re: After completing "Making of a Murderer" I have to ask

quote:

---

I think I would prefer a panel of professional judges

---

When your solution to a problem was the premise of a Pauly Shore movie...you may want to reconsider.

quote:

---

I would think a panel of judges would be far too corrupt and incompetent

---

They could be although I suspect in most cases that wouldn't happen. As I understand it the military does something roughly similar for a general court martial, they have a panel of judges rather than a jury and the ones who get picked are pretty senior. Others may differ.

I think the bigger problem for doing it in civilian life is to avoid the appearance of rather than actual impropriety. The BLM folks would never accept a jury of professional judges but they might a jury of their peers, for example.

quote:

---

I don't get it either, the people that watched this "documentary" then decry about the miscarriage of justice and complain of the lack of intelligence in a typical jury pool never seem to have the objectivity to realize they have been spoon feed selected facts by the producers so they will arrive at a particular conclusion.

---

Don't project your shallowness onto me. Having viewed them by the hundreds I'm quite aware of the potential for bias in any documentary and am careful to look for it. Also, I made it a point after watching to explore the post-release criticisms, especially those expressed by the prosecution.

Here are unassailable FACTS: much, if not most, of the critical evidence in the Avery case was "found" and then provided to the prosecutor and thus the court by a police department with an obvious axe to grind and that had made public misrepresentations of their participation. Under those circumstances this was a case that should never have been brought to trial in the first place, and the jury failed to deliver that message. The judge, too, failed his sworn duty, but it's unlikely to me that six or nine judges would have arrived at that same decision.