- 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 1/21/16 at 9:31 am to Vols&Shaft83
Posted on 1/21/16 at 9:31 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
And if there was ANY indisputable proof that evidence was planted, I'd be inclined to agree with you, but there isn't.
Depends on your apparent understanding of "indisputable". There is no "indisputable" proof that ties Avery to the crime, yet you readily eat that up. It's next to impossible to provide "indisputable" proof that evidence has been planted.
I also missed the fact that you said a bed sheet could account for the lack of the victim's blood at the murder scene.
1
Posted on 1/21/16 at 9:44 am to Cooter Davenport
quote:
He may well have done it, but not in the way his nephew described in his "confession"
I'll concede that the nephew's confession is questionable. And the prosecution never presented evidence that her throat was cut, nor that she was definitively killed in Avery's bedroom.
But her blood was found in the RAV4, and of course, on the bullet.
A .22 caliber bullet isn't going to cause the victim's head to explode, splattering the garage, where Dassey confessed that Avery shot her in the head. Any blood in the garage could have been easily cleaned, and in fact both Avery and Dassey admitted that they were cleaning the garage on the night Halbach went missing.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 9:44 am to DisplacedBuckeye
I've watched the series and have just skimmed this thread.
Has anyone ever given a motive for Avery to kill Theresa?
Was a murder weapon ever produced?
If she was killed in the method the prosecution described, there would be blood everywhere in his trailer and/or garage.
I am not 100% sure Avery is innocent but there is more than enough evidence to create reasonable doubt, which is all that should be needed for a jury to acquit. Avery definitely got railroaded.
Has anyone ever given a motive for Avery to kill Theresa?
Was a murder weapon ever produced?
If she was killed in the method the prosecution described, there would be blood everywhere in his trailer and/or garage.
I am not 100% sure Avery is innocent but there is more than enough evidence to create reasonable doubt, which is all that should be needed for a jury to acquit. Avery definitely got railroaded.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 9:45 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
And if there was ANY indisputable proof that evidence was planted, I'd be inclined to agree with you, but there isn't. There's open ended speculation, nothing more.
The whole point here isn't for the defense to indisputably prove that they're innocent. The whole point is for the prosecution to indisputably prove that they're guilty, which I don't' see how someone with even some slight semblance of intelligence could get on board with. He may have killed TH, who knows? But there damn sure isn't proof beyond reasonable doubt that he did, which is all that's required for me to have voted not guilty.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 9:52 am to slinger1317
The motive is he is a sociopathic criminal with a violent history, particularly towards women. I've seen this asked before, my question is always what would be the motive for other people? Wouldn't it be the same for any other suspect? They had a sick compulsion and acted out on it. What other kind of motives are there? Money, revenge, hate, lust, just the thrill of it, insanity..
Posted on 1/21/16 at 9:58 am to WG_Dawg
quote:
The whole point here isn't for the defense to indisputably prove that they're innocent. The whole point is for the prosecution to indisputably prove that they're guilty
NO SIR, if the defense is going to argue that evidence was planted in order to frame Steven Avery, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened, and they failed to do so in a court of law.
Why do you think the prosecution never argued to have the vial of blood thrown out? They knew if it was introduced by the defense, the defense would then have to defend their position that evidence was planted.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 10:07 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:WHAT???? They must prove it? This is absolutely terrifying that you, an apparently intelligent person, would argue that the defense must prove the case. Remember, the defense has no obligation to present any case--although we know that's not a good plan.
NO SIR, if the defense is going to argue that evidence was planted in order to frame Steven Avery, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened, and they failed to do so in a court of law.
In addition, the judge made that strange ruling that it was one of the only defenses they could make. I find that ruling absurd. Even if the defense found a lot of evidence that supported an alternative suspect (e.g., his BIL), they were disallowed from arguing it. That is not how our system was designed.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 10:08 am to Vols&Shaft83
The real problem with all the framing accusations is that multiple agency from different jurisdictions are all over the crime scene. You either have to believe they were all in on it or these group of dipshits tricked the state and fbi agents on site and skillfully tricked every law enforcement agency on the case. I don't believe its possible the evidence could have been planted.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 10:09 am to brmark70816
quote:There are a lot of murders. Very few murders are the result of murderous psychopaths.
I've seen this asked before, my question is always what would be the motive for other people? Wouldn't it be the same for any other suspect? They had a sick compulsion and acted out on it.
Most a result of anger (e.g., spouse) or related to other crimes (drug deals, robberies).
Posted on 1/21/16 at 10:13 am to Rou Leed
quote:Ummm what?
FBI agents on site
Posted on 1/21/16 at 10:16 am to Rou Leed
quote:
The real problem with all the framing accusations is that multiple agency from different jurisdictions are all over the crime scene. You either have to believe they were all in on it or these group of dipshits tricked the state and fbi agents on site and skillfully tricked every law enforcement agency on the case. I don't believe its possible the evidence could have been planted.
Huh?? Really it only takes one person or one agency to do this. Didn't you find it odd that the one agency that could hold a grudge against Avery and the one agency that was never supposed to be a part of this investigation found every key piece of evidence?
Posted on 1/21/16 at 10:21 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
NO SIR, if the defense is going to argue that evidence was planted in order to frame Steven Avery, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened, and they failed to do so in a court of law.
YOU SIR, are completely wrong. The defense has NO burden of proof. The state has all the burden to PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Mr. Avery is guilty. The defense does NOT prove innocence, because we are PRESUMED INNOCENT from the beginning, so the defense is only there to inject reasonable doubt, let me say that again Reasonable doubt.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 10:38 am to 68wDoc68w
Once the defense uses that evidence to make an affirmative accusation that law enforcement planted blood from the vial at the crime scene, then the defense has to support this accusation with affirmative evidence.
They failed to support the affirmative accusation with affirmative evidence.
They failed to support the affirmative accusation with affirmative evidence.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 10:44 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
Once the defense uses that evidence to make an affirmative accusation that law enforcement planted blood from the vial at the crime scene, then the defense has to support this accusation with affirmative evidence. They failed to support the affirmative accusation with affirmative evidence.
what world do you live in?
the defense only has to show that evidence could have reasonably been tampered with. Not prove with out a doubt. The defense only has to plant the seed of reasonable doubt, they have NO BURDEN OF PROOF for ANYTHING
Posted on 1/21/16 at 10:45 am to RedHawk
What agency wasn't supposed to be involved?
Posted on 1/21/16 at 10:49 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
And the prosecution never presented evidence that her throat was cut, nor that she was definitively killed in Avery's bedroom.
Because nothing existed. The only thing they had was Dassey's confession, and they used that to the extent that they could.
quote:
But her blood was found in the RAV4
So in your opinion, and going by the prosecution's account, he murdered her in his bedroom, loaded her into the back of her vehicle, then drove it about 11 feet to the burn pit?
quote:
A .22 caliber bullet isn't going to cause the victim's head to explode
Nope, but a head wound will produce a significant amount of blood and there would have been at least a detectable amount of blood present.
The type of chemicals used to clean the garage does not remove all traces of blood.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 10:50 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
But her blood was found in the RAV4, and of course, on the bullet.
When was it stated that her blood was on the bullet? Al I've seen was her DNA was on te bullet, not blood.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 10:53 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
affirmative accusation with affirmative evidence
yes I know what these are but this usually used for insanity claims, and/or
quote:
Mistake of fact" is not an affirmative defense: it does not require proof but it does introduce doubt. In mistake-of-fact defenses, the defendant asserts that his mistaken belief prevents the establishment, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the required mens rea.
quote:
[quote]In an affirmative defense the burden of proof is generally on the defendant to prove his allegations either by the preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence. In this respect, affirmative defenses differ from ordinary defenses [claim of right, alibi, infancy, necessity, and (in some jurisdictions, e.g., New York) self-defense (which is an affirmative defense at common law)], which the prosecution has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt.[/quote]
This post was edited on 1/21/16 at 10:57 am
Posted on 1/21/16 at 10:55 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:Do you have link to this legal analysis? Or are you just making crap up?
Once the defense uses that evidence to make an affirmative accusation that law enforcement planted blood from the vial at the crime scene, then the defense has to support this accusation with affirmative evidence.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 10:56 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
Do you have link to this legal analysis? Or are you just making crap up?
these are real but he is using them wrong
Page 58 of 84
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News