Grewks Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 What does everyone think about this? Looking over all the evidence, that which was featured and that which was not in the netflix serier, i'd like to think that the accused would have been found not guilty with the BARD Burden of Proof within this country. After..... Dropping their lead witness due to the fact his evidence would more likely lead to a not guilty verdict, The defence proving motive for a cover-up to occur, as well as proof that evidence has been tampered with (Blood vial from previous case had been opened). How was a verdict of guilty justified? All of the evidence was circumstancial, even the car key of the victim "only" had the fingerprints of the accused (How is that possible?). Remeber we are not asked to decide whether we 'think' the accused is guilty (Hence every trial begins with a little speech about discarding the accused's appearance etc), but whether the evidence proves they're....the evidence simply does not.
Guest Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 The fact that Manitowoc County were ordered not to be involved in the 2nd case and yet still continued to be heavily involved was key for me. How could they provide an unbiased investigation with a multi million dollar action being taken against them, and how was this not seen to jeopardise the impartiality of the case? Never mind the pre-trial media statements from Kratz and the brother who continued to make statements presuming guilt throughout. An excellent yet infuriating bit of telly
AndWhat? Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 Amazing series. No idea how the jury found him guilty. There were so many holes in the prosecutions case.
The Quick Brown Fox Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 Reading more about this case than was shown on the series has got me unsure. After watching the series I was sure he'd been stitched up. Now I don't know though. Something that sticks in my head and tells me he's innocent, is the fact that the cop called in the cars plates 2 days before it was found on his lot and 4 days after she'd gone missing. Reading that his ex said he threatened to kill her and saying that he'd get away with it too. This has me unsure. Still can't make my mind up.
Grewks Posted 1 February 2016 Author Posted 1 February 2016 It is bordering on insanity how a guilty verdict was given, maybe less so given how one juror said they felt threatened into giving a guilty verdict whilst another, who had to be replaced due to illness, claimed 7 of the jurors believed he was not guilty after early exchanges. Although, of course, editing of the T.V series can lead to important issues being missed. Every single witness for the prosection, from the local police officers on the case to the independant examiner responsible for analysing D.N.A being found on a bullet casing, were found to be unreliable. In fact, the prosecution only called 1 independant witness, and they avoided protocol to ensure they could return a verdict which would benefit the prosecution. In the U.K the case wouldn't have gone to trial so early with so little evidence.
AndWhat? Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 The thing that stands out the most for me is that they didn't find ANY of her DNA in the house what so ever, but they did find Avery's DNA which wouldn't have been possible if he had cleaned it all with bleach.
Grewks Posted 1 February 2016 Author Posted 1 February 2016 The thing that stands out the most for me is that they didn't find ANY of her DNA in the house what so ever, but they did find Avery's DNA which wouldn't have been possible if he had cleaned it all with bleach. It's even more amazing that on her car key, only Avery's DNA was found....How?
ramboacdc Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 brilliant documentary. works well and this thread proves how it gets people talking. the evidence not involved however does show a flip side to the coin. EDIT: further to this, some stuff however is unbelievable. 7 times to find a key?!
leicsmac Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 Is there a possibility that Avery was guilty of murder? Yes. Is the documentary slanted towards the defence? Yes. Is it possible that he was stitched up by the Manitowoc police department? Yes. Looking at the evidence and the trial, did the prosecution prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt? Hell no! There were any one of a number of reasons that cast the prosecution evidence into doubt enough to reach a not guilty verdict under the auspices of reasonable doubt, no matter how strong the rest of the (supposedly unseen) prosecution argument was. That it didn't, and the jury reached a guilty verdict in spite of that, speaks much more about jury intimidation by some of its members than the strength of the case itself, in my opinion. Miscarriage of justice.
Grewks Posted 1 February 2016 Author Posted 1 February 2016 The guy who p****d me off the most had to be the independant science guy who was responsible for explaining all of the science stuff. Kept going on about the 'poor police officer' and how it was so unfair to question their integrity and how it would impact their lives and their families and about how Avery was guilty.
Grewks Posted 1 February 2016 Author Posted 1 February 2016 Actually....How the hell did find him guilty of murder but not mutilating the corpse? The only evidence they had that suggested a murder took place was that the corpse was mutilated. So they believed he killled her but someone else mutilated the body? Ridiculous!
foxfanazer Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 Fantastic series. Never seen such an in depth and all access documentary. As for the case, I spent my whole time watching it thinking he's innocent but I'm not so sure on reflection. I think the flaws in the prosecutions iinvestigations instantly puts you on Stephen Avery's side. Either way there isn't enough evidence to send him down for it if you take away the planted keys and car. The amazing thing to me was the fact they totally ignored the fact that not one drop of blood was found from Theresa Halbach despite all the atrocities they accused him off. Oh and the Brendan Dassey interviews were unreal! Scary stuff 10/10 series
Rincewind Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 It seems they had decided his guilt before the trial. I think it was how one of the lawyers put it about the police officers. They did not go out deliberately to frame him but believed that he was guilty and knew there was not enough evidence so made sure that any evidence 'found' led to him. Don't forget their integrity and reputation had been put in doubt because of the previous case of which they still thought him guilty. They should have had an independent judge go over the evidence. Perhaps because he was not a rich man they thought that it would be easier to convict. All the credit to the lawyers for sticking behind him. It must have cost them quite a bit. They could have taken other cases on instead of pursuing the case after.
foxfanazer Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 Stephen Avery's lawyers were fantastic despite him losing his case
AndWhat? Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 Netflix need to pay Averys lawyers to carry on fighting the case and follow them around for season 2.
Grewks Posted 1 February 2016 Author Posted 1 February 2016 Stephen Avery's lawyers were fantastic despite him losing his case I agree....that's why i struggle to understand why at the beginning of the case 7 jurors were deciding he was not-guilty with a further 2 undecided. I would say, however, that the defence's prosecution of implying that Lieutenant Liek was responsible during their final statements, did weaken their defence.
foxfanazer Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 Netflix need to pay Averys lawyers to carry on fighting the case and follow them around for season 2.Could do a real life Prison Break
Grewks Posted 1 February 2016 Author Posted 1 February 2016 Netflix need to pay Averys lawyers to carry on fighting the case and follow them around for season 2. Avery already has arguably the most famous and successful lawyer in the U.S for overturning guilty verdicts, with the backing of their whole chicaigo firm. A state notorious for having the best lawyers in the country.
Grewks Posted 1 February 2016 Author Posted 1 February 2016 Also, the kid Brendad, should not have been tried as an adult. He had just confessed to the murder and rape of the victim....and he asked if he could go back to school.
Grewks Posted 1 February 2016 Author Posted 1 February 2016 Also....15 year old Kayla Avery, said that Brendan told her about what he had seen in the home of Steven Avery. They used this as evidence in the Brendan case.....so why didn't they use it in the Avery case?
ScouseFox Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 Also, the kid Brendad, should not have been tried as an adult. He had just confessed to the murder and rape of the victim....and he asked if he could go back to school. yeah something was wrong there. "are you ok" "no" "why not" "its wrestlemania on sunday and i dont want to miss it" you've just confessed to a crime that's gonna land you in jail forever wrestlemania ain't your biggest problem pal.
leicsmac Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 yeah something was wrong there. "are you ok" "no" "why not" "its wrestlemania on sunday and i dont want to miss it" you've just confessed to a crime that's gonna land you in jail forever wrestlemania ain't your biggest problem pal. That whole scene made my blood boil. Coercing a (probably) false confession out of a teenager with an IQ in the 70's who has next to no idea about what is going on. Dick move.
Rincewind Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 The judge should have halted the case long before the end but it seemed he was convinced of the guilt also. Was he a local/state judge?
jammie82uk Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 Everything listed so far amazed me in the trial also what amazed me as well was the case was moved to another place to avoid interference from Manitowoc county yet all members of the jury were from Manitowoc also in the judges ruling he based his sentencing on previous crimes that Stephen Avery had committed The thing that frustrated me as well was the prosecution insistence that Theresa Halbach had been inside Stephens place because a magazine and invoice was inside on his desk I know we didn't see everything in the series but enough was shown to cause serious doubts on whether he committed the crime or not
jammie82uk Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 brilliant documentary. works well and this thread proves how it gets people talking. the evidence not involved however does show a flip side to the coin. EDIT: further to this, some stuff however is unbelievable. 7 times to find a key?! Yeah what was also unbelievable was that The key was found by someone who shouldn't have even been there
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.