oohaahmustafa Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 If you like this watch 'The Jinx' Is on Sky Atlantic box sets. Very very good.
sdb Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 The bias meant I was always a bit weary and i'd not be surprised were he guilty, but he was a goner before trail for sure, and that was pretty frustrating too watch. The woman's brother was quite a dick.
jammie82uk Posted 1 February 2016 Posted 1 February 2016 The bias meant I was always a bit weary and i'd not be surprised were he guilty, but he was a goner before trail for sure, and that was pretty frustrating too watch. The woman's brother was quite a dick. Yeah the press certainly didn't help before the trial with how they was reporting it, the brother certainly was a strange one
VLC86 Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 If you like this watch 'The Jinx' Is on Sky Atlantic box sets. Very very good. Watched the first 4 episodes, decent so far but I don't think it is as good as Making A Murderer. Well, when I say good I mean shocking as production is loads better on The Jinx.
Grewks Posted 2 February 2016 Author Posted 2 February 2016 Does anybody else think that the blood evidence should have been dismissed as soon as it was discovered that a previous blood sample of Avery's had been illegally tampered with? Remember the Burder of Proof belongs to the prosecution, and it was impossible to prove that the blood in the car wasn't from this source.
The Quick Brown Fox Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Does anybody else think that the blood evidence should have been dismissed as soon as it was discovered that a previous blood sample of Avery's had been illegally tampered with? Remember the Burder of Proof belongs to the prosecution, and it was impossible to prove that the blood in the car wasn't from this source. Didn't they claim that the blood in the car didn't have the preservatives in it that would have been present if it was from the vial?
Jimothy Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Didn't they claim that the blood in the car didn't have the preservatives in it that would have been present if it was from the vial? An expert for the defence said that finding no preservative wasn't proof there was no preservative in the blood.
Detroit Blues Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 An expert for the defence said that finding no preservative wasn't proof there was no preservative in the blood. I liked the example they gave in the trial. If you call your friend on his home phone (like a landline), and he picks up, you know he's at home. If he doesn't answer the phone, it doesn't mean he's not at home. So if you find the preservative in the blood, you know for sure it was from the vial. But just because you don't find the preservative, does not mean the blood wasn't from the vial. That's why the FBI agent saying he could say for sure that the blood wasn't from the vial was so asinine. The scientist that the defense called up said as much. The test can only tell if the preservative is in the blood, nothing else. I also read some of the articles online about the evidence from the prosecution used in the trial that the documentary did not mention. I think the natural human reaction is to hear that this evidence exists and think "Aha! He's guilty and the documentary was just trying to make you think he's innocent." But that's not the case. The evidence not mentioned in the documentary was just like the rest of the evidence brought up by the prosecution. It can easily be argued away by the defense, and it doesn't change the major reasons why you would think he's not guilty: the tampering of evidence by the county, the conflict of interest and involvment by the local police force, the lack of physical evidence tying the victim to the killer, etc.
Webbo Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 It's good to know so many people on here know better than FBI experts.
Guest Manini Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 One of the best things i've watched in ages! loved every minute of it, such an interesting story and case. As far as wether he's innocent or not...he threw a cat on to a fire so as far as I'm concerned he deserves everything he gets...thats pretty grim that.
Detroit Blues Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 It's good to know so many people on here know better than FBI experts. I assume you are referring to me. It's not that I know more than the FBI agent, but a scientist (Janine Arvizu) was called to the stand to explain why the FBI could not conclude that the blood did not come from the vial based on a negative EDTA test . I was only paraphrasing what she said in the documentary. I think she's pretty qualified: Janine Arvizu is president of Consolidated Technical Services, Inc. in Albuquerque, NM. She was formerly manager of a Department of Energy analytical laboratory. She is a chemist (B.S. Biochemistry, ABD Chemistry) and quality consultant. A Certified Quality Auditor, she has managed a nationwide laboratory evaluation program for a federal agency, and performed dozens of independent audits of laboratories
Webbo Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 I assume you are referring to me. Not you especially. I'm always suspicious of these type of things. Unless you've studied these cases independently how can you know anything you see is the truth? They're only showing you the evidence that fits their narrative. I certainly wouldn't be so dismissive of expert opinion.
Detroit Blues Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 Not you especially. I'm always suspicious of these type of things. Unless you've studied these cases independently how can you know anything you see is the truth? They're only showing you the evidence that fits their narrative. I certainly wouldn't be so dismissive of expert opinion. I'd agree with you on a general basis. If you go onto reddit and browse /r/makingamurderer or /r/serialpodcast, you'll see all of these armchair lawyers talking like they're experts on the field. In this circumstance, all of the information is out there from both sides such as the transcripts of the jury trial and the FBI report. You can go beyond the documentary and see all the facts. Due to the popularity of the series, a lot of people with expertise in the subject (law professors and scientists) have written articles and blogs about the EDTA testing from the case and the conclusion the FBI made. All of the ones I have read seem to back the defense. Here is a couple of examples: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2016/01/several-readers-have-asked-me-questions-about-theethylenediaminetetraacetic-acid-edta-evidence-used-in-the-steven-averymak.html http://www.vulture.com/2016/01/making-a-murderer-episodes-5-6-7.html
Guest Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 An expert for the defence said that finding no preservative wasn't proof there was no preservative in the blood. and if i remember correctly the FBI decided to only test 3 of the 6 samples available.
Jimothy Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 and if i remember correctly the FBI decided to only test 3 of the 6 samples available. Yeah they did. Surely if you're testing for something and you don't find it then you test all possible samples just to be sure. You only stop after half if you find it. Finding it in one is proof it's there, not finding after only testing half isn't proof it's not there.
lgfualol Posted 11 February 2016 Posted 11 February 2016 Been watching this show. I've been so close to punching the tv. It's just insane that this actually happened. I have to suspect the ex-bf and/or housemate. Or even her brother. Something isn't right about those guys, not reporting her missing, going into her voicemail where they know messages were deleted and organising a search party where they just happened to hand a camera to the 2 weird women going to the Avery's. I really think they just chose to not investigate the real killer, over looking bad about the whole Avery case.
Grewks Posted 11 February 2016 Author Posted 11 February 2016 Been watching this show. I've been so close to punching the tv. It's just insane that this actually happened. I have to suspect the ex-bf and/or housemate. Or even her brother. Something isn't right about those guys, not reporting her missing, going into her voicemail where they know messages were deleted and organising a search party where they just happened to hand a camera to the 2 weird women going to the Avery's. I really think they just chose to not investigate the real killer, over looking bad about the whole Avery case. Her brother is ****ing weird. Showing no grief for her whatsoever and just generally acting weird. Why would anyone in that situation actually want to be interviewed? He looks like he is loving the attention.
Rincewind Posted 11 February 2016 Posted 11 February 2016 Might be a bit far fetched and movie like but what if one or a combination of those three accidently killed her and decided to fit Avery up knowing that he would be a suspect anyway. They may have even done a deal with the cops. Their behavior did seem strange. The brother was cold and unresponsive to any other outcome.
lgfualol Posted 11 February 2016 Posted 11 February 2016 Her brother is ****ing weird. Showing no grief for her whatsoever and just generally acting weird. Why would anyone in that situation actually want to be interviewed? He looks like he is loving the attention. I'm pretty sure it was a day after her reported disappearance that he stated along the lines of "we just want to know what happened so we can grieve and move on". No-one even knew she was dead yet.
Benguin Posted 17 February 2016 Posted 17 February 2016 I'm only half way through but I think he did it, can't see how it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt though.
lgfualol Posted 17 February 2016 Posted 17 February 2016 I'm only half way through but I think he did it, can't see how it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt though. Not trying to start an argument, but what makes you think he did it based on what you've seen so far?
Benguin Posted 18 February 2016 Posted 18 February 2016 Not trying to start an argument, but what makes you think he did it based on what you've seen so far? Because if he didn't then the cops either know exactly who did it or did it themselves. If the cops planted the bones they had to know whose bones they were as identifying wouldn't have been possible in the timeframe and I doubt if they wanted to frame Steven they'd take a gamble that the bones they found were Theresa's. This leads me to the choice that either Steven did it, the cops did it, the cops knew who did it or Steven was incredibly unlucky and a killer chose Stevens property to do it. The only two of those options that make any sense to me is Steven did it or the cops did it. Based on the fact that Steven has wired traits and tortured a cat in his past makes me believe he did it rather than the cops. I've inly watched 4 episodes so far so my opinion may change. I don't think it was done by Steven in the manner portrayed though and there is certainly something odd about the cops involvement.
theessexfox Posted 18 February 2016 Posted 18 February 2016 To me literally nothing of the prosecution's case adds up, every piece of evidence they produce is dodgy in some way. Some stuff like the dogged line of questioning for Brendan, the issue with the number plates, the DNA on the key, the fact that county investigators (who had a personal interest in the case given their dodgy involvements in Steven's first case) were so involved in the investigation, the vial of blood, etc, is all just astoundingly questionable. I haven't read the other evidence which was missing from a trial, and I haven't watched the episode of Brendan's trial yet, but how on earth could the jury have ruled him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt? How could SEVEN jurors who thought he was innocent be swayed by the initial 3? Maybe I have been swayed by the lean of the program but I really do think he was innocent.
leicsmac Posted 18 February 2016 Posted 18 February 2016 To me literally nothing of the prosecution's case adds up, every piece of evidence they produce is dodgy in some way. Some stuff like the dogged line of questioning for Brendan, the issue with the number plates, the DNA on the key, the fact that county investigators (who had a personal interest in the case given their dodgy involvements in Steven's first case) were so involved in the investigation, the vial of blood, etc, is all just astoundingly questionable. I haven't read the other evidence which was missing from a trial, and I haven't watched the episode of Brendan's trial yet, but how on earth could the jury have ruled him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt? How could SEVEN jurors who thought he was innocent be swayed by the initial 3? Maybe I have been swayed by the lean of the program but I really do think he was innocent. Jury intimidation by those three jurors. Wouldn't be the first time it has happened and I'm reasonably sure it happened in this case. It's possible that he did do it, but there's so much reasonable doubt in that case a jury without an agenda should have found him not guilty.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.