- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New Netflix docu-series "Making a Murderer" (Spoilers)
Posted on 1/11/16 at 7:44 pm to buckeye_vol
Posted on 1/11/16 at 7:44 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
And the incentives were far greater the second time around.
I was just about to edit my post to add that but yeah. There is an easy case for Motive for that department to want to frame someone. Their jobs were on the line anyway.
1
Posted on 1/11/16 at 7:52 pm to Rou Leed
quote:
A better question maybe how much evidence is enough to convict someone. Car. Bullet. Blood. Burned remains. Confession. It's plenty all together and it can't all be tainted.
That isn't how it's supposed to work. The only question is how much is needed for reasonable doubt. I don't know if I have the word count to list off the evidence that gives reasonable doubt.
Posted on 1/11/16 at 7:54 pm to Rou Leed
quote:
The explanation of how the remains burned elsewhere and planted via barrel is not believable. Add that with the fact pieces are found in different spots all within about 100 ft of houses. Nobody planted all the different pieces that close to the houses in the different spot. Add with blood, car, bullet, key evidence. Too much linked evidence telling a bad story. Include confession and confession to related girl. Too much smoke. It is much more likely they got it right.
You clearly didn't pay attention or research anything. Bones were found in a quarry down the road off of his property, not within 100ft. I hope you never have to sit on a jury.
Posted on 1/11/16 at 8:06 pm to Freauxzen
Who said their jobs were on the line? There was no malice against the guy from the start.
Posted on 1/11/16 at 8:08 pm to Rou Leed
quote:
Who said their jobs were on the line? There was no malice against the guy from the start.
Ah, troll job. Well done.
Posted on 1/11/16 at 8:32 pm to Freauxzen
They never adequately proved it was personal the first time. The victim identified her assailant, but admitted to being mistaken. It was not the police department's fault. Should they have released him the first time as well against the testimony of the first victim?
This post was edited on 1/11/16 at 8:34 pm
Posted on 1/11/16 at 8:45 pm to Rou Leed
quote:
They never adequately proved it was personal the first time
Sandra Morris---> married to Sheriff's Deputy ---->Sandra Morris' best friend Judy Dvorak specifically said in the examination room holding Penny Beernsten that her description "sounded like Avery".
At the same time Gregory Allen was in the area, a well known sexually violent criminal that had constant surveillance.
Police tell Sheriff's Office the crime fit Allen more, Beernsten called and asked about Allen, was told "don't talk to police, you will get confused".
Could it be anymore personal? Sandra Morris HATED Steven Avery. She admitted it in her deposition, or that she "didn't like" him.
Go back to watching cartoons I guess? Or maybe the disney movies? Seems more black and white for your taste.
Posted on 1/11/16 at 9:09 pm to tiggerthetooth
There is no evidence the potential monetary decision would have affected the officers in any way. There is no motive for them to break the law to frame Steve.
Posted on 1/11/16 at 9:16 pm to Rou Leed
As a matter of fact the most offensive thing about the documentary was there was a douchebag lawyer that tried to sue the police department and community for 36 million dollars based upon a victim mistakenly identifying the wrong man. Taxpayers would have paid that bill I'm sure not the officers. Its remarkable how far some of your heads are lodged inside your own rectums.
This post was edited on 1/11/16 at 9:19 pm
Posted on 1/11/16 at 9:28 pm to Rou Leed
quote:
The part that is absurd is these men with jobs and families would risk everything to setup a halfwit working at a salvage yard.
And yet it seems to happen in instances around the country. Perhaps primarily as a function of judges, police chiefs, and prosecutors losing elections if prominent crimes are not "solved"
Posted on 1/11/16 at 9:39 pm to molsusports
Maybe that does happen but there is no real proof it did in this case. To believe all the evidence was planted in this case is just absurd. Maybe you want to live in a place where people with victims bones, blood, cars, keys can be inside someones house and backyard and there are eyewitness testimony of their involvement and they are given the benefit of the doubt, but I sure don't.
This post was edited on 1/11/16 at 9:40 pm
Posted on 1/11/16 at 9:51 pm to Rou Leed
Let's set aside the second case. What about the first case? Why did they railroad him with that weird identification by a person with the grudge and then prop that up with a custom made police sketch from his mugshot? How does that happen if they are serious about getting people who are really dangerous off the street? It took DNA evidence to exonerate him.
Posted on 1/11/16 at 9:55 pm to Rou Leed
The key was 100% planted. By the same department that was told to stay away because of a conflict on interest. Who happened to find this key in plain site after 8 days of searching his trailer. The bones were also 100% moved as was the experts testimony. If I was trying to get away with murder I would put the evidence in a person like Averys yard. I don't think police killed her. I just think they really wanted it to be Avery who was put away for it.
Posted on 1/11/16 at 10:03 pm to molsusports
The victim personally identified him the first time. The guy looked similar enough to the attacker to be identified as the guy. I think they didn't include the real criminal in the first case because they were supposed to have him under surveillance and it would have made them look extremely incompetent. It wasn't because a secretary didn't like Steve. It was a genuine mistake with maybe some cya regarding surveillance, but it was not enough of a reason to frame the guy for the second crime.
Posted on 1/11/16 at 10:05 pm to Mr. Wayne
There is no sufficient motive for the police to frame Steve the second time. At least not presented in the show. There is no way human remains can be planted in the backyard fire pit without someone living there knowing. They worked there. They didn't leave to go to work. Someone is always there. To suggest police planted bone matter is accusing them of killing the girl at some other location because they would have been the only ones capable of doing that.
This post was edited on 1/11/16 at 10:10 pm
Posted on 1/11/16 at 10:08 pm to Rou Leed
quote:Not without the sheriff department's involvment first.
The victim personally identified him the first time.
quote:What? The surveillance was a different agency's responsibility, and they admitted they had to pull back.
I think they didn't include the real criminal in the first case because they were supposed to have him under surveillance and it would have made them look extremely incompetent.
Besides, covering up perceived incompetence by convicting an innocent person is plain corruption.
Posted on 1/11/16 at 10:13 pm to buckeye_vol
Maybe but his pattern of criminal behavior certainly suggested he was capable of committing that first crime. It was certainly an injustice he was incarcerated but suggesting it was a systemic prejudice against him personally is a pretty big leap.
This post was edited on 1/11/16 at 10:15 pm
Posted on 1/11/16 at 10:27 pm to Rou Leed
quote:Which is a fancy way of saying nothing of substanc regarding the crime.
Maybe but his pattern of criminal behavior certainly suggested he was capable of committing that first crime
quote:If ignoring and disregarding exculpatory evidence time and time again, across decades even, isn't some systemic issue, then I don't know what to say.
It was certainly an injustice he was incarcerated but suggesting it was a systemic prejudice against him personally is a pretty big leap.
In fact, it makes a lot of sense. The apathy and general dismissal of the incompetence and corruption of the indivduals we entrust with unchecked power is one of the major systemic errors of our justice system. It's a lack of any true accountability
Posted on 1/11/16 at 10:38 pm to buckeye_vol
There is certainly an accountability issue. The department is held responsible for woman misidentifying attacker. Department blamed for girl telling them of confession. Department blamed for confession. Department blamed for planting blood evidence. Department blamed for car showing up. Department blamed for remains, bullet, keys. No accountability. No way they are responsible for all those circumstances. Not possible.
This post was edited on 1/11/16 at 10:40 pm
Posted on 1/11/16 at 11:17 pm to Rou Leed
quote:
The victim personally identified him the first time
Only AFTER being shown a sketch that they constructed from the wrong man's photograph instead of a normally constructed police sketch (which would be based on the description of the witness instead of a photograph of a disliked suspect).
You can't blame the victim. It was the department's malicious variance from normal procedure which resulted in a false identification.
quote:
It wasn't because a secretary didn't like Steve.
That seems at odds with what happened. Especially as the years went by and several people knew not only that they had the wrong guy but the guy who probably did it was still ruining people's lives.
Page 41 of 84
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News