent enough to use any testimony.  When he admits to murdering the girl and then asks when he gets to go home because Wrestlemania is on, I think it really shows you that he didn't know what was going on and was just saying whatever he had to in order to leave the room.

The cops are bad people.  Especially the lead investigator and prosecutor.  And the Averys are bad people, too.  ...but probably not bad people with enough evidence to convict for murder.
Logged

I drink your milkshake!
Pappy13
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 6287



« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2018, 01:35:33 pm »

I agree with you on his nephew, it was really hard to determine what if anything his testimony meant. I don't know if you have followed, but his conviction was overturned on appeal and then went to the supreme court who overturned the appeals court and reinstated the conviction on a 4-3 vote. I don't know whether he was involved in her death or not. I did get the feeling that he saw the woman alive in Avery's house prior to her death. That much of his testimony didn't require much if any coaxing from the investigators, it was only after they pressed him that he said that he helped kill her.

I also agree with you on Avery that he's a bad person. However I disagree that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him or that the investigators just wanted him for this crime. Certainly they didn't like Avery, but all the evidence pointed to him. I don't remember there being any credible evidence for any other suspect other then the nephew. The defense tried a LOT of different approaches to discredit the investigation but they never presented ANY kind of comprehensive alternate theory on how she was murdered. They merely said that it wasn't Avery and that he was framed by the investigators, but they didn't even have a theory on how he was framed, just that he was. The idea that they put forth about the blood turned out to be disproved. They never had an explanation of how her car ended up on his lot with his blood in it. Remember that the car was not found by the detectives or police it was found by a relative of the deceased who was looking for the woman and knew that was one of the last places she had been known to have been. They didn't have any kind of explanation for how her remains got on his property, they said they could have been moved, but from where? Who killed her? How did the investigators obtain her remains to place it on his property? It didn't make any sense unless they were suggesting the police had killed the woman and then planted both the car and her remains on his property hoping that someone would find it? C'mon man.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2018, 01:58:13 pm by Pappy13 » Logged

That which does not kill me...gives me XP.
Dave Gray
Administrator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 26371


It's doo-doo, baby!

26384964 davebgray@comcast.net davebgray floridadavegray
WWW Email
« Reply #3 on: September 14, 2018, 02:31:47 pm »

I agree with you on his nephew, it was really hard to determine what if anything his testimony meant. I don't know if you have followed, but his conviction was overturned on appeal and then went to the supreme court who overturned the appeals court and reinstated the conviction on a 4-3 vote. I don't know whether he was involved in her death or not. I did get the feeling that he saw the woman alive in Avery's house prior to her death. That much of his testimony didn't require much if any coaxing from the investigators, it was only after they pressed him that he said that he helped kill her.

I also agree with you on Avery that he's a bad person. However I disagree that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him or that the investigators just wanted him for this crime. Certainly they didn't like Avery, but all the evidence pointed to him. I don't remember there being any credible evidence for any other suspect other then the nephew. The defense tried a LOT of different approaches to discredit the investigation but they never presented ANY kind of comprehensive alternate theory on how she was murdered. They merely said that it wasn't Avery and that he was framed by the investigators, but they didn't even have a theory on how he was framed, just that he was. The idea that they put forth about the blood turned out to be disproved. They never had an explanation of how her car ended up on his lot with his blood in it. Remember that the car was not found by the detectives or police it was found by a relative of the deceased who was looking for the woman and knew that was one of the last places she had been known to have been. They didn't have any kind of explanation for how her remains got on his property, they said they could have been moved, but from where? Who killed her? How did the investigators obtain her remains to place it on his property? It didn't make any sense unless they were suggesting the police had killed the woman and then planted both the car and her remains on his property hoping that someone would find it? C'mon man.

It's been a while since I've seen it, but there was one super red flag for me that involved the police calling in the license plate of the missing girl.  That's very plausible that they put the car in his lot to get the conviction.

But also, you said something very important:

"They never had an explanation of how her car ended up on his lot with his blood in it."

And they don't have to.  It's not supposed to be a defenses job to explain how a crime happened.  The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and in my opinion, that burden was not met, specifically when there is enough evidence to suggest the police have a vested interested in prosecuting the man and they had some involvement with the evidence, as evidenced by the dispatcher calling in the license plate.
Logged

I drink your milkshake!
Pappy13
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 6287



« Reply #4 on: September 14, 2018, 04:23:20 pm »

It's been a while since I've seen it, but there was one super red flag for me that involved the police calling in the license plate of the missing girl.  That's very plausible that they put the car in his lot to get the conviction.
Here's the problem I have with the police planting the car there. At the time the car was found, she was only a missing person and had only been missing a couple days if I have the timeline right. The Police did NOT find the car on Avery's lot. The victim had been missing a couple days and a relative or friend of a relative or something like that went looking for her car and one of the places they looked was in the lot. The victim had an appointment to see Avery that day and she had spoken with someone on the phone just prior to meeting him telling them she was about to see Avery. She never used her phone again after that call. She never used a credit card again after that call. She was never heard from again after that phone call and the very next person she was supposed to meet was Avery. The Police were NOT looking for her or her car at that time, but this person was and the place they started looking was in the last known place where she was. They found the car on his lot and called it into police. That's the first time the police knew anything about the case. So what you are saying is that somehow the police found out she was dead (or I guess contributed to her death) and didn't report it but instead took her car to Avery's lot and put it there to frame Avery HOPING that someone would start looking for her and would just happen to look there. You're buying that as plausible? I'm not.

"They never had an explanation of how her car ended up on his lot with his blood in it."

And they don't have to.  It's not supposed to be a defenses job to explain how a crime happened. 
I agree but when your defense is "Nuh-uh" that's not exactly going to put doubt in my mind that you may not have had something to do with the persons death when the victims car ends up on your lot. If he didn't kill her then there should be a reasonable explanation how her car ended up on his lot. It's not encumbent upon the defense to give one, but it sure does help put reasonable doubt in my mind if you do. They couldn't do it because they didn't have one. She was last seen talking with Avery. She had an appointment with Avery. No one ever saw or heard from her again after meeting Avery and then her car ends up on his lot with his blood inside the vehicle. And you just pass this off as not being much evidence? The only explanation the defense gave was the vehicle was planted there, but I just explained that it wouldn't have been possible for them to plant the car there because they didn't even know she was dead at the time. No one knew that. She was just missing and the police had no way of knowing that the last person she met before she went missing was Avery.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and in my opinion, that burden was not met, specifically when there is enough evidence to suggest the police have a vested interested in prosecuting the man and they had some involvement with the evidence, as evidenced by the dispatcher calling in the license plate.
I'm not sure where you are going with this. The relative found the car and called the police and told them she had found the car of her missing relative and the police investigated. The dispatcher called in the license plate because the relative told her that the owner was missing. I fail to see how this implicates the police in anything. On the contrary this puts much doubt into the suggestion by Avery that the car was planted there by the Police.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2018, 04:45:51 pm by Pappy13 » Logged

That which does not kill me...gives me XP.
Dave Gray
Administrator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 26371


It's doo-doo, baby!

26384964 davebgray@comcast.net davebgray floridadavegray
WWW Email
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2018, 02:11:39 pm »

I'm not sure where you are going with this. The relative found the car and called the police and told them she had found the car of her missing relative and the police investigated. The dispatcher called in the license plate because the relative told her that the owner was missing. I fail to see how this implicates the police in anything. On the contrary this puts much doubt into the suggestion by Avery that the car was planted there by the Police.

I think I'm misunderstood.  I'm not saying that it implicates the police.  I'm saying that in a court of law, the burden is supposed to lie on the prosecution.  So, "well, if he didn't do it, then who did?" should mean absolutely nothing.  It's not Steven Avery's job to have to implicate the police.

There is enough shenangian-like evidence that introduces enough doubt for me not to put a man in jail forever for this.  No tears lost, because I still think that Avery is a scummy human-being. 

And of course, this is all with the caveat that I might not have all the facts.  I wasn't on the jury and I'm only going by the Netflix version of events.  But if these events are the correct version of the story, I would acquit certainly Brandon, but probably also Steven.
Logged

I drink your milkshake!
Pappy13
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 6287



« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2018, 04:48:28 pm »

I think I'm misunderstood.  I'm not saying that it implicates the police.  I'm saying that in a court of law, the burden is supposed to lie on the prosecution.  So, "well, if he didn't do it, then who did?" should mean absolutely nothing.  It's not Steven Avery's job to have to implicate the police.
No, I think I understand where you are coming from exactly Dave. You are saying it's not incumbent upon the defense to prove someone OTHER than Avery did it which I agree, however it is incumbent upon them to provide reasonable doubt that he did it. Saying "I didn't do it", is not much of a defense. When the prosecution presents evidence that the victim's car was found on your property with your blood in it and your explanation is "The police planted the car and the blood" without ANYTHING to back up that claim, that's a WEAK defense. That's all I'm saying. The defense made a big deal about the vile of Avery's blood that the police had saying that was used to plant the blood evidence however they totally botched that because there's a chemical that was placed in the vile of Avery's blood to preserve it and when the blood found in the car was tested for that chemical it was not found meaning the blood in the car didn't come from the vile of blood in the police' posession. The defense was counting on this being a major point and it totally backfired on them when the prosecution presented the evidence.

And of course, this is all with the caveat that I might not have all the facts.  I wasn't on the jury and I'm only going by the Netflix version of events.  But if these events are the correct version of the story, I would acquit certainly Brandon, but probably also Steven.
Yeah there were claims that the Netflix version is pretty one sided and there was a lot of additional evidence presented that was not covered, but I found just the evidence that was presented in the Netflix version to be more than sufficient to convict. On the contrary I found the defense's case EXTREMELY weak.  It's not enough to claim the police set you up without showing some evidence that's the case. Their evidence the police were complicit basically boiled down to "Avery had filed a case against them so they had it in for him". OK, so where's the evidence of that? The case Avery had filed against the police force by the way was pretty weak. Basically it boiled down to "They got the wrong man so obviously they set me up". Again this is pretty weak. It's merely an accusation with little proof that it was true. The only thing true about it is that yes they convicted the wrong man of the crime. Doesn't mean they had it in for him though. The prosecution merely presented the evidence at trial and the jury convicted him. So they got it wrong. It happens. Doesn't mean that he was setup by the police force. There was no evidence they did anything wrong in the first trial except perhaps not following up thoroughly enough on the man who later found to have done the crime who was a suspect I believe. So if there was little merit to the case that Avery had against the police there's little reason for the police to really want to setup Avery. Again, it's all just supposition without any real evidence to back up the claim. If you think that's enough of a defense, then I completely disagree with you. Heck even Avery's own defense team said they basically blew it.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2018, 05:08:08 pm by Pappy13 » Logged

That which does not kill me...gives me XP.
Dave Gray
Administrator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 26371


It's doo-doo, baby!

26384964 davebgray@comcast.net davebgray floridadavegray
WWW Email
« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2018, 09:25:36 am »

Are you thinking that Avery is guilty or not?  I'm a little confused by this:

Quote
The only thing true about it is that yes they convicted the wrong man of the crime.

Also, I think that, more than anything, this shows a flaw in our justice system, which is that it's the job of the prosecution to prosecute.  They're are trying to prove the person is guilty even if the facts don't line up that way.  It's their job to make them seem guilty.  And they have a close relationship with police, so while I'd like for detectives and police to earnestly try to figure out what happened, instead, sometimes (not always, of course), police are trying to collect evidence to form a case against someone.  This appears to be what happened here.

The bottom line for me is that there are enough strange, fishy circumstances (the greatest one being the "coincidence?" of the cop reporting her car) that just raise too much WTF to be credible.  It's hard for me to have a fair back and forth, though, since it's been a good while since I've seen it.

I do want to highly recommend something to you.  There's a podcast called "SERIAL".  Listen to season 1.  You will be hooked after the first episode.  It is a case, kinda like this, except in the case of the Avery family, everyone involved is a scumbag and nobody is really all that credible on any side, IMO.  With serial, everyone is.  The guilty party is really likable and believable, but so are the other parties too.  It's definitely worth checking out.
Logged

I drink your milkshake!
Pappy13
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 6287



« Reply #8 on: September 18, 2018, 02:47:45 pm »

Are you thinking that Avery is guilty or not?  I'm a little confused by this:
I was referring to his first conviction. He was convicted once for rape and then cleared by DNA after spending several years in jail. Obviously he was not guilty of that crime. That's what the lawsuit that he had pending against the police force was about. In the lawsuit he claimed that the police purposely convicted the wrong man. I think he is guilty of the murder charge that he's currently serving time for.

Also, I think that, more than anything, this shows a flaw in our justice system, which is that it's the job of the prosecution to prosecute. They're are trying to prove the person is guilty even if the facts don't line up that way.  It's their job to make them seem guilty.  And they have a close relationship with police, so while I'd like for detectives and police to earnestly try to figure out what happened, instead, sometimes (not always, of course), police are trying to collect evidence to form a case against someone.
That's not a flaw, the defenses job is to defend their client (regardless of whether they think he is guilty or not). That's how you get a fair trial or at least that's the idea. The problem is that there's no guarantee that the defense team will be as qualified/proficient as the prosecution or vice versa and perhaps that may have been part of the problem with Avery's first and potentially 2nd trial. At least for the first trial Avery had a pretty solid alibi, but he still ended up being convicted by a jury. Not sure exactly how that happens, but it did. Maybe that one was on the jury as that also can be a problem since just because it's supposed to be a jury of your peers, is it really? I don't really know enough about that case for sure to make a determination.

The bottom line for me is that there are enough strange, fishy circumstances (the greatest one being the "coincidence?" of the cop reporting her car)
You're going to have to explain this one to me because you have mentioned this twice now and I truly have no clue what you are talking about. The cops did NOT find her car, someone else did and called it into the police. What are you talking about?

I do want to highly recommend something to you.  There's a podcast called "SERIAL".  Listen to season 1.  You will be hooked after the first episode.  It is a case, kinda like this, except in the case of the Avery family, everyone involved is a scumbag and nobody is really all that credible on any side, IMO.  With serial, everyone is.  The guilty party is really likable and believable, but so are the other parties too.  It's definitely worth checking out.
I'll check it out. I love court stuff. I remember once when I was like 10 or something my mother worked for the local newspaper and I went with her to a trial for something or other and was fascinated with the whole process. Now it's nothing like you see on TV, but fascinating none the less.
Logged

That which does not kill me...gives me XP.
Dave Gray
Administrator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 26371


It's doo-doo, baby!

26384964 davebgray@comcast.net davebgray floridadavegray
WWW Email
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2018, 12:05:26 pm »

You're going to have to explain this one to me because you have mentioned this twice now and I truly have no clue what you are talking about. The cops did NOT find her car, someone else did and called it into the police. What are you talking about?

That's the thing -- I don't really remember, since it's been so long.  As back as I can recall, there was something fishy about the police having had the car called in and either they had access to the vehicle or there was no follow up...something was weird.  But I don't really want to defend that, since I don't remember the facts.  I just remember feeling particularly uncomfortable about that specific piece of evidence.

But yeah, definitely listen to Serial -- season 1.  I'd be interested to hear your take on it.  I guarantee it will hook you immediately.
Logged

I drink your milkshake!
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

The Dolphins Make Me Cry - Copyright© 2008 - Designed and Marketed by Dave Gray


Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC