- 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 10:57 am to brmark70816
Posted on 1/21/16 at 10:57 am to brmark70816
quote:You know the answer to this.
What agency wasn't supposed to be involved?
1
Posted on 1/21/16 at 10:59 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
An affirmative defense is different from a "negating defense". A negating defense is one which tends to disprove an element of the plaintiff's or prosecutor's case. An example might be a mistake of fact claim in a prosecution for intentional drug possession, where the defendant asserts that he or she mistakenly believed that the object possessed was an innocent substance like oregano. Because this defense simply shows that an element of the offense (knowledge of the nature of the substance) is not present, the defendant does not have any burden of persuasion with regard to a negating defense. At most the defendant has the burden of producing sufficient evidence to raise the issue
Posted on 1/21/16 at 10:59 am to 68wDoc68w
quote:If my recollection is correct, if the Zimmerman defense team actually invoked the "stand your ground" defense, they would have had to prove it. This is why they didn't do that
these are real but he is using them wrong
Posted on 1/21/16 at 11:01 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
my recollection is correct, if the Zimmerman defense team actually invoked the "stand your ground" defense, they would have had to prove it. This is why they didn't do that
yes in some states you must prove you were in fear of your life to make a self defense argument. I posted this on the last page
Posted on 1/21/16 at 11:04 am to buckeye_vol
No, i don't. No agency was directed to stay away. They said they would let the other take the lead. But never said they wouldn't be involved. It was just the two. The state police and fbi don't do this level of crimes. How else should it have been handled?
Posted on 1/21/16 at 11:09 am to brmark70816
Pretty sure doc said state and fbi were involved due to the property being impounded and all Averies had to vacate. Will find link to clarify. One person could maybe plant but after so many days of other agencies searching, the other agencies would not be inclined to sign off on the authenticity of the evidence. It would show them up.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 11:10 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.
Playing that same game, the prosecution has to provide conclusive evidence supporting their case for murder (including how and where she died). The prosecution was tasked (or tasked themselves) with not just proving that Avery was 'the most likely' person to be responsibly for Halbach's death.
The prosecution's task was to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Steve Avery raped and slit the throat of Theresa in the bedroom of his trailer and drug it out to the garage where she was then shot upwards of 11 times, and then from the body was drug out and burned beyond recognition.
Even using the evidence not seen in the documentary (phone calls, etc), there is no way that this is what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. I forgot which episode it was, but the prosecution had to resort to saying that a copy of Auto Trader magazine being present in the trailer "proved" that Halbach was there, which is ridiculous.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 11:17 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.
False. You only needed a couple of people "in on it"
Two people (who weren't supposed to be on the scene at all) "found" almost all of the damning evidence.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 11:19 am to BRIllini07
The prosecution is under no obligation to show the method of death or give an account of the encounter. They only have to show the victim is dead and Avery was responsible for the crime. It can be circumstantial. I have posted case law before to back that up in cases with missing bodies or damaged remains. You are putting an impossible burden on the state to prosecute people and rewarding further criminal behavior (destruction of evidence). That is unfair to the victim and a huge miscarriage of justice..
Posted on 1/21/16 at 11:23 am to brmark70816
quote:They said that the Manitowoc County Sherrifs Department, due to the history and conflict of interest, WOULD NOT be involved with the actual investigation. Now they weren't "legally directed" to stay away, but their involvment, especially the specific officers, was unnecessary and a breach of trust and ethics.
No agency was directed to stay away.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 11:28 am to buckeye_vol
That's been my one big question in all of this. If an agency voluntarily recuses itself from an investigation, what repercussions, if any, can come about from intentionally violating that recusal?
Posted on 1/21/16 at 11:28 am to brmark70816
quote:No, but the lack of that information should make a case difficult to prove.
The prosecution is under no obligation to show the method of death or give an account of the encounter.
Regardless, they are under THIS ethical obligation
quote:HMMMM.
except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused
Posted on 1/21/16 at 11:29 am to Rou Leed
quote:
Rou Leed
You don't find it strange that "all these different agencies" were investigating the scene, yet supposedly missed the only two pieces of evidence that could definitively tie Avery to the murder multiple times. Guess which department found both of those items.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 11:33 am to BRIllini07
quote:
The prosecution's task was to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Steve Avery raped and slit the throat of Theresa in the bedroom of his trailer and drug it out to the garage where she was then shot upwards of 11 times, and then from the body was drug out and burned beyond recognition.
This is completely incorrect, he was not charged with rape.
He was charged with the following :
1. Homicide
2. Unlawful possession of a firearm
3. Mutilating a corpse
And he was found guilty of the first 2 counts.
Since He was not charged with rape, the prosecution never had to prove he raped her.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 11:51 am to DisplacedBuckeye
It doesn't really matter who found what when. All agencies involved signed off on the authenticity of the evidence. The other agencies corroborated what those guys found. Fbi labs worked bone and bullet. The evidence was looked at and corroborated by several agencies.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 11:57 am to Rou Leed
quote:
It doesn't really matter who found what when. All agencies involved signed off on the authenticity of the evidence. The other agencies corroborated what those guys found. Fbi labs worked bone and bullet. The evidence was looked at and corroborated by several agencies.
How does that mean anything RE: someone planting evidence? A bunch of people who weren't on the scene/didn't actually find any of the evidence signed off on evidence found by Manitowoc PD. Big deal.
Unless the other agencies are actively watching the Manitowoc boys to prevent evidence planting, then it would be easy to do so. The other people on the scene testified that they weren't watching the Manitowoc PD at all times.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 12:04 pm to Rou Leed
quote:Normally it wouldn't. In this case it does.
It doesn't really matter who found what when.
quote:The authenticity of the evidence =/= of its finding. I mean I could put dinosaur bones in my backyard, and archeologists vouge for the authenticity of the bones but wouldn't say that it died there.
All agencies involved signed off on the authenticity of the evidence.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 12:12 pm to JohnnyKilroy
Other agencies were definitely aware of how it could be perceived and endorsed the authenticity of the evidence. Its significant. They wete very forthcoming in the error made in dna testing for that very reason.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 12:17 pm to Rou Leed
quote:
Other agencies were definitely aware of how it could be perceived and endorsed the authenticity of the evidence. Its significant. They wete very forthcoming in the error made in dna testing for that very reason.
They don't seem that aware or concerned. The guy who was with them testified that he wasn't watching them for any foul play.
If they were so concerned, they would have barred them from the site after Manitowoc recused themselves from the investigation.
Posted on 1/21/16 at 12:25 pm to JohnnyKilroy
There is no reason to be concerned because whatever they find has to be verified by ever other agency there and documented. The doc makes this sound like a simple thing to do, but it isn't. Suggesting cops a. Found key on site b. Moved key c. Planted key in house all completely undetected is a very detailed and elaborate accusation.
Page 59 of 84
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News