leicsmac Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 Also, though I can understand his anger and grief (and I'm not sure I wouldn't respond in the same way in the same situation) the smugness and misplaced certainty of Halbach's brother when asked about the case was pretty awful. It seemed pretty clear that he wanted someone, anyone, to be sent away for it out of desire for vengeance, and he didn't really mind who it might be and whether or not due process was followed to convict them.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 So many things that angered me about this. One of the worst has to have been that slimy ginger ladder climber appointed to represent the backwards kid . He so clearly couldn't care less about anything other than his own career and was actively working against the best interests of his client throughout. I got the impression he didn't give a monkeys whether he was guilty/innocent he just wanted to be seen to have played his part in bringing about the 'right' outcome as far as the establishment was concerned. He told so many bare-faced lies and walked around with that sickly grin on his face, seemingly content in the knowledge that he was complicit it getting that poor boy sent down for decades. Then there was the judge who said he could stay on as the attorney....wtf. The whole thing beggared belief but at the same time was no surprise at all.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 Also, though I can understand his anger and grief (and I'm not sure I wouldn't respond in the same way in the same situation) the smugness and misplaced certainty of Halbach's brother when asked about the case was pretty awful. It seemed pretty clear that he wanted someone, anyone, to be sent away for it out of desire for vengeance, and he didn't really mind who it might be and whether or not due process was followed to convict them. There was something not at all right about that guy. What kind of weirdo brother in his 20s has his sister's voicemail password? And would any right-minded individual proceed to delete messages from her phone if they suspected some evil had befallen her. Didn't he also lie about having done this as well until that network engineer gave evidence to say that it had definitely happened?
Manwell Pablo Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 My missus has been watching it so I've seen bits. Personally not my thing, the programme clearly has an agenda instead of an interest in telling you the whole story.
leicsmac Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 My missus has been watching it so I've seen bits. Personally not my thing, the programme clearly has an agenda instead of an interest in telling you the whole story. Totally agree that the programme is biased, but even so, regardless of the strength of the prosecutions case in other areas the mistakes and contrivances shown in the documentary (the DNA issues, the voicemail issue etc) should have been enough to fall under the heading of reasonable doubt and so lead to an acquittal - regardless of any other circumstances not shown. It's reasonably certain that a hardcore of a few jurors in the panel would not deliberate and coerced the others into a guilty verdict - indeed, one or two of the jurors involved have come out and insinuated as much. There's not many other explanations for a guilty verdict being reached given the amount of doubt presented in the prosecutions case.
Guest MattP Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 I'll bear in mind when watching it there appears to be a bias towards the defence. Article in the Independent says the program missed out some key parts of the prosecution case so I'll read them after I've finished.
Detroit Blues Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 I watched the show and I was dumbfounded on how the jury found Avery guilty. But when I saw this headline, i think it explained a lot: http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-juror-says-two-jurors-related-county-employees A juror who was ultimately dismissed from the murder trial of Making a Murderer subject Steven Avery tells PEOPLE that two jurors who convicted Avery were related to Manitowoc County employees. "After the trial, I found out...[one juror] was the father of a Manitowoc County Sheriff's deputy," the dismissed juror, Richard Mahler, says. "Another juror, his wife works for the Manitowoc County Clerk's Office." My personal theory is that if this was the case, there were two jurors who could not be persuaded to believe the police had any involvement in framing Steven Avery for murder, and that those two stubborn jurors were able to persuade the the rest of the jury to vote guilty. Remember, before the deliberations the jury did a quick vote among themselves to see how many people thought he was guilty and how many thought he was innocent. More of the jurors thought he was not guilty, yet only a few days later they came back with a unanimous verdict of guilty. So what happened? http://fox6now.com/2016/01/06/juror-reveals-steven-avery-verdicts-were-a-compromise-does-that-give-him-any-hope-for-new-trial/ The juror "told us the verdicts in Steven's trial were a compromise. That was the actual word the juror used, and went on to describe the jurors ultimately trading votes in the jury room. Explicitly discussing, 'If you vote guilty on this count, I will vote not guilty on this count.' That was a significant revelation." According to the juror, the finding of not guilty on the count of mutilating a corpse -- a "split verdict" -- was intended to "send a message to the appellate courts," Demos said. The jurors who were either looking for a quick way out of the deliberations to go back to their life, or frustrated by the two jurors who were related to county employees, resorted to trading votes towards the verdict of guilty for murder in exchange for a verdict of not guilty for the mutilation of the body. I'm not completely convinced that Steven Avery is innocent, but after watching the documentary and reading these articles online, I cannot be convinced that the evidence proves that he was guilty. I think that the justice system went well out of their way to make sure that he was found guilty, and his defense team could not overcome a compromised jury.
leicsmac Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 I watched the show and I was dumbfounded on how the jury found Avery guilty. But when I saw this headline, i think it explained a lot: http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-juror-says-two-jurors-related-county-employees My personal theory is that if this was the case, there were two jurors who could not be persuaded to believe the police had any involvement in framing Steven Avery for murder, and that those two stubborn jurors were able to persuade the the rest of the jury to vote guilty. Remember, before the deliberations the jury did a quick vote among themselves to see how many people thought he was guilty and how many thought he was innocent. More of the jurors thought he was not guilty, yet only a few days later they came back with a unanimous verdict of guilty. So what happened? http://fox6now.com/2016/01/06/juror-reveals-steven-avery-verdicts-were-a-compromise-does-that-give-him-any-hope-for-new-trial/ The jurors who were either looking for a quick way out of the deliberations to go back to their life, or frustrated by the two jurors who were related to county employees, resorted to trading votes towards the verdict of guilty for murder in exchange for a verdict of not guilty for the mutilation of the body. I'm not completely convinced that Steven Avery is innocent, but after watching the documentary and reading these articles online, I cannot be convinced that the evidence proves that he was guilty. I think that the justice system went well out of their way to make sure that he was found guilty, and his defense team could not overcome a compromised jury. Exactly what I had thought earlier, and pretty much spot on the truth, I think.
Manwell Pablo Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 An agenda for the truth? If that was the case it would tell the whole story instead of leaving anything makes Stephen Avery look at all suspect or violent out.
Rincewind Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 Should not jurors not declare if they have any association with the defendant or prosecution side and why did the defence not pick up on it? For that reason alone the jury should have been dismissed at the very least. May be different in the US.
David Guiza Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 If that was the case it would tell the whole story instead of leaving anything makes Stephen Avery look at all suspect or violent out. Most programmes of that nature do, it's what draws the crowds I guess. However, the whole point of a criminal conviction is that it is 'beyond reasonable doubt' and I think you'd' be pushed to say that this case was. Still think we should introduce the third verdict of 'not proven' like Scotland.
AndWhat? Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 If that was the case it would tell the whole story instead of leaving anything makes Stephen Avery look at all suspect or violent out. It makes him out to be an arsehole tbf! It says he set his cat on fire when he was younger and shows letters to his wife saying he is going to murder her.
Rincewind Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 Isn't the 'missing evidence' just hearsay? The text message was deleted and the magazine employee whho took the call was not shown.
ScouseFox Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 My missus has been watching it so I've seen bits. Personally not my thing, the programme clearly has an agenda instead of an interest in telling you the whole story. who cares what their agenda is its pretty cool tele. although gotta say bits of it are drawn out and a bit boring. could've done it in 5 or 6 eps imo.
Guest Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 The interesting thing about the documentary isn't so much if he's guilty or not, but seeing how the legal system works, and the bizarre limitations placed on the defense. If ever I went to trial, I don't think I'd want to have a jury of my peers. I've heard so many horror stories from friends who've been on jury duty, that I doubt it's a very safe way of reaching a right decision. At least if it was a panel of judges there would be some accountability and professional recourse if the wrong verdict was handed down.
Manwell Pablo Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 who cares what their agenda is its pretty cool tele. although gotta say bits of it are drawn out and a bit boring. could've done it in 5 or 6 eps imo. Fair enough if your enjoying/enjoyed just as I say, not for me. Rincewind, I am no expert but I believe parts of omitted information are certainly very relevant. Apparently his case is under appeal now.
leicsmac Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 Fair enough if your enjoying/enjoyed just as I say, not for me. Rincewind, I am no expert but I believe parts of omitted information are certainly very relevant. Apparently his case is under appeal now. You did see the parts above regarding the jury yes, Pabs? Yes, the prosecution definitely has a story to tell too but there's some massive holes that cast at least reasonable doubt on their entire case, regardless of what else they can bring to bear.
Grewks Posted 1 February 2016 Author Posted 1 February 2016 Even for those that hate 'Conspiracy Theories', when.... A room is searched 6 times with no car key found. And on the 7th, when it just so happens that 2 cops who had previously had their roles and reputations questioned following Avery's wrongful imprisonment (that should not even be there), the key is found. A sealed package containing Avey's blood has been opened, furthermore, the vial of blood itself has a hole in the top which has clearly been created by the use of an extraction needle. A cop which previously failed to act when given information from another state police department which would have seen Avery spend 8 less years in prison, somehow gains the ability of foresight, and could in fact 'call-in' the plates of the missing car 2 days before it was found. Coincidence is hard to believe.
Jimothy Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 If that was the case it would tell the whole story instead of leaving anything makes Stephen Avery look at all suspect or violent out. They asked Ken Kratz, the prosecution attorney, to be part of the documentary and tell his side, he refused.
jammie82uk Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 They asked Ken Kratz, the prosecution attorney, to be part of the documentary and tell his side, he refused. He wasn't no angel either as Ken Kratz resigned from his office in October 2010 after a sexting scandal he had written to a 26-year-old domestic violence victim whose ex-boyfriend he was prosecuting. Several other women also complained about him to state authorities. he settled a civil suit by the first woman who had brought the complaint against him.
Nalis Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 The argument that the series is skewed towards the defence doesnt quite cut it for me when the other evidence I've heard which wasnt in the series isnt strong enough to definitely find either him or Brendan guilty. Their treatment of Brendan Dassey is disgraceful, the poor guy is borderline special needs. Feel so sorry for Steven's mum and dad too, they're getting old and they'll probably never see Steven out of jail. Lastly, I'm not sure who the bigger creep is, Ken Kratz or Teresa's ex boyfriend.
Jimothy Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 I've read that Halbach got lost on the way to the appointment she had prior to Avery. She called the guy called Zipperen, couldn't get hold of him so went to Avery's first. During that time Zipperen called back and left messages on her phone. These are aparently the messages deleted from her phone by her brother. If true it seems like Avery wasn't her last appointment of the day and somebody else saw her after. Also when interviewed Zipperen was evasive and tried to end it quickly. The police didn't investigate Zipperen any further. Not sure how much there is in all that, just something I read on the net.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.