|
I don't think the people complaining about bias in the documentary even understand documentaries. The very act of editing footage down will inherently advance an opinion. Even photography itself will reflect the biases of the artist.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
Yes, but there's also the obvious intent to skew proceedings in order to form a set narrative and opinion to appeal to the viewer which this clearly does. The prosecutors play the role of the bad guys, Avery plays the hero when it clearly isn't as black and white as that. You can't get so close to one side of the case over the course of 10 years and present something that resembles a lack of bias, and they don't really attempt to. Why would they? They have an in, and they clearly hope there will be more to film in the future and they don't want to burn those bridges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Yes, but there's also the obvious intent to skew proceedings in order to form a set narrative and opinion to appeal to the viewer which this clearly does. The prosecutors play the role of the bad guys, Avery plays the hero when it clearly isn't as black and white as that. Except that you're confounding "hero" here to mean "Innocent" rather than what the documentary and evidence shows. A wrongfully convicted victim of a mishandled court case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
If they wanted him to be the hero they probably shouldn't have pointed out how he lit that cat on fire and almost killed his cousin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
yeah i don't see avery as the hero of the show at all, just the subject also the show didn't really try to say he was "innocent" to me, so much as it tried to say "there's some reasonable doubt here" emdash fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Cast Iron Brick posted:Except that you're confounding "hero" here to mean "Innocent" rather than what the documentary and evidence shows. A wrongfully convicted victim of a mishandled court case. But you're making my argument for me if you're saying that the documentary is trying to push the concept that he's innocent. I don't mean hero in the literal sense, but the fact it's made out that one side is right and one side is wrong. Is the court case mishandled? Yes, there's plenty to show that and I don't think any neutral party would argue that. Is Avery shown in favourable terms? Yes, virtually everyone who talks about him outside of the prosecution from when the trial starts is generally in favour of him beyond clips shown from the media (which are juxtaposed to highlight the problems). The show pushes that Avery is at least most likely innocent, if not completely backing that. Is Avery innocent? Maybe. Only he knows that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
inferis posted:I don't think the people complaining about bias in the documentary even understand documentaries. The very act of editing footage down will inherently advance an opinion. Even photography itself will reflect the biases of the artist. The primary message I took away from the doc was that when these procedural safeguards that are in place are ignored, there is essentially no way to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." They exist to make sure that the police are doing the job correctly, and if we're willing to sweep them under the rug "because we've got the right guy," then the entire trial system becomes a farce. I don't think that the doc failed in communicating that message, but I think people tend to latch to the idea of Steven Avery being innocent because it's easier to accept an isolated incident of corrupt officials screwing over an innocent guy than it is to accept that we routinely cut corners in our justice system and that every one of us, yes even the Guilty, deserve a fair trial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Yes I pretty much entirely agree with that, but I feel the filmmakers purposely push you to believe he's innocent as it makes it more black and white if the scandal extends to that degree. Some people will agree with the 'ends justifies the means' that the police likely went with. It makes for good TV too. It's done for a number of reasons as discussed before, but it's absolutely their intent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Daius posted:The failed negative control is an issue for the test sample for one simple reason; if lab practice was poor enough for the tester's DNA to get into the negative control, then lab practice was poor enough for Halbech's DNA, which they would have had to test against, to find it's way into the buffer the bullet was washed in from something other than the bullet. As a researcher, everything about the forensic testing was just crazily bogus. I fully expect sample contamination if I do PCR analysis on a benchtop, that's why we have dedicated "PCR hoods" with HEPA air filters to reduce cross contamination. And then the idea that she "ran out" of sample to test... I'm highly dubious. I would imagine the bullet fragment would have had to have been washed in >200 ul of sample buffer, and a PCR reaction probably uses 1-2 ul of template, so that conservatively allows for about 100-200 tests. poo poo's wack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Yes I pretty much entirely agree with that, but I feel the filmmakers purposely push you to believe he's innocent as it makes it more black and white if the scandal extends to that degree. Some people will agree with the 'ends justifies the means' that the police likely went with. Yeah, I'd agree with you there. It also broadens the audience because it's easier to get people on board for a story about a totally innocent man who was wronged than it is to get that same level of support for a story about a guy who might be guilty but was still wronged. It's a more dramatic story, as you said, and one that's easier to relate to because most people watching are certain the only way they could ever end up being the defendant in a murder trial would be if someone framed them. And I think you're right that it was their intention to push the narrative of Steven being innocent for those and other reasons, at least in the first few episodes. After the episode where they find the broken evidence seal, I think they settle into a more impartial stance because Steven being innocent sort of ceases to matter in comparison to the sloppy handling of the case at every turn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Daius posted:The failed negative control is an issue for the test sample for one simple reason; if lab practice was poor enough for the tester's DNA to get into the negative control, then lab practice was poor enough for Halbech's DNA, which they would have had to test against, to find it's way into the buffer the bullet was washed in from something other than the bullet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:But you're making my argument for me if you're saying that the documentary is trying to push the concept that he's innocent. I was explicitly disagreeing with that. I think the documentary pushes that Avery's case was mishandled by crooked cops. I do not think the documentary pushes that he is innocent. His family does in it because they are his family. His lawyers do because it is there job to say he is. But the documentary in itself with its framing, narrative structure, and presentation of the trial makes a good case that the trial was mishandled while not making a stance that Avery is necessarily innocent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
The filmmakers explicitly state that the documentary isn't about Avery's guilt or innocence, either. It's about how the investigation/case was handled and how that can happen every day, all across America.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Maybe it's just a normal human preference for absolutes which causes the impression that Avery is innocent, rather than the more gray assertion that he was convicted despite the abundance of reasonable doubt and rampant misconduct. It's difficult for folks to accept that he could have done it while also accepting that he was improperly prosecuted/convicted, because acquittal is inextricably linked to exoneration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
One of the other things about this documentary which I think we are all taking for granted, to some degree, is *all* the negative press coverage and negative articles written about Avery and Dassey in the public sphere while this documentary was being made. Combine this with the fact that while the Averys would agree to do interviews with these two young women, the Halbachs would not. And it wasn't a situation of them already having made up their minds or deciding to "be on Steven Avery's side", this was when they just went up there in 2005 to do a documentary about something that seemed fascinating. Purely as a result of this (how things turned out based on the access they had) I think the film kind of became "Let's tell the story that the media isn't telling and represent the side of the case that the media isn't really representing." I mean, when they got there the situation was just that: one of the families involved not only spoke to them but confided in them deeply - especially as the local media was treating them like monsters. While on the other hand, they sat down and had coffee with Mike Halbach and absolutely asked him to be involved with the documentary and to be interviewed, and as I understand it this was an offer extended to the entire Halbach family (Mike was the designated member of the family who dealt with the media) and they declined to be involved on any level. Ken Kratz says he was never asked to be interviewed for the documentary at all, yet this is not the case at all - he was not only asked, there is a letter on file from 2006 from Demos and Ricciardi inviting him to participate in the documentary, and he declined - as did anyone involved with the prosecution. What's absurd is that Kratz was claiming they never gave him a chance at all to be a part of the documentary. I can forgive him for having memory problems given his persistent drug abuse during this part of his life, though. So to me, I feel that in many ways they made the only documentary they could make based on the access to the people and materials they had. Yes, it is biased in many ways, but I think that's unavoidable and that any documentary or film contains multiple biases - as people have said, even the language of cinematography has bias. kaworu fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Murphy Brownback posted:That does make what the chemist (I forget her name) said a little less damning I guess - wasn't her main problem that there wasn't a detection limit given? Or was the issue that it wasn't published? He gave a super hacky answer that made him look bad, which is exactly why it was in the documentary and the lawyer did a good job pointing it out for the jury. He should have just said of course I don't know about a stain that isn't tested. That said, if you accept that the test would find the preservative in the three stains they tested and that those stains weren't planted, it already should prove to you that there was a source of blood other than the test tube. Did the police find blood there, leave it, then add blood from the tube in three more places? That's a hell of a stretch. And if you think the test is bullshit then it doesn't really matter if they test a thousand bloodstains. But that's a logical argument rather than a scientific "we are certain of the stain we didn't test" statement, which is ridiculous and it's fair for the documentary to show prosecution experts saying ridiculous things to question the system generally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:He gave a super hacky answer that made him look bad, which is exactly why it was in the documentary and the lawyer did a good job pointing it out for the jury. He should have just said of course I don't know about a stain that isn't tested. Well one could argue if all the stains had concentrations of EDTA right on the border of being detectable or not, the only responsible thing would be to test them all. We weren't talking about a bloodbath here, just a handful of stains. Like the defense said, the tests didn't prove there is no EDTA in those stains, it just proved there wasn't EDTA at concentrations above their detection threshold. Like I've been saying, I think you're right and the blood was almost certainly not planted, but they didn't prove it and made it way too difficult on themselves by not following proper procedure on pretty much every aspect of the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Even framing the question of the documentary's bias in terms of the Averys' participation vs. the Halbachs is incorrect. The Halbachs shouldn't be seen as a side in a dispute; what they have to offer the story is their experience as a grieving family. I guess you could argue that the filmmakers could have explored the Halbachs relationship with Sheriff Pagel (I gather they were social acquaintances prior to the case), and the question of what closely allying with law enforcement does to them emotionally during the ordeal. Personally I am glad they have their privacy rather than having tons of Netflix viewers spewing at them for feeling what they felt when something horrible happened to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
^That's why I don't really get these people that accuse the brother of killing his sister. No poo poo he looks "off" or "weird" during the trial, his sister was the victim!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:Even framing the question of the documentary's bias in terms of the Averys' participation vs. the Halbachs is incorrect. The Halbachs shouldn't be seen as a side in a dispute; what they have to offer the story is their experience as a grieving family. I guess you could argue that the filmmakers could have explored the Halbachs relationship with Sheriff Pagel (I gather they were social acquaintances prior to the case), and the question of what closely allying with law enforcement does to them emotionally during the ordeal. Personally I am glad they have their privacy rather than having tons of Netflix viewers spewing at them for feeling what they felt when something horrible happened to them. I totally get what you're saying, but perhaps I didn't really articulate my point correctly. What I was trying t say is that if the filmmakers had access to the Halbachs, I honestly believe they would have been framed in an absolutely sympathetic light, and as victims regardless of Avery's presumed or factual guilt or innocence (obviously). I was trying to say that the people they had access to and their opinions framed the biases of the documentary organically as they were collecting information during 05-07. If they had access to the Halbachs, then I believe the documentary would have evolved in a different manner, most likely. I do not believe Netflix viewers would have been "spewing" at them, I think they would have been empathizing with them as human beings who lost a family member (much as they empathized with the personal interviews with the Avery family members when they discussed the loss of their family members). And to me, it's sad that this side of the story wasn't told and explored more deeply. Because it would have underscored that law enforcement and the judicial system is the problem here, and *all* the families involved wind up being victims. kaworu fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
kaworu posted:I do not believe Netflix viewers would have been "spewing" at them, I think they would have been empathizing with them as human beings who lost a family member (much as they empathized with the personal interviews with the Avery family members when they discussed the loss of their family members). And to me, it's sad that this side of the story wasn't told and explored more deeply. Because it would have underscored that law enforcement and the judicial system is the problem here, and *all* the families involved wind up being victims. Yeah, and besides, there are plenty of people spewing poo poo about them all over the internet now, so keeping their exposure in the film limited to the Brother's court interviews certainly didn't do them any favors in that regard. I understand what you're saying though. Because the Averys are the only ones who appear willing to open up about their experiences while going through this whole thing, they automatically become more sympathetic and vulnerable to the audience, and it makes everyone else look like they have something to hide.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
kaworu posted:I totally get what you're saying, but perhaps I didn't really articulate my point correctly. What I was trying t say is that if the filmmakers had access to the Halbachs, I honestly believe they would have been framed in an absolutely sympathetic light, and as victims regardless of Avery's presumed or factual guilt or innocence (obviously). I was trying to say that the people they had access to and their opinions framed the biases of the documentary organically as they were collecting information during 05-07. If they had access to the Halbachs, then I believe the documentary would have evolved in a different manner, most likely. I do not believe Netflix viewers would have been "spewing" at them, I think they would have been empathizing with them as human beings who lost a family members. And to me, it's sad that this story wasn't told. It might have ended up that way. From the criticism Mike Halbach has gotten I'm not so sure. The filmmakers have said that even when they sat down with Mike they already had the sense that the documentary would question the legal system. Given that basic framework, it's hard for me to imagine the family avoiding blowback from at least the dumbest of viewers (the same lunatics who were going after the Manitowoc County Historical Society and so on).
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
THA TITTY THRILLER posted:I understand what you're saying though. Because the Averys are the only ones who appear willing to open up about their experiences while going through this whole thing, they automatically become more sympathetic and vulnerable to the audience, and it makes everyone else look like they have something to hide. Yeah, exactly this. It's that we only see Mike Halbach's public statements, and other than that have nothing to go on regarding what the Halbachs are really feeling, while we get a pretty in-depth look at the genuine rollercoaster of feelings and emotions that the Avery family is going through. By comparison the Halbach's appear secretive and ultimately remain a total mystery for the most part - and obviously this is not how things really are, it's just the sense one gets from watching it as a result of their lack of involvement. And it's all a bit absurd because the Halbach family should have no obligation to publicly *prove* or *justify* whatever rollercoaster of horrific emotions they went through during the trial, but this documentary kinda puts them in a position where they look bad as a result of not having done that. Which is pretty crazy in a way, and in my opinion a legitimate failing of the documentary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
I'm in the process of watching this now (and I think it's great) and I get the feeling that I'm gonna come down on this how I did with the first season of Serial. That is to say, Avery's innocence is certainly in doubt, but so is his guilt, and the fact that the investigations (well, both of them in Avery's case, as well as Sayed's) were so bungled and in some cases outright corrupt that the convictions kind of bother me in principle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Kaworu - you're absolutely correct. Everyone involved was approached at some point asking for them to contribute their details. It's actually very telling who didn't want to participate. Not only was Kratz asked to participate and he refused, but within a month he began a legal attempt to stop the documentary from being made in the first place. Why would a man who later claims was unjustly ignored be so adamant about getting this documentary stopped? Contrast this to Dean Strang who participates solely because he believes the filmmakers are intelligent. The filmmakers didn't approach Strang with the notion they were going to be biased 100% toward the defense, so he should agree to participate. He agrees to speak because he knew at the very least they would present his side of details with some amount of intelligence. Why didn't he attempt to get the film stopped? SnotFu fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Murphy Brownback posted:Like I've been saying, I think you're right and the blood was almost certainly not planted, but they didn't prove it and made it way too difficult on themselves by not following proper procedure on pretty much every aspect of the case. I definitely agree with that, and the sheriff who said they aren't involved in the investigation should resign for loving lying. Ken Kratz should certainly be disciplined by the WI bar authority for several things. But all that is still a separate question from did the evidence not show Avery did it, and I do think the show takes a position on that with some very deliberate choices. To me, though, when you add it all together it's still pretty damning. (Even if I ignore the car and everything in it. Sooner or later that car was gonna get crushed or abandoned somewhere off the property, but if there's a body in someone's fire pit that we know they were with at the time of disappearance, that is huge.) Mathematically (and really simplified) if we say 50% chance (or whatever percent anyone gives in their opinion) that x questionable piece of evidence is false, you still need to multiply the probabilities so you eventually get 0.5^nth power = chance of innocence. When n gets large enough the chance of innocence gets really small. The actual math would be a lot more complicated but the point is the legal burden of proof is not about reasonable doubt as to one piece being legitimate, it's reasonable doubt looking at the whole picture. And burned remains of a missing person who was last seen the very day you have a bonfire probably already gets you to 99% in my book, tbh, and the other stuff doesn't knock the probability down that much in my mind. But that's a little beyond just showchat so I will shut up about it. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I definitely agree with that, and the sheriff who said they aren't involved in the investigation should resign for loving lying. Ken Kratz should certainly be disciplined by the WI bar authority for several things. But all that is still a separate question from did the evidence not show Avery did it, and I do think the show takes a position on that with some very deliberate choices. That math isn't really correct because if one piece of evidence were found definitively to be false, wouldn't that mean the probability of other pieces of evidence being false should go up? Each instance of potentially false evidence isn't happening in a vacuum, its the same cops collecting it all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
99% based on that particular piece of evidence eh? Some deep thinking there...
TrixR4kids fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:That math isn't really correct because if one piece of evidence were found definitively to be false, wouldn't that mean the probability of other pieces of evidence being false should go up? Each instance of potentially false evidence isn't happening in a vacuum, its the same cops collecting it all. Yes, especially in a case where the evidence is obviously manipulated. If they found a bullet that they thought was from the murder, but it was really deer blood? That's a coincidence. If they find the victim's key during the 8th search of his house and only when a cop that's not supposed to be there shows up, and said cop is the one that finds it? That's kind of suspicious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
God watching this is pissing me off so much. I don't even have strong feelings on Avery's innocence or guilt but the unbelievable poo poo that the cops and the prosecution did, even BEFORE you factor in that he was railroaded in the assault case for which he was literally proven innocent is loving infuriating. It's such a perversion of the justice system, goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
I stand my that Avery is innocent and but am almost certain Brendan had a part in the crime. His confession had too many elements in it and I really want to believe this actually happened. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
TrixR4kids posted:99% based on that particular piece of evidence eh? Some deep thinking there... It's actually not one piece of evidence. It is a confluence of circumstances. 1. Avery is in the area she's last seen and knows she's there. (A lot of people di though, this fact is necessary but not sufficient.) 2. He arranged for her to be there. (I would expect the killer in this kind of case chose his victim in some way.) 3. He has a bonfire that night. 4. She goes missing at most a few hours before the bonfire. 5. Her remains are found where the bonfire occurred. 6. His explanation for what he was doing before the bonfire is basically that he was on the phone. 7. We know from the records he was only on the phone for a limited period of time. Even without the car, blood, keys, and Brendan's confession, even if we call those all totally worthless (which is a big difference from "take it for limited value because the method of gathering it stinks") that is a huge set of circumstances. Yeah, it gets me to 99%. I bet a lot of people would call it case closed in a ton of cases where no car or accused accomplice existed based on that, but the gently caress-ups in investigating all that other stuff basically muddy the waters from the fundamentals above. Sorry if it's not deep enough for you. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
I'm way back on pg 1 while I watch ep 2, but so far I'm really enjoying this show, though not as much as The Jinxquote:Retired Sheriff: I would say that my sketch looks more like Steven Avery than Gregory Allen! lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:It's actually not one piece of evidence. It is a confluence of circumstances.  If those facts alone get you to 99%, you've got to seriously re-examine the definition of reasonable doubt. None of that should be seriously implicated to Steven Avery in particular. Under purely those facts, it's eminently possible that one of the dozen other people who had access to the property killed Halbach, burned her, and dumped the body in Steven Avery's burn pit. I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way as you, but only because the public in general doesn't have a presumption of innocence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:41
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Professor Shark posted:I'm way back on pg 1 while I watch ep 2, but so far I'm really enjoying this show, though not as much as The Jinx There's a good reason for that: The Jinx was better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:
Presumption of innocence means guilt must be proven. I am a big believer in that. We just disagree on what probability to give some of those facts I outlined. You mention other possible killers? Fine, what did they do to make sure she was on the propert when she disappeared? Do you really think this was just a crime of opportunity where she happened to be on the property and someone else saw a window and attacked a stranger? Because I think a sexually motivated attack like this gets planned. And you're referencing other facts, actually, such as other guys being on the property who might have access. Which is fine but then there are also more facts about Steven Avery, like him buying gas in a can. Which you'd need to burn a body.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:There's a good reason for that: The Jinx was better. Why do you think it was a better documentary?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:You mention other possible killers? Fine, what did they do to make sure she was on the propert when she disappeared? Do you really think this was just a crime of opportunity where she happened to be on the property and someone else saw a window and attacked a stranger? Because I think a sexually motivated attack like this gets planned. There's no evidence of it being a sexually motivated attack, aside from Brendan's useless "confession". Avery is absolutely a suspect through circumstances, realistically the most likely suspect, but that's a long way from saying that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And I don't think it's a good idea to say "oh well he's the most likely suspect, so it's OK to ignore that the entire investigation was focused on getting him rather than discovering the killer because we got the most likely guy anyway". Remember that by their own admission, they didn't really even investigate anyone else because they focused so much on Avery. A proper law enforcement and judicial system requires ethical, unbiased individuals on both sides of the fence, and for people to follow procedures properly. You can't just say "oh we've got procedures but we ignored them in this case because we think he did it and also, gently caress that guy none of us like him anyway".
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
webmeister posted:There's no evidence of it being a sexually motivated attack, aside from Brendan's useless "confession". Avery is absolutely a suspect through circumstances, realistically the most likely suspect, but that's a long way from saying that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I am all for reforms and best practices in policing and prosecution. And lovely cops and prosecutors should lose their jobs. But what legal rule are you proposing? Does Steven Avery need to be released because the investigation had some hosed up aspects? Because what we have now is a system where the fact finder heard all about how the police hosed up, considered it, decided the evidence was still sufficient to convict. Best lawyers money can buy pointed out the flaws in the state's case and made the framing argument. The alternatives are basically retrial with certain things suppressed, let the verdict stand, or free the guy with no retrial. Just straight up freeing him would be a major change in the law as it exists. And if you suppress the key, the car, and the blood it probably takes away a lot of the arguments he was framed. To your point about motivation, People can make a pretty safe bet when a woman's body turns up cremated in these situations it was likely a sexually motivated murder (because seriously that is some serial killer poo poo) or it was otherwise planned given that a lot of effort went into disposal. Either way the main point is there was planning and selection.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Presumption of innocence means guilt must be proven. I am a big believer in that. We just disagree on what probability to give some of those facts I outlined. The whole point is that those facts don't demonstrate that Steven did it. I don't know (or care really) who else might have done it, and the fact that so many people get hung up on that is a big part of the problem. The prosecution has to demonstrate that their guy actually did it; the defence doesn't have to locate the actual guilty party and have them confess, this isn't loving Matlock. This series of events:
Proves absolutely nothing. Did Halbach leave the property? How did she die? Where did she die? (Since the charge of mutilation of a corpse was included) How were here remains mutilated? How were her remains transported to the fire pit, and who transported them? Who actually killed her? These are all questions that the prosecution should be able to answer, yet has extremely questionable evidence for. If you really do go in assuming that Avery is innocent (including discounting his past, which may matter at sentencing, but sure doesn't matter during the actual trial), these question need to be answered before you can pronounce somebody guilty. yronic heroism posted:Does Steven Avery need to be released because the investigation had some hosed up aspects? Probably, yes. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:54
|
|