re: New Netflix docu-series "Making a Murderer" (Spoilers)

quote:

---

Person A wants to beleive that power is corrupt and the game is rigged. They got all they need to know from watching the doc and they firmly beleive Avery is innocent and nothing.. Up to and including a confession from Avery would ever change thier mind. It would be an interesting study to know this type of person's thoughts on other conspiracy theories. If I had to guess, I bet they beleive in JFK conspiracy and others. I'd also bet the are folks content to source their news only from sources that match their political persuasion.

Person B watched the doc and while bothered by the evidence supporting police corruption, dug further. They read additional articles from different sources. Once having done so, it's pretty hard to believe that Avery didn't kill this woman, and that Dassey took part. There is tons of evidence not shown in the documentary that would be almost impossible to refute clearly pointing to these guys being guilty. Type B person is I'd wager on average more skeptical of conspiracy, probably less politically rigid and demands extraordinary evidence before subscribing to any particular belief.


Just an observation.

---

That's a bullshite "observation" and a false dichotomy you've drawn.

Your words typed after "Person B" are highly presumptuous and mostly false.

quote:

---

Why was Avery's jury originally only 3 guilties?

---

The straw poll that they take at the beginning of deliberations? Honestly, I don't know how he would even get that information, while the jury is still discussing the case. Who would have leaked that? Maybe the guy that begged to be let go told them that. But that guy is all over the news and is very suspicious. Things change when jurors start talking though. Obviously a lot of minds changed, but I changed my mind a ton watching the show and afterwards.

Do you think they were threatened or forced to vote a certain way? Or maybe they were bought off?

Kind of on a different subject. But if you were suing a city/county/state, would you stay in the jurisdiction while the case was pending? Why didn't he move away? I never got that. He had to know people were going to be gunning for him..

quote:

---

Which begs the question: why would he have been more likely to have done it than any of the other adult Avery males living on the premises?

---

He's way sketchier. He called the gal multiple times. She had complained to her bosses, specifically about him. There is something more than the documentary shows.

Just not seeing motive for the others. And, again, part of my personal theory is that he felt like they "owed him" one. And I felt that way before I saw his ex-fiance echo that in her recent interview, "All bitches owe him, because of the one that put him in prison."

So - I'm comfortable enough to say he did it, but probably not comfortable enough to have voted to convict at the criminal trial - roughly where I was with O.J.

quote:

---

Who is "he"?

---

Avery's lawyer. He is the one that came in and told the family that, right? Or am I remembering that wrong. I thought it was while they were waiting on a verdict. Or did he do it afterwards at the family house? I just don't know how he would have got that information.

quote:

---

Seems like Monday-morning QB to me.

---

I just remember a scene in Primal Fear where Gere is talking to a client that is suing the police. Gere told him that he needed to leave town and the guy told him he'd never leave. Gere told him that there would be consequences. The guy is found later dead. I'd think that lawyers would pass on that bit of knowledge pretty quick. Seems like Avery was trying to thumb his nose at them by staying (that and all the press he was doing)..

quote:

---

Seriously? A guy spends 18 years in prison for a crime be didn't commit AND you expect him to leave his family and friends AND disregard the justified media attention, much of it was set-up by others (politicians).

---

First, he didn't spend 18 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. Yes, if you believe that the police are conspiring against you and continue to do so, you should probably get away from the area. Especially if you are about to come into a lot of money and can afford to live in a better place.

quote:

---

AND since he didn't do that, the logical conclusion is that he was probably rubbing it in their faces?

---

Well yeah, if you are going on tv/papers and attacking the police, then staying in the same community, you are putting it in their face. That's not really much of a stretch.

quote:

---

AND supportive evidence for this is a fictional film, about a murderous Keyser Soze-like altar boy?

---

This is a film/movie forum. Honestly I can't name many cases, in real life, where people sued the police. But I know they do happen. When they do, I'm guessing the people don't stick around the same place. They buy nicer houses in better cities. It is a great movie though and just seemed to be common sense..

Fight the good fight. The person A B post was not very well thought out to put it mildly. The generalizations are terrible and like another poster pointed out you have to include a person C.

Person C can believe whether he killed her or not the evidence is lacking, the prosecutions case is illogical, the Sheriff's deputies were in legit financial peril, and the jurors probably didn't want to vote not guilty bc they have to ride around town knowing these cops could catch them speeding, then maybe notice a few more violations. All of which is perfectly legally of course, I'm not saying they would drum up something. They could never mistakenly put you in jail for 18 yrs for something you didn't do. But if they do take solace in that they knew one day you would deserve it.

Despite all the issues, and the same cops involved in the second case, and the ridiculous blood in the car, and the keys on the ground after numerous searches.

The prosecutions motive was non-existent.

This guy is about to make bank - get a windfall - and embarrass and maybe (get some law enforcement folks permanently fired) - and their motive is - "well, he did it because he's a creep, just like he raped that girl" - except he was exonerated...and their response was "despite the DNA, we still feel he's guilty."

When that sounded laughable enough, they offered up as a teen that he tossed a cat over a fire...and his whole family is rotten.

That was the prosecutions entire motive for Avery going off the reservation mentally (just as he's about to be uber-wealthy after spending years in prison) -

It makes no sense. The prosecution owes a duty to provide a reasonable motive that doesn't fly in the face of reality. They offered nothing to the jury and kept implying that he was really guilty of rape years before, they kept bringing that up. That really burned them, the DNA and their intentional or not (probably intentional) screw-up. Every cop made no bones about the fact that innocent or not, they hate the Averys.

On the contrary, the police, DA, County and State had ALL THE MOTIVE IN THE WORLD...to silence this guy and prevent his lawsuit from continuing.

You assume that he would have won his $36 Million lawsuit.

Motive is not necessary with eyewitness testimony and really not necessary with strong DNA evidence...but it becomes more important in circumstantial cases built on shaky evidence.

While evidence of motive does not establish an element of the crime charged . . . such evidence is both desirable and important. . . . It strengthens the state's case when an adequate motive can be shown. . . . Evidence tending to show the existence or nonexistence of motive often forms an important factor in the inquiry as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. . . . This factor is to be weighed by the jury along with the other evidence in the case. . . . The role motive plays in any particular case necessarily varies with the strength of the other evidence in the case. The other evidence may be such as to justify a conviction without any motive being shown. It may be so weak that without a disclosed motive the guilt of the accused would be clouded by a reasonable doubt.

The legal field takes it more seriously, shaping cops investigations on motive (ergo, going after disgruntled husbands in murder cases right off the bat, etc.)

I think the general public takes the position, people be crazy. And that's really rarely the case. Most people kill people they know, and most murder cases have some motive...most often financial or revenge, etc...in premeditated cases...the cases where there often is no motive is in heat of passion manslaughter cases.

Compare that to Avery where he had a GREAT motive not to get in trouble at that point in his life.

quote:

---

he tossed a cat over a fire

---