Making a murder

[Coleman]

I just don't get 14 pages in this thread debating whether a guy is guilty or not based on a biased TV show.

Now, if someone wants to go over all the evidence and transcripts from the trial and then comes to a conclusion on guilt of innocence, more power to them and they have a valid point.

But a TV show that does not do that? I can't figure out how anyone can make a decision on guilt based on just this.

People ARE doing that. The entire trial transcripts are available online. All of the information anyone could ever want is linked on the Reddit forum. And the calls for exoneration are getting louder, not softer.

The documentary isn't just the sole source of information for people anymore. It merely brought this injustice to the mainstream.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I just don't get 14 pages in this thread debating whether a guy is guilty or not based on a biased TV show.

Now, if someone wants to go over all the evidence and transcripts from the trial and then comes to a conclusion on guilt of innocence, more power to them and they have a valid point.

But a TV show that does not do that? I can't figure out how anyone can make a decision on guilt based on just this.

To me it is not so much innocence or guilt as much as if reasonable doubt exists.  I wonder how the results of the poll might change if it was phrased in regards to reasonable doubt instead innocence vs. guilt. 

[NavinRJohnson]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.  When he was being cross-examined on the stand on this topic it seemed pretty clear to me that he was not being honest.

So you saw the entire direct and cross examinations, right?

[🏀]

So you saw the entire direct and cross examinations, right?

Did you?

[mu03eng]

Based on the available information (or absence of) which I use to draw my own conclusions, yes. Not sure why you would imply there's some sort of inconsistency in that. Maybe it's a conspiracy! The difference of course is that I'm not suggesting a murdering rapist (or two) should be set free because I watched a TV show.

So you refuse to acknowledge inconsistencies in the Avery/Dassey case because you know they are guilty and anyone that believes there are issues is a crackpot because they saw it on tv.....however you are willing to speculate that prison guards facilitated murder on the premise that "well they were two bad guys and now they are dead, that can't be a coincidence"?

Makes sure you give the means a thumbs up as you fly by to your ends.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

So you saw the entire direct and cross examinations, right?

I did not and it is just my opinion so I completely understand that people may disagree with my impression.  He sure did not give the impression of telling the truth at that moment. 

Did you? 

Did you watch any or all of the documentary?  You keep avoiding that question even though it has been asked many times. 

[NavinRJohnson]

Did you?

Nope. You know who did? The jurors. You'll forgive me if I put 100 times more stock in their opinions and decision as a data point, than I do someone who saw 10% of it in a TV show with a purpose.

[StillAWarrior]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.  When he was being cross-examined on the stand on this topic it seemed pretty clear to me that he was not being honest.  I absolutely believe he was looking at the car in person a day or two before it was found on the Avery property.

I'm not sure why you think you're disagreeing with me.  I offered no opinion on whether he was being honest or not.  Someone seemed to suggest that there was no explanation for how he could have been calling in the plates if he wasn't looking at the car.  I was merely acknowledging that there is an explanation, and that it even makes some sense.  I didn't state my opinion on whether I believed him or not.

There are a lot of explanations offered for coincidences involving Colburn and Lenk.  I am skeptical of many of them.  But that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation.

[mu03eng]

I just don't get 14 pages in this thread debating whether a guy is guilty or not based on a biased TV show.

Now, if someone wants to go over all the evidence and transcripts from the trial and then comes to a conclusion on guilt of innocence, more power to them and they have a valid point.

But a TV show that does not do that? I can't figure out how anyone can make a decision on guilt based on just this.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/

This group believes there were actionable issues, and they've done all the research. They aren't going to waste time/reputation on something that doesn't have legal legitimacy.

Also, some folks like Navin need to recognize the distinction between people assessing guilt or innocence for Avery(I don't, but lean guilty) and people arguing that regardless of whether he did it or not the authorities overstepped their role/ethics. It highlights significant inequities in the justice system independent of the actual guilt or innocence of the party associated with it.

As an example, if I have video of a person committing a crime and I have a confession that police beat out of him, I think he's guilty but they better not use the confession because they overstepped the bounds of the justice system.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I'm not sure why you think you're disagreeing with me.  I offered no opinion on whether he was being honest or not.  Someone seemed to suggest that there was no explanation for how he could have been calling in the plates if he wasn't looking at the car.  I was merely acknowledging that there is an explanation, and that it even makes some sense.  I didn't state my opinion on whether I believed him or not.

There are a lot of explanations offered for coincidences involving Colburn and Lenk.  I am skeptical of many of them.  But that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation.

Fair enough.  I guess you think the other explanation is more viable than I do. 

[Coleman]

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/.

Also, some folks like Navin need to recognize the distinction between people assessing guilt or innocence for Avery(I don't, but lean guilty) and people arguing that regardless of whether he did it or not the authorities overstepped their role/ethics. It highlights significant inequities in the justice system independent of the actual guilt or innocence of the party associated with it.

As an example, if I have video of a person committing a crime and I have a confession that police beat out of him, I think he's guilty but they better not use the confession because they overstepped the bounds of the justice system.

This is the crux of everything.

Avery's guilt is important, but not the most important issue. The most important issue is an out of control police agency that coerced confessions, planted evidence, intimidated witnesses, and performed illegal searches. Avery might ultimately have still been guilty, but his constitutional rights were completely trampled in the course of getting that verdict.

Again, you either stand by our constitution or you don't.

[NavinRJohnson]

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/

Also, some folks like Navin need to recognize the distinction between people assessing guilt or innocence for Avery(I don't, but lean guilty) and people arguing that regardless of whether he did it or not the authorities overstepped their role/ethics. It highlights significant inequities in the justice system independent of the actual guilt or innocence of the party associated with it.

I recognize this. I'm saying I don't believe there is an issue in either instance. Our legal system is an imperfect system. It's more art than science. Every case is different and subject to interpretation. I haven't been sucked in by the bright shiny object. Due process was served, and these guys are going to die in prison.

[StillAWarrior]

Fair enough.  I guess you think the other explanation is more viable than I do.

I simply think it's an explanation.  Honestly, nothing more than that.

Someone had asked, "curious for the explanation of..." and Navin offered one.  And I merely pointed out that it's the one that was offered by Colburn (not sure if Navin knew that since he hasn't watched the series).  I never said it was true or a good explanation or a better explanation than that he was looking at the car.  Only that it made sense in that it is possible.  But we're really not disagreeing...so no sense in my beating this dead horse any further.

[mu03eng]

This is the crux of everything.

Avery's guilt is important, but not the most important issue. The most important issue is an out of control police agency that coerced confessions, planted evidence, intimidated witnesses, and performed illegal searches. Avery might ultimately have still been guilty, but his constitutional rights were completely trampled in the course of getting that verdict.

Again, you either stand by our constitution or you don't.

And the irony for me is that if they had stuck with the evidence and what I suspect is the most likely scenario of the crime they don't have to create this whole Dassey mess.

Avery killed her and disposed of the body and likely left circumstantial evidence. The police "enhanced" the evidence and/or had to cover for an illegal search (Halbach's brother and/or Colburn) and this whole thing got twisted into a mess. In that scenario you don't have to make any of the insane logical leaps required to believe the prosecutors two versions of how the crime occurred (ignoring the fact that the crime could only have happened one way)

[NavinRJohnson]

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/

This group believes there were actionable issues, and they've done all the research. They aren't going to waste time/reputation on something that doesn't have legal legitimacy.

Edited: NVM. I am truly dropping out of this thread...This time I mean it. I'm just bored with the whole thing.

[mu03eng]

I don't understand the point of the link. They tried to get him a new trial. So what? It's done every day, and it fails every day. Were the folks found guilty in all of those cases wrongly convicted?

Someone asked if people had seen all the evidence, the folks who work at that group have seen everything and thought there was cause to challenge some of the stuff that went on. They are unlikely to challenge on something where there isn't merit. Not saying they're right just pointing out that there are smart people who know the law who thought there was cause to challenge the conclusions.

[brandx]

People ARE doing that. The entire trial transcripts are available online. All of the information anyone could ever want is linked on the Reddit forum. And the calls for exoneration are getting louder, not softer.

The documentary isn't just the sole source of information for people anymore. It merely brought this injustice to the mainstream.

You misunderstood me (or I wasn't very clear).

My point was supposed to be that people who looked at transcripts ARE the ones who have an informed opinion. My criticism was of people who based their belief on a biased TV show.

[Coleman]

You misunderstood me (or I wasn't very clear).

My point was supposed to be that people who looked at transcripts ARE the ones who have an informed opinion. My criticism was of people who based their belief on a biased TV show.

Alright, that makes sense.

[wadesworld]

Nope. You know who did? The jurors. You'll forgive me if I put 100 times more stock in their opinions and decision as a data point, than I do someone who saw 10% of it in a TV show with a purpose.

I'm of the belief that Avery did this and is where he belongs, and that we only saw 1 side to this story and it was biased in Avery's favor.  But Colburn was clearly unprepared for that question and did not have an answer.  He was 100% stumped and it was very clear he was not telling the truth.  That question alone doesn't mean Avery is innocent.

[Hards Alumni]

Nope. You know who did? The jurors. You'll forgive me if I put 100 times more stock in their opinions and decision as a data point, than I do someone who saw 10% of it in a TV show with a purpose.

Would you be willing to put your life in the hands of people who thought you were guilty before the trial started or probably have low IQs?

I certainly would not.

The system needs professional jurors, not half wits from Mishicot.

[brandx]

Would you be willing to put your life in the hands of people who thought you were guilty before the trial started or probably have low IQs?

I certainly would not.

The system needs professional jurors, not half wits from Mishicot.

I would never want my life in the hands of any jury. I've served on a couple, and believe me, it's not a group of the best and the brightest.

[GGGG]

Would you be willing to put your life in the hands of people who thought you were guilty before the trial started or probably have low IQs?

I certainly would not.

The system needs professional jurors, not half wits from Mishicot.

Likely unconstitutional.

[Hards Alumni]

Likely unconstitutional.

It is a flexible document for a reason.

[warriorchick]

Would you be willing to put your life in the hands of people who thought you were guilty before the trial started or probably have low IQs?

I certainly would not.

The system needs professional jurors, not half wits from Mishicot.

Yes, that's the solution.  Hire professional jurors and let one more aspect of the justice system get politicized.

[Jay Bee]

The judicial system is flawed beyond belief.

Avery is a murdering pig. Disgusting. Lock him up forever and let him burn in eternal hellfire!!!!!!!!!!