- 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 1/19/16 at 7:59 am to brmark70816
Posted on 1/19/16 at 7:59 am to brmark70816
Interesting critique of MaM
It's pretty clear the filmmakers primary goal was to exonerate Avery, not to criticize our justice system as a whole as some here have suggested.
It's pretty clear the filmmakers primary goal was to exonerate Avery, not to criticize our justice system as a whole as some here have suggested.
3
Posted on 1/19/16 at 8:02 am to 632627
Although I haven't watched it yet, I intend to. And, yes, I've read a couple of critiques suggesting that the filmmakers omitted some facts to support their point of view regarding the main character.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 8:40 am to brmark70816
quote:
Although, he is guilty of one of the counts no matter what. He is a 3 time felon that possessed an illegal gun. The maximum penalty for that is 10 years in prison. He has only been in prison 8 years. I'm not sure how he would get out of that or sue for it being totally justified..
I'm no lawyer but I would think all the chargers get dropped since LEO had no reason to be in Avery's trailer in the first place, once the new evidence is seen.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 10:54 am to KG6
quote:
KG6
like i said, avery probably is guilty. but they probably couldnt prove it so they did shady shite to ensure they get their guy. the key and the car is just ridiculous.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 10:58 am to VOR
quote:
nd, yes, I've read a couple of critiques suggesting that the filmmakers omitted some facts to support their point of view regarding the main character.
Read the rebuttles too. The evidence left out of the documentary doesn't add any merit to the prosecution.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 11:33 am to brmark70816
quote:
So you want violent felons, especially one that threatened a woman with a gun and served 6 years for it, to legally be allowed to own a firearm?
Sure. You do the crime, you do the time. And then you are back to square one.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 11:35 am to SUB
quote:
Read the rebuttles too. The evidence left out of the documentary doesn't add any merit to the prosecution.
I'm still stuck on why would the focus be on Steven Avery and not any of the other Avery and Avery-related males who also lived on the property?
Posted on 1/19/16 at 11:40 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
I'm still stuck on why would the focus be on Steven Avery and not any of the other Avery and Avery-related males who also lived on the property?
$36 million will get anyone's attention.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 11:41 am to 632627
quote:
Interesting critique of MaM
quote:
They also omit important evidence against him, including the fact that Brendan Dassey confessed to helping Avery move Halbach’s S.U.V. into his junk yard, where Avery lifted the hood and removed the battery cable.
Is that true? Dassey on his own provided that account? I've never heard that before.
quote:
Investigators subsequently found DNA from Avery’s perspiration on the hood latch—evidence that would be nearly impossible to plant.
Why would that be nearly impossible to plant?
quote:
Perhaps because they are dodging inconvenient facts, Ricciardi and Demos are never able to present a coherent account of Halbach’s death, let alone multiple competing ones. Although “Making a Murderer” is structured chronologically, it fails to provide a clear time line of events, and it never answers such basic questions as when, where, and how Halbach died.
This seems like a laughably ironic critique, since one of the main takeaways from the doc is that the prosecution most certainly never even came close to doing such a thing themselves. Where and how she died? Ha.
quote:
It also implies that that misconduct was malicious.
I would submit that such misconduct is malicious by definition.
This post was edited on 1/19/16 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 1/19/16 at 11:52 am to 632627
quote:
It's pretty clear the filmmakers primary goal was to exonerate Avery, not to criticize our justice system as a whole as some here have suggested.
They decided to make this documentary in 2005 before they knew much about the case, before they had access to any of the evidence, and before the incompetence of the county was on full display. Sure, after a decade of making this and seeing all of the information in front of them, they might feel that Avery shouldn't be incarcerated. Any reasonable person could easily come to the same conclusion.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 12:41 pm to Yellerhammer5
quote:
No detectable EDTA in the car sample
In regards to this case, I'd consider myself an expert on two things:
1) The contaminated DNA sample. No way that should stand. If the protocol says it's invalid, then it's invalid (unless there's a secondary protocol that allows for overriding the first result, but the show didn't specify that). And if there was a secondary protocol, you better believe that the lab director would have to sign off on it. Not just a lab tech.
2) The FBI's EDTA test. I'd love to see the testing script for how they validated that test. Sample size, detection limits, reproducibility, sensitivity, room temp time allowed, etc. I have a hard time believing that a test could be validated and used in such a short period of time.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 12:48 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
It was fresh blood of Avery.
That's not what the test found. The test didn't find any EDTA. The test didn't determine if the blood was fresh or not.
Assuming the test was valid (which I have a problem with), there are two ways to look at the test result. 1) The blood didn't have any EDTA. or 2) The EDTA couldn't be detected by the test.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 12:54 pm to Argonaut
quote:
They decided to make this documentary in 2005 before they knew much about the case
in 2005 they knew that he had been wrongly convicted for a previous crime, so its very possible they began this project with the notion that he was being wrongly accused again.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 1:01 pm to 632627
quote:
in 2005 they knew that he had been wrongly convicted for a previous crime, so its very possible they began this project with the notion that he was being wrongly accused again.
It's possible they began this project about a Sno-cone stand in Mexico too, but none of us really knows what their motivations were. I'll go with what they said in 2005 and again in 2016.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 1:13 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Investigators subsequently found DNA from Avery’s perspiration on the hood latch—evidence that would be nearly impossible to plant.
quote:
Why would that be nearly impossible to plant?
I would assume that it's because it doesn't exist. There is no such thing as "sweat DNA". What they allegedly found were skin cells.
Imagine picking up your remote to change the channel, then setting it back down on your coffee table. You've almost certainly just transferred your DNA from your hand to the remote to the table. I imagine an auto repair business and Avery's own household had a multitude of objects he had touched. It would be even easier to transfer that to another object, than the nonsense they probably pulled with that old vile of his blood.
Even more likely is the incompetent lab tech that tested for DNA, and who already freely admitted that she completely botched the test from the bullet, screw up another test. I'm sure she was given several objects from his home that had his DNA all over them, such as his rifle. If she isn't competent enough to test one bullet without spitting all over it, I have my doubts whether she could test hundreds of items without transferring skin cells among them.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 1:29 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Is that true? Dassey on his own provided that account? I've never heard that before.
Well, if it was anything like we seen on TV he was probably provided with a list of outcomes and guided in that direction. I mean, they did a great job of making sure his confessions sounded like what they wanted it to sound like.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 1:57 pm to Prettyboy Floyd
quote:
Well, if it was anything like we seen on TV he was probably provided with a list of outcomes and guided in that direction. I mean, they did a great job of making sure his confessions sounded like what they wanted it to sound like.
But it seems like with this one, they are asserting that Dassey on his own provided these new details which were then unknown.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 2:02 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
But it seems like with this one, they are asserting that Dassey on his own provided these new details which were then unknown.
You can watch the entire interrogation. I don't remember him saying anything that wasn't coerced and was backed up by physical evidence.
Posted on 1/19/16 at 8:03 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Posted on 1/19/16 at 10:52 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Page 50 of 84
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News