- 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: Poll, Making a Murderer Spoilers obviously.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:17 pm to abellsujr
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:17 pm to abellsujr
quote:
Did he know right from wrong? Was he "insane"?
Was he examined by psychiatrist? The defense never once tried to prove he was "insane" or whether or not he knew right from wrong. Never heard it even brought up. Why? Maybe because of how well he was able to perform on the stand? Maybe because they couldn't find a psychiatrist to confirm this? I agree that the documentary did not go into detail about this, but you have to ask yourself some of these questions.
What are you even arguing?
2
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:20 pm to LanierSpots
He might be guilty, but he absolutely should get a new trial in a new location.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:24 pm to 13SaintTiger
As for the people saying they cant believe the Jury came back with a "Guilty" charge on both. It happens
I , like probably a lot of you guys, have been on numerous Jurys. I have been on a few criminal cases and a bunch of civil cases.
You can sit there and listen to the evidence for a few days carefully then deliberate and sometimes, you will not believe what some of the other Jurors will be thinking. I have been on a few trials where we got charged and sent back where I thought we would be done in 5 mins because a case was so cut and dry. Then you end up with a few of the dumbest human beings on the face of the earth in the Jury
Just like the one juror who was interviewed said. He wasn't sure if the other Jurors got bulled by a few or just were ready to go home. Sometimes, people on a Jury are worse than the people there are deliberating over.
I , like probably a lot of you guys, have been on numerous Jurys. I have been on a few criminal cases and a bunch of civil cases.
You can sit there and listen to the evidence for a few days carefully then deliberate and sometimes, you will not believe what some of the other Jurors will be thinking. I have been on a few trials where we got charged and sent back where I thought we would be done in 5 mins because a case was so cut and dry. Then you end up with a few of the dumbest human beings on the face of the earth in the Jury
Just like the one juror who was interviewed said. He wasn't sure if the other Jurors got bulled by a few or just were ready to go home. Sometimes, people on a Jury are worse than the people there are deliberating over.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:28 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
You provided fourth-hand information through an article in which the author openly admitted contains speculative information, and presented it as fact
So newspapers articles from the Associated Press, criminal complaints, trial transcripts and court affidavits are useless 4th-hand information? And Reddit comments are better sources of information than this? Got it
quote:
The minute you opened your mouth and began calling other people ignorant because they didn't see things your way.
I called him ignorant for commenting on an article that he didn't read and then saying he had no intention of reading it because all websites discussing this topic are the same. Not once did I say he was ignorant for not seeing things my way. But there you go again making things up that are unequivocally false and presenting them as fact. Great job again.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:31 pm to 13SaintTiger
My argument is that he's responsible for his actions. I believe he had some role to play in this. That's pretty much it.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:33 pm to the_watcher
That's not what I said. I said I don't trust a link YOU posted, as there is now a cottage industry of hopelessly biased links. And on top of that, it was to prove a fact that, even if true, would be completely inadmissible and therefore have no bearing on proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if I 100% believed the claim, it is still completely and totally irrelevant to the case. So, no, I'm not inclined to do further reading from what is likely to be a biased source on an issue that could not be admitted into a court of law.
I do think there are some good, fairly neutral articles, most notably the Vulture's closer look series, which includes some interesting links to other issues. They haven't gotten the whole way through, but they are up to episode 7: LINK
I do think there are some good, fairly neutral articles, most notably the Vulture's closer look series, which includes some interesting links to other issues. They haven't gotten the whole way through, but they are up to episode 7: LINK
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:38 pm to abellsujr
quote:
I believe he had some role to play in this.
You don't even know what happened yet you say
quote:
My argument is that he's responsible for his actions
If he did have any part of it, no one isn't saying he shouldn't be responsible for his action, just that his words aren't worth anything.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:48 pm to 13SaintTiger
I just posted this is the other thread..
all evidence and corruption aside... a lot of my reasoning behind thinking Avery is not guilty is simply how he handles himself being accused of this.
I like to think I have a good read on people. he just seemed innocent in his denial to me. he never incriminated himself once. his tears after the verdict was announced looked to be the ones of an innocent man. JMO.
all evidence and corruption aside... a lot of my reasoning behind thinking Avery is not guilty is simply how he handles himself being accused of this.
I like to think I have a good read on people. he just seemed innocent in his denial to me. he never incriminated himself once. his tears after the verdict was announced looked to be the ones of an innocent man. JMO.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:53 pm to abellsujr
quote:
My argument is that he's responsible for his actions. I believe he had some role to play in this. That's pretty much it.
What actions did he do? He's responsible for his actions, yes, but what actions are you holding him responsible for? Is there proof of these actions anywhere?
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:56 pm to Baloo
quote:
That's not what I said.
That is what you said. I quoted it again below. You incorrectly assumed I was talking about his prior conviction when I referenced the more recent rape allegations discussed in the article. When asked if you read the article you were condescendingly speaking false about, you said
quote:
No. I really had no interest
It's the literal definition of ignorance. Commenting on something you know nothing about - you admit you didn't read it. Now you are saying you aren't inclined to read anything that could not be admitted into a court of law (how you can deduce the information in an article you've never read is beyond me) when several things in the article in question ARE FROM A COURT OF LAW. You guys are hopeless
Posted on 1/4/16 at 4:57 pm to the_watcher
quote:
So newspapers articles from the Associated Press, criminal complaints, trial transcripts and court affidavits are useless 4th-hand information?
You posted a link to another site, that got their information from another media source, who got their information from testimony of other individuals. I didn't say they were useless, but they certainly don't deserve the weight you want to five them.
quote:
Got it
Well, it's about time.
quote:
I called him ignorant for commenting on an article that he didn't read and then saying he had no intention of reading it because all websites discussing this topic are the same. Not once did I say he was ignorant for not seeing things my way. But there you go again making things up that are unequivocally false and presenting them as fact. Great job again.
You keep acting like you're presenting new and significant information. There's nothing there that wouldn't be known by someone after a mild amount of research.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:00 pm to STLhog
quote:
Bones and all her shite in his barrel wasn't enough?
And no one else could have put it there? Was Steven's DNA found on those bones?
quote:
How did they even prove the stabbing and the head shot? Was all that verified?
No. That was all taken from Brendan's "confession". They took Brendan's "confession" and ran like wild fire with it, and you see how they used everything he said to appeal to everyone's emotions.
Remember Kratz's stories he would say at the press conferences that sounded like he was narrating a horror movie? That was KRATZ's bullshite, and he sensationalized it to the max, because he wanted public perception on his side, and he wanted to demonize SA and Brendan. He even had two different narratives that he brought out to the public that was a pure appeal to emotions, and had no factual basis based on the evidence they had recovered at ANY POINT.
It fits the Kratz method perfectly. Just listen to his defenses and how they're always prompting emotional responses, and there's hardly any attempt to connect Steven to the murder logistically in the physical.
quote:
I figured blunt force trauma or strangulation with gloves was much more likely..
Maybe, NO evidence, none at all. Zip, zilch, zero, to support that.
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 5:01 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:00 pm to the_watcher
quote:
You guys are hopeless
Didn't you say that Avery shouldn't get a new trial because you couldn't see how it could be fair to him?
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:03 pm to 13SaintTiger
I can agree with most of that, but I do believe he had a part in "something". What that "something" is, we do not know fully.
It just sounded like some people were saying he was so "retarded" that even if he were responsible in some way, it's not his fault.
This has been a heated debate all over the internet right now and it's easy to misunderstand the intentions of statements and assume. Ultimately our disagreement comes that I personally think he's a little smarter than he's letting on based mainly on his performance on the stand. Essentially it doesn't mean much in the outcome. I do believe he was manipulated by the state and also Steve Avery, and part of me feels bad for him. I really wish he would have taken the deal and gotten the 15 years and more of a psychiatric focus on his treatment, but I also believe he can be dangerous.
I've seen the interrogations and I do believe many of the details were brought upon by the interrogation tactics. But I think he was at the very least a witness and small participant. I just think he felt guilty about something. I just believe the details have gotten distorted.
It just sounded like some people were saying he was so "retarded" that even if he were responsible in some way, it's not his fault.
This has been a heated debate all over the internet right now and it's easy to misunderstand the intentions of statements and assume. Ultimately our disagreement comes that I personally think he's a little smarter than he's letting on based mainly on his performance on the stand. Essentially it doesn't mean much in the outcome. I do believe he was manipulated by the state and also Steve Avery, and part of me feels bad for him. I really wish he would have taken the deal and gotten the 15 years and more of a psychiatric focus on his treatment, but I also believe he can be dangerous.
I've seen the interrogations and I do believe many of the details were brought upon by the interrogation tactics. But I think he was at the very least a witness and small participant. I just think he felt guilty about something. I just believe the details have gotten distorted.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:10 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:The evidence is not solid. He's a mess when it comes to getting consistent statements (except on the stand). Whether our not I would or could convict him based on what I know is not the issue. I was not present at the trial and that's not a decision that's fair for anyone to make. I can only go by what I believe is likely. That's the only conclusions I can come to. I just feel he was most likely involved in some small fashion based on SOME of his statements. You have to try to pick apart what was said and when it was said and why it was said. But as far as a conviction? Not based on what I've seen, but I also know that I have not seen everything.
What actions did he do? He's responsible for his actions, yes, but what actions are you holding him responsible for? Is there proof of these actions anywhere?
If everything I knew was all there is to know, no, I could not convict.
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:11 pm to the_watcher
quote:
It's the literal definition of ignorance. Commenting on something you know nothing about - you admit you didn't read it
You can't be this dense. I admitted I didn't read it for the reasons I've outlined now in three different posts: it is completely irrelevant and has no bearing on guilt or innocence. You said that he had prior accusations of sexual misconduct and I'm saying an accusation doesn't mean a goddamn thing. You can introduce prior convictions into evidence in certain situations, but you cannot introduce prior accusations. I'm not going to read a detailed article about something that is presented as "hey, read this thing that has literally no bearing on the state's case or meeting its burden to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt." No. I'm not going to do that, as that is an utter waste of time and is, by definition, irrelevant.
quote:
Now you are saying you aren't inclined to read anything that could not be admitted into a court of law (how you can deduce the information in an article you've never read is beyond me) when several things in the article in question ARE FROM A COURT OF LAW. You guys are hopeless
Well, I've told you my reasons from the beginning. It's not my fault you can't follow the reasoning. It's not a very nuanced argument. You want me to be persuaded by an article about unproven accusations, and I don't do whispering campaigns to assault people's character. Sorry. How do I know it can't be admitted? BECAUSE ACCUSATIONS OF OTHER CRIMES ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE. IT'S PRIOR CONVICTIONS THAT ARE RELEVANT.
I care about what is admissible, and have consistently made a big deal about admissibility (as with the Dassey confession when he was represented by counsel and met cops without his attorney) because this is a doc ABOUT A COURT CASE. The state has to meet its burden of proving the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm arguing, and said in my very first post, that even if Avery did it, the state hasn't met its burden. So, yes, EVERYTHING needs to be viewed through the prism of whether the state could/did introduce it at trial. IF the doc is arguing that there is an abuse of the justice system, it sort of makes sense to look as, ya know, the justice system.
You made a bad argument and then asked for me to do more reading on your bad argument. No, I'm not going to do that. No one should.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:18 pm to Baloo
Someone please pick up the mic Baloo just dropped. We don't want anyone in this thread to trip.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 5:40 pm to Baloo
quote:
the state hasn't met its burden
Is it just 20/20 hindsight, or do you think best practices would have reasonably expected the judge to issue a gag order in a case with so much baggage (as opposed to letting the DA have that tawdry press conference telling the horror story of Brendan's coerced confession - i.e. the rape, throat-cutting, etc.)?
Posted on 1/4/16 at 6:21 pm to Mouth
quote:
I like to think I have a good read on people. he just seemed innocent in his denial to me. he never incriminated himself once. his tears after the verdict was announced looked to be the ones of an innocent man. JMO
He really didn't think the county would be able to pull one over on him twice.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 6:31 pm to LanierSpots
This shite with Brendan is so infuriating. I am more pissed off at his piece of shite lawyer and that "investigator" he brought in to craft Brendan's story than I am at the cops.
Pieces of shite, these guys. Wow.
Pieces of shite, these guys. Wow.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News