- 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 1/12/16 at 2:47 pm to Freauxzen
Posted on 1/12/16 at 2:47 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
None of this came out because the defense wasn't allowed to push other suspects.
This is where I found the courtroom to feel a little "unfair". I don't see how they can say "no third party liability can be introduced". So they can't bring up another suspect. But in order for them to prove innocence, they have to tell a story that someone else did it. I can understand that they don't want them being the investigators, but they have to be able to tell the story that another person committed the crime.....she didn't commit suicide obviously.
And it wasn't limited to not being able to specifically name suspects. When they brought up that voicemails were deleted, the prosecution objected saying that if they claim someone deleted the messages, then they are claiming "third party liability". So even if the messages showing possible interaction after she met with Avery were deleted, that bit of info is inadmissible because it may prove someone else did it!!!! That's the very basis of proving he's innocent and they are banned from it. Absurd.
And we're only several episodes in, so I don't know how it turns out. But how in the ever living frick does no one think it's insane that both the brother and ex boyfriend can "guess" her passwords with such ease. I can't remember my own freakin passwords and they are just hacking in there like it's nothing. Let's not even think twice about that shite.
I don't know who did it obviously. But there is so much screwed up crap in this trial that it's unbelievable that it doesn't at least get a mistrial. I mean from the very first testimony they show where the nephew just spouts off things that are not on any previous record and directly contradict previous statements given to police. It looked extremely "coached". I can understand a jury not convinced enough to say he didn't do it. But the investigation and courtroom antics are truly comical if it wasn't such a serious allegation and crime.
2
Posted on 1/12/16 at 2:47 pm to Uncle Stu
quote:
So any monetary compensation would have been paid out by the city and subsequently their insurance policy.
Insurance company stated that they weren't going to pay for that - it was all going to have to be paid by the county.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 2:51 pm to Uncle Stu
quote:
and subsequently their insurance policy
The insurance policy only covers negligence. The insurance company would have declared their actions to constitute willful malfeasance and denied the claim. They city, PD, and officers named individually would have been on the hook for it all, whatever it ended up being.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 2:53 pm to Horsemeat
I just finished the series - I really am confused as to how someone can be convicted of this murder when there wasn't a drop of blood or any DNA evidence in the garage or bedroom. If she had her throat slashed in the bedroom and shot in the garage - there would be blood SOMEWHERE. Those folks aren't smart or skilled enough to completely wipe a crime scene like that. There are so many holes in the prosecutions defense such as the opened evidence box, the needle hole in the blood vial, Lenk not signing in the log when the first officer on the scene said everything was secured, the key mysteriously appearing with no dna of the victim but dna of Steven and spotted by officers who weren't even supposed to be there, etc.
It's a big WTF, there's no way anyone could convince me to give a guilty verdict.
It's a big WTF, there's no way anyone could convince me to give a guilty verdict.
This post was edited on 1/12/16 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 1/12/16 at 3:07 pm to Horsemeat
quote:
It's a big WTF, there's no way anyone could convince me to give a guilty verdict.
Welcome to the club.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 3:14 pm to Horsemeat
quote:
It's a big WTF, there's no way anyone could convince me to give a guilty verdict
And that's Steven. Who may have done it, just not how the state claimed.
Imagine convicting his nephew!
This post was edited on 1/12/16 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 1/12/16 at 3:33 pm to Cooter Davenport
quote:
Imagine convicting his nephew!
His first appointed lawyer should be disbarred, tarred, feathered, and have his arse beaten for the crap he pulled with that kid. He straight set that kid up to be convicted - probably was influenced by those lazy cops.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 3:33 pm to 12Buck
quote:No. He wanted them to be successful in their quest to bust Avery.
he wants the police to catch the person who did it
This post was edited on 1/12/16 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 1/12/16 at 3:37 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:A bunch of level heads and a bastion of intelligent analysis those Avery's are.
Episode 3, it appears that Chuck Avery was pretty convinced that Steven was guilty. So, there's that.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 3:38 pm to Blue Velvet
quote:
He wanted them to be successful in their quest to busy Avery.
Right.
He had to believe that Avery did it. It is all he had. His sister was brutally murdered and the police were saying this guy did it. He was going all in with the police because it was really all he had as far as resolution.
His smugness did not come off very well, but I can understand why he didn't want to believe the thought that Avery might not be guilty.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 4:22 pm to KG6
quote:
This is where I found the courtroom to feel a little "unfair". I don't see how they can say "no third party liability can be introduced"
Its a Wisconsin Law. The judge, nor anyone in the courtroom can control that. Its unfortunate because they were obviously not investigating anyone else, and there isn't any proof they ever were.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 4:22 pm to Uncle Stu
quote:
Obvioulsy they are going to ask for way more than reasonable. Secondly, the suit was against the PD and the city. So any monetary compensation would have been paid out by the city and subsequently their insurance policy.
Insurance would not have covered per the documentary. It was coming directly out of the PD's pocket
Posted on 1/12/16 at 4:28 pm to LesGeaux45
I havent read through this thread, but just wanted to point out how much Steven Avery's mom reminds me of Yoda
Posted on 1/12/16 at 4:33 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Insurance would not have covered per the documentary. It was coming directly out of the PD's pocket
Assuming the authorities were on the hook for deliberately skewing the investigation to put Avery behind the bars, AND had GOOD reason to investigate/suspect someone else.
In that case Gregory Allen fit that bill, and the DA who spoke about finding Allen's paper in SA's file, and the old DA who helped sentence Avery asking about Allen immediately once he found out SA was exonerated...AND the police written statements to the Sheriff's office saying they thought the crime fit Allen more, AND the call to Colborn where Allen had essentially muttered some things that implied SA was wrongfully behind bars....
quote:
It was coming directly out of the PD's pocket
The Police Department was not apart of the suit. It was the DA's office and the Sheriff's office. The Police department were the ones who said Allen fit the crime (Beernsten rape) moreso than SA.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 4:39 pm to tiggerthetooth
This case is still bothering me. But when I see Steve Avery's room or garage, it looks like a typical spaces in disarray.
So to assume they cleaned the blood up, they then had to go back and put all the crap back to where it was before without looking out of place.
Just another piece to the pile of crap that I cannot believe he got convicted on.
As a side note, hope none of you watched Janine Pirro on Fox about the show, I hate her so much.
So to assume they cleaned the blood up, they then had to go back and put all the crap back to where it was before without looking out of place.
Just another piece to the pile of crap that I cannot believe he got convicted on.
As a side note, hope none of you watched Janine Pirro on Fox about the show, I hate her so much.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 5:12 pm to KG6
quote:
But how in the ever living frick does no one think it's insane that both the brother and ex boyfriend can "guess" her passwords with such ease.
You gotta remember, this was 2005. Lots of people didn't use complex passwords and did choose easily guessable ones if you knew them well. I remember guessing my brother's password for a couple things back then. It was probably because I knew his password for something else, which may have been the case here.
Posted on 1/12/16 at 5:27 pm to SUB
quote:
You gotta remember, this was 2005. Lots of people didn't use complex passwords and did choose easily guessable ones if you knew them well. I remember guessing my brother's password for a couple things back then. It was probably because I knew his password for something else, which may have been the case here.
I'm not worried about the passwords I'm more concerned with the deleting of messages.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 2:14 am to Big Scrub TX
Is it just me or do the scenes with the reporters interviewing the prosecutors and defense attorneys seem staged or doctored? The hot female reporter and the late 30s guy with salt n pepper hair seem so out of place. Also if you notice, they never show the reporters and lawyers at the same time, they are always cutting back and forth
Posted on 1/13/16 at 7:13 am to 632627
I think that was staged. The film quality and lighting are different in the two cuts. It's granier in any shot where they are showing the prosecution or defense speaking and clear and bright when the reporters are shown. Plus, there's no way that the smokeshow reporter and Anderson Cooper's brother are from that shithole area. They'd've hightailed it out of there long ago.
Posted on 1/13/16 at 8:04 am to Cooter Davenport
Yeah I noticed the difference in picture quality also, I don't know why they would do that.
Also, does anyone know how they had recordings of every single phone call made(even a call between two detectives). Was that staged as well?
Also, does anyone know how they had recordings of every single phone call made(even a call between two detectives). Was that staged as well?
Page 44 of 84
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News