Steven Avery (making a murderer) Guilty or innocent?

Wigglepuppy

130Kph wrote: »

This is the only theory (posted here in Feb) I’ve seen that makes any coherent sense because it plausibly explains all the facts, supposed mysteries, inconsistencies and flaws that arise in any one theory of the case given by the various defence or prosecution teams or other commentators. It’s just in layman’s language.

It’s dispiriting to read certain posters accepting that the police likely did some planting of evidence but still assert Avery is “probably” guilty, based on hunches or feelings. This type of thinking –by people who should know better- is one of the best reasons to abolish trial by jury in criminal cases?

It’s worth re-posting and I’ve put it in paragraphs for easier reading.

Very interesting, thanks.

I remember Avery's brother Chuck saying he saw headlights in the vicinity of their property on the night the two lads would have found the car.

I'm glad Brendan Dassey's conviction has been overturned - although I wonder would other wrongfully imprisoned individuals experience this without a popular documentary and public support.

smash

130Kph wrote: »

This is the only theory (posted here in Feb) I’ve seen that makes any coherent sense because it plausibly explains all the facts, supposed mysteries, inconsistencies and flaws that arise in any one theory of the case given by the various defence or prosecution teams or other commentators. It’s just in layman’s language.

Scott and Bobby had nothing to do with it. I believe they cooperated with the prosecution in fabricating a story because they were promised a deal for Brendan, which he never got.

There's so many characters at play in this case that it's almost impossible to keep track of the potential suspects. If you want some interesting reading run a search for Brad Czech or George Zipperer.

Wigglepuppy wrote: »

I'm glad Brendan Dassey's conviction has been overturned - although I wonder would other wrongfully imprisoned individuals experience this without a popular documentary and public support.

Ryan Furgeson, a previous client of Kathleen Zellner is doing this at the moment, shedding light on wrongful convictions.

Winterlong

The Daily Mail are not sitting on the fence with this headline.

Justice by Netflix? Fears that TV hit of the year Making A Murderer could lead to the freeing of a man who may be a killer

smash

Winterlong wrote: »

The Daily Mail are not sitting on the fence with this headline.

Don't expect them to understand how the law actually works.

Winterlong

smash wrote: »

Don't expect them to understand how the law actually works.

Rabble rabble!

smash

A member of Avery's defence team has tweeted saying to watch the news tomorrow. This is when the brief will be submitted to the court.

smash

For anyone interested. Avery's lawyer held a press conference as she filed her brief and stated that she already has tests completed that prove his innocence and is now looking to retest old evidence to prove that it was planted.

She has also uncovered a police report which states the car was recovered on the 3rd of November in the Quarry behind the Avery residence (2 days before it was found on the Avery property) and evidence of two witnesses who lied to the police. One being the owner of the quarry and one being the victim's ex boyfriend.

http://europe.newsweek.com/steven-avery-lawyer-demands-evidence-and-accuses-cops-framing-him-bombshell-493873?rm=eu

smash

smash wrote: »

For anyone interested. Avery's lawyer held a press conference as she filed her brief and stated that she already has tests completed that prove his innocence

Wow!
Just tests that prove his innocence!

I'd imagine there must be thousands of people waiting to hear what these magic tests are!

ScumLord

Avery and Brendan are going to be some very rich men once they get this stuff over turned.

I never really warmed to Avery, I got the feeling he's not really the angle he made himself out to be, but the young lad was taken for a ride, I feel really sorry for him. I hope he becomes a millionaire out of this and has developed a bit of sense in the meantime. My worry would be at this point that he'll get a big payout and be dead within years from drug addiction. I don't know what he's life in prison has been like but it wouldn't surprise me if he comes out of an American prison with an life altering addiction.

smash

bubblypop wrote: »

Wow!
Just tests that prove his innocence!

I'd imagine there must be thousands of people waiting to hear what these magic tests are!

Magic tests? You think DNA tests are magic?

paleoperson

Is it really worth watching this whole series for one case? I like crime analysis, but a whole series for a single crime? Even 1 hour shows for one crime seem a bit on the lengthy side to me. One would think you could nearly read/skim all documents and absolutely everything there is to know about a crime in that time.

smash

smash wrote: »

Magic tests? You think DNA tests are magic?

The post didn't say anything about DNA tests.

paleoperson

paleoperson wrote: »

Is it really worth watching this whole series for one case? I like crime analysis, but a whole series for a single crime? Even 1 hour shows for one crime seem a bit on the lengthy side to me. One would think you could nearly read/skim all documents and absolutely everything there is to know about a crime in that time.

No, absolutely not.
Horrendous dragged out conspiracy theory.
Could have been in a one hour documentary

smash

bubblypop wrote: »

The post didn't say anything about DNA tests.

No, but his attorney's statements have.

bubblypop wrote: »

No, absolutely not.
Horrendous dragged out conspiracy theory.
Could have been in a one hour documentary

Except evidence proves it's not a conspiracy.

smash

smash wrote: »

Except evidence proves it's not a conspiracy.

Well no, it hasn't, not yet.

trashcan

Noo wrote: »

The persecution refused, .

Freudian slip ?

smash

bubblypop wrote: »

Well no, it hasn't, not yet.

Well if you're not interested in reading the reports or the brief that will back up the assertion of evidence along with the statements from Avery's solicitor that she has evidence and along with the overturning of the Dassey conviction and damning reports from a judge about police and prosecution misconduct then I'd ask you to try some common sense but I think I'd be wasting my breath.

smash

smash wrote: »

Well if you're not interested in reading the reports or the brief that will back up the assertion of evidence along with the statements from Avery's solicitor that she has evidence and along with the overturning of the Dassey conviction and damning reports from a judge about police and prosecution misconduct then I'd ask you to try some common sense but I think I'd be wasting my breath.

I think I will wait until it's produced in court & the court had ruled on it.
Until then it hasn't been proved

anothernight

paleoperson wrote: »

Is it really worth watching this whole series for one case? I like crime analysis, but a whole series for a single crime? Even 1 hour shows for one crime seem a bit on the lengthy side to me. One would think you could nearly read/skim all documents and absolutely everything there is to know about a crime in that time.

Making a Murderer is something you watch as entertainment, not as a way to get information about a case. With that in mind, yes, it is a very compelling documentary and well worth watching. I mean, there's a reason it's got 97% on Rotten Tomatoes.

I'm not sure why bubblypop hates everything about it so much tbh. That level of hate is a bit disturbing imo.

anothernight

paleoperson wrote: »

What do you mean "as entertainment", a documentary is a way of portraying real life events, of course it's a way to get information about it.

"as entertainment".

I mean that you could easily spend hours and days reading all the information there is about it (transcripts and documents, not articles and Reddit), and get more informed that way. But if you want to know about the case in quite a lot of detail while still being entertained, the documentary is well worth watching. There's a lot missing in it because it's 10 years edited down to 10 hours, but contrary to what Kratz and bubblypop say, a lot of what's missing actually points at Avery being innocent.

You shouldn't watch a documentary as your only source of information about anything really. They're just a handy and hopefully fun way of learning a bit about something.

EDIT: Well, at least I hope most people don't watch documentaries as their primary source of information. But it would explain a lot of things...

paleoperson

okay I understand. I just wouldn't consider anything like that as entertainment, since it's true and serious. I deleted my post because I thought it sounded a bit snippy.

anothernight

paleoperson wrote: »

okay I understand. I just wouldn't consider anything like that as entertainment, since it's true and serious. I deleted my post because I thought it sounded a bit snippy.

Nah you're grand. But now it looks like I'm talking to myself. :P

Honestly though, it's a very well made documentary. I didn't think I'd watch all the episodes because 10 hours seems like a long time to be discussing a single case, but after the first episode or two it made sense that it was presented in ten episodes.

You can always read the transcripts themselves though. I wouldn't bother with articles about the case because they always go to one extreme or the other, and let's face it, even if it turns out that he's innocent, Avery is no angel.

J Mysterio

Brendan Dassey's conviction has already been overturned.