re: Making a Murderer to get new episodes

quote:

---

What about due process and procedure for Avery?

---

Meh. Avery had outstanding representation - some of the best I've seen.

quote:

---

How was that not - alone - enough to throw out the conviction?

---

Because the case was not investigated perfectly? Because there were irregularities? You don't think the jury was presented with all of that by Avery's excellent representation?

I just reject the notion the jury are children and can't handle big boy issues. Avery and Brendan got vastly different treatment "by the system" - yeah, the cops were out to get Avery, but he knew the system inside and out. This is why he fired that public defender and lawyered up for real.


It happens. Like I mentioned earlier (either this thread or another Avery thread) - there was a literal trail of blood leading from the Brown/Goldman murder scene to O.J.'s bedroom. The jury chose to acquit on "non-evidentiary" reasons. It was wrong, but that's the system.

In the Avery case, they got the right guy. It is what it is.

quote:

---

the police just moved the evidence to make the case stronger.

---

Well this isn't good. Is it not a crime to be tampering with evidence? Also, that makes no sense why they wouldn't just make an argument where the actual crime occurred instead of two different places where they didn't(trailer and garage). Its a little disturbing that they convicted them both on separate locations of where the crime could have occurred. Makes no sense.

quote:

---

Essentially, what you saw was a defense-funded "trial package" tweaked for an entertainment audience. The omitted a significant portion of the evidence pointing to Avery's guilt. They spun the story heavily to the defense side.

---

ultimately, i watched it less as guilt vs innocence but as a commentary on the conduct that happened.

i wont claim to know what happened. id venture the guess that he did. but i dont like the conduct of the police/prosecutor.

i think thats a pretty fair takeaway (and lens to view it through)

quote:

---

The jury does not have to believe every element of the prosecution's theory of the case to convict. The prosecution only has to prove every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt, period.

---

How many times do I have to say that I think he's guilty as well?

I can think he's guilty and simultaneously have a real problem with the way I feel evidence was mishandled. The fact that he was convicted is not evidence to me that everything was on the level or that his due process was not violated. And I think "well maybe some things about the case are sketchy, but it doesn't matter, he's guilty" is a very dangerous way for people to think about this type of thing.

The prosecutor gave a very detailed scenario on how they believe the crime was committed. When the evidence is incongruent with your account, I'm going to have questions. I can ask those questions while still holding the belief that Avery's guilty. But an unsatisfactory explanation would raise doubt for me. If I'm on the jury, I could justify voting "not guilty" while still thinking that Avery is the single most likely culprit of the murder.

Avery is not the victim of this type of stuff. It's the guy that actually will be innocent of a future crime that overzealous cops will stack the deck against, because they think they know. Here's the thing, sometimes we think a suspect's guilty and they're not. We're people and we mess up. Corrupt process only increases the likelihood that police mess up a case like this in the future.

a must watch for those of you who haven't seen it!