|
MrCodeDude posted:This was a terribly depressing scene, but I took from it that while Brendan didn't know what the word meant, his mom wasn't sure what it meant as it pertained to his case. That is, she knew the definition, but wasn't sure how him giving inconsistent statements would affect his and/or Steve's criminal cases. I'll have to find the scene and watch again, it's certainly possible. I'm sure at that point she knows he's told them different stuff though, so she should've picked up on what they meant if she knew its definition. It's also sad that the police essentially treated the boy's mother like she was getting in their way, and was just a pain in the rear end. You could bet a million dollars of their kid was in that kind of trouble, they would be all over it themselves. It's interesting to think about putting the sheriffs dept/DAs into categories. I think it splits down to incompetent people, those who've been in an abusive system so long they don't realise what assholes they've become, and those who are genuinely evil.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
kaworu posted:Something the documentary didn't mention about Ken Kratz that I turned up, read this poo poo and I will quote what I found to be the pertinent part, bolding the hosed up poo poo that this article loving glosses over: http://www.superiortelegram.com/news/douglas-county/3641659-suspended-former-da-sets-practice-superior Why is this not enough for a re-trial by itself? It was on The Shield.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
Wasn't that a judge?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
MrCodeDude posted:Did I miss this? What underage girl? It's something Brown County was investigating when the Halbach murder charges came up: http://archive.htrnews.com/article/99999999/MAN0101/60420064/Avery-assault-charges-delayed Even if you take his denial at face value and nothing happened between Steven and the girl, any sensible adult man would realize that spending too much time one-on-one with a young girl is suspicious, and probably something you should knock off ASAP if the girl's parents are unhappy with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
I binged this whole series on Christmas Day (I was at work for 12hrs and gently caress all else was happening). I've never been so mad on such a joyous day. Scott Tadych, Bobby and Teresa's ex are all involved in this to a larger extent than was shown, I'm sure. I think Scott and/or Bobby were directly involved in Teresa's murder and her ex was involved in assisting the police with the timing of the RAV4's discovery. Also, was the underage girl Steven was supposedly fiddling the same girl who lied about Brendan before admitting the tearful truth in court?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:It's something Brown County was investigating when the Halbach murder charges came up: Uhhhhhhhhh quote:Zakowski said the allegation involved sexual intercourse with a girl over the age of 16. He said the girl was a relative of Avery's and the alleged attack took place in Manitowoc County. That's a pretty big accusation that was glossed over. This is a much bigger red flag than the animal abuse thing because it happened after he was released. No wonder the town/city/state hated them. WastedJoker posted:Also, was the underage girl Steven was supposedly fiddling the same girl who lied about Brendan before admitting the tearful truth in court? The girl he allegedly sexually abused was at least 16 in 2004, so not the young cousin who recanted her confession about Brendan. MrCodeDude fucked around with this message at 12:55 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
Never forget this:EL BROMANCE posted:It's important to remember this is a very one sided documentary that pushes you to think one way from the first episode onwards, and therefore is geared to ensure nothing really challenges the hero/villain characters. Like 'King of Kong' but a lot more serious. It is not in the filmmakers interest to include things like that accusation. You're supposed to be on his side, and throwing things like that challenges that. It's not unbiased filmmaking, it's designed to emotionally manipulate you against the state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
I don't care how slanted the documentary is, the footage of the interrogations and the court proceedings should make any reasonable person think that he and his nephew deserve new trials. The whole situation was a huge miscarriage of justice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
If you click my quote you'll see I go on to say that, but let's not use the documentary as historical reference as to the guys character.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Never forget this: Of course. I look forward to the prosecution team provided answers to the questions raised.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:If you click my quote you'll see I go on to say that, but let's not use the documentary as historical reference as to the guys character. Who said anything about Avery's character?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Anyway, if you liked that then watch this. Was mentioned in the thread earlier, but it's very good (made in 2000 and fairly low budget, but fits in with this spate of 'true crazy crimes you've never heard of' documentaries we're getting). This was excellent. "Did you try and find any evidence to corroborate this statement?" "Nope".
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:This was excellent. "Did you try and find any evidence to corroborate this statement?" "Nope". Yeah i loved this too. The look on the jurys face when then the prosecutor is making her closing arguments is hilarious. They dont seem to impressed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Leon Einstein posted:Who said anything about Avery's character? Maybe not anyone specifically in this thread, but the documentary tries from the first few minutes of the first episode to establish a profile of Avery that supports their version of events. That he just got in with the wrong crowd and that's why he ended up burning the cat, that the woman he pulled the gun on was a liar and maybe kinda deserved a little wake up call. That he was a loving father tragically ripped from his child's arms when really its not all that clear if he gives a poo poo about his kids or not. The one letter we see that he sent them contains threats against their mother so I'm not sure those pictures they keep going back to over and over again from the day before his 1985 arrest are really the most accurate portrayal of who Avery is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Yeah, sorry I wasn't meaning to infer that people were doing that here but reiterating that using a single source to make up a full mind about something isn't generally a great idea. I can completely understand the role of the filmmakers, who have put 10 years into something. They want their film to show a massive miscarriage of justice and therefore they had to show that in the best way they could, even if it meant leaving relevant information on the cutting room floor. They've also become close to the people involved over the ten year period I'm sure, and I can understand it being hard to then put something out that portrays them in a negative light - especially given that's all people around them want to do. They don't come across as a 'bad' family per se, but they're uneducated and insular. The letter between Len and McKelly is nasty as hell, but there's probably some truth in it too. It doesn't make their actions any more warranted however, and there's a clear distinction between the educated and powerful state against an odd family that are disliked by their peers. You can't point the blame at the Avery's as much because their behaviour is completed reflective of their environment. The film hints that Steven has major issues, and an 18 year stint away probably hasn't helped matters, but it's so hellbent on showing him as innocent that it hurts the overall message when you dig deeper and find out more about them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Yeah personally I think if they're so strong in their opinions they should have the confidence to put all of the evidence on the table and let the viewers see for themselves. I always feel uneasy when a documentary or editorial twists the message to sway my opinion, even when it's with the best intentions. It can only hurt their argument that they've given me that reason to mistrust them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Well after seeing people's reactions to what he did to a cat 30 years ago, I think just sticking mostly to the travesty that was the investigation and the sham trials is ok. I'm not delusional, the documentary is one sided, but the focus doesn't have to be constant character attack. I know we are used to constant character attacks so this is hard to accept.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
The Google search suggestion of 'Steven Avery Board Game' sounded exciting, until clicking it revealed a boardgames designer named Steven Avery. I was looking forward to playing an adapted version of Monopoly with a space saying "Go Directly to Jail. Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect $36m".
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
It's funny, I think the juror angle is probably... under-discussed, if anything. I feel like given the split verdicts, the circumstances, the length of the deliberations, that this case probably should have ended in either a mistrial or a hung jury. Thinking about the fact that the jury had specifically asked for ALL of Bobby Dassey's testimony, and were told by the judge "We can't do that. Tell us specifically which part you want." Huh? Since when is a jury not legally entitled to have all the evidence/testimony at their disposal during deliberations? Why should the judge be involved at all at THAT point in deciding what evidence they can and cannot look at? It's a bit cliched, but I keep thinking to the '57 film 12 Angry Men which is sort of the definitive "jurors arguing over the nature of reasonable doubt" film. And I just wish to *hell* that a young, healthy, and living Henry Fonda had been on that jury. It sounds more or less like probably the two parties who were dead-set on his guilt (allegedly) more than likely wore everyone else down over the course of 4 days. Which probably isn't hard to do when you just want to get on with your life and go home and you feel exhausted and tired and it's been a 6-week trial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Wiggles Von Huggins posted:Well after seeing people's reactions to what he did to a cat 30 years ago, I think just sticking mostly to the travesty that was the investigation and the sham trials is ok. I'm not delusional, the documentary is one sided, but the focus doesn't have to be constant character attack. I know we are used to constant character attacks so this is hard to accept. Honestly, I think it's just hard for a lot of people to accept that guilt or innocence doesn't matter much in the face of these kinds of systemic issues. I pretty much came around to feeling that Avery probably did it by the last episode, but that's irrelevant since law enforcement and the state were both completely unable to put together anything resembling a coherent prosecution. Guilt is way less important than proper procedure when it comes to criminal justice since the consequences of a hosed up criminal justice system are so much worse than a couple of bad people staying out of prison.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
I suppose its an unavoidable flaw of the jury system but yea I'm sure there are countless cases where people who were wrongfully convicted maybe wouldn't have been if they'd been lucky enough to have a Henry Fonda type on the jury. Someone who's going to say "gently caress it, we'll stay in this room for the next year if that's what it takes to make sure justice is done".
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
ghetto wormhole posted:I'm about 25% into episode 4 and I genuinely hope that everyone involved in this county's legal system gets the guillotine someday. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
kaworu posted:It's funny, I think the juror angle is probably... under-discussed, if anything. I feel like given the split verdicts, the circumstances, the length of the deliberations, that this case probably should have ended in either a mistrial or a hung jury. Thinking about the fact that the jury had specifically asked for ALL of Bobby Dassey's testimony, and were told by the judge "We can't do that. Tell us specifically which part you want." Huh? Since when is a jury not legally entitled to have all the evidence/testimony at their disposal during deliberations? Why should the judge be involved at all at THAT point in deciding what evidence they can and cannot look at? I have been there as a juror and that is normal. The judge and counsel must confer -- I'm not sure of the content of this conference since the jury is not in the room but I assume that they need to come to an agreement that there is no material in that testimony that should have been stricken from the record.The court reporter also can't just dump off transcripts in the jury room but must read them back; I assume she also keeps some sort of record as to which passages exactly the jury rehears. I assume the jury could systematically request the testimony chunk by chunk but that is beyond my experience.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:I have been there as a juror and that is normal. The judge and counsel must confer -- I'm not sure of the content of this conference since the jury is not in the room but I assume that they need to come to an agreement that there is no material in that testimony that should have been stricken from the record.The court reporter also can't just dump off transcripts in the jury room but must read them back; I assume she also keeps some sort of record as to which passages exactly the jury rehears. I assume the jury could systematically request the testimony chunk by chunk but that is beyond my experience. Are they not just given all the transcripts? If not then what was the point in the whole trial thingy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Is this bullshit? http://www.businessinsider.com/anonymous-helps-making-a-murderer-subject-steven-avery-2015-12
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Anon are generally full of poo poo because there's no central authority. They said they'd take on the Mexican gangs, and ran off scared and crying. Then they said they'd take on ISIS which has done precisely nothing. They unmasked some klans people but it was simply down to them messaging people on Facebook using a code that I doubt was particularly secretive, and there's dispute about how legit some of the names are. A bunch of them had klan poo poo all over their page anyway, so we're hardly hiding. Less talk, more action. And no more lovely videos.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Well, I'm an optimistic person by nature and like to believe in stuff like this, so it'd be awfully cool if this were true. I can only see it being really convincing if its like, audio of Lenk and Colborn openly discussing their conspiracy to inculpate (I like that word) Steven Avery. And I don't really see how such audio records of phone calls could exist and be recorded but, who knows... That call of Colborn calling dispatch about the plate existed and was accessible, though obviously that was pretty circumstantial. I'm not exactly holding my breath. But my ultimate hope is that someone(s) will step forward with new evidence, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:Are they not just given all the transcripts? If not then what was the point in the whole trial thingy? No, no transcripts. You can take notes with pencil and paper and you must leave them with the court at the end of the day (so good luck getting everything down and no organizing it later). You also aren't supposed to make up your mind about anything as the evidence is presented. Attorneys on both sides can say things that aren't strictly true if they don't directly relate to the content of the case as presented (e.g. Kratz implying that a not-guilty verdict vs. Steven would directly and immediately destroy Lenk and Colburn's careers, or the defense in one of my cases claiming that a witness slept around). It's all very weird and formalized and strongly depends on jurors' individual recall. Leon Einstein posted:I don't care how slanted the documentary is, the footage of the interrogations and the court proceedings should make any reasonable person think that he and his nephew deserve new trials. The whole situation was a huge miscarriage of justice. Yeah, it would be possible to cut this together with all of Kratz's news conferences and all the sensationalistic media coverage of the time to give a more full picture, and still come to the conclusion that this was not executed correctly. ghetto wormhole posted:I'm about 25% into episode 4 and I genuinely hope that everyone involved in this county's legal system gets the guillotine someday. You know what, because of my mom's work (not an attorney, but she did have to go to court on occasion) I grew up with a lot of the circa-1985 Manitowoc County legal establishment as household names, usually in the context of doing right for a vulnerable person. One Manitowoc lawyer in particular (not involved in these cases) made a huge impression on me as a kid because of how passionate he was about using the law to protect vulnerable individuals, and how well he articulated that even to a kid. It's extremely hard for me to reconcile all that with the "kill them all" anger towards the entire county establishment that this documentary has stirred up in strangers. Another thing about smaller, comparatively poor counties like this is that they're kind of the end of the line. If you're an ambitious young LEO or lawyer, do you want to practice in a small community with little money and few career-building cases? Uh, no. You either end up there because you have ties in the community and are willing to sacrifice to be there, because you need a job until something better comes along, or because you're just too bad at your job to hack it elsewhere. It's the same story with teachers, doctors, social workers, etc. I think that kind of "incompetence falls to the level that has no choice but to tolerate it" explains a lot more about some of the actors in this story than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
What's this about the jury? Is there some suspicion of shenanigans with the people picked?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:Are they not just given all the transcripts? If not then what was the point in the whole trial thingy? My understanding is that it takes the court reporter months to prepare a transcript of the trial. There's no way they would be ready in time for jury deliberations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:No, no transcripts. You can take notes with pencil and paper and you must leave them with the court at the end of the day (so good luck getting everything down and no organizing it later). You also aren't supposed to make up your mind about anything as the evidence is presented. Attorneys on both sides can say things that aren't strictly true if they don't directly relate to the content of the case as presented (e.g. Kratz implying that a not-guilty verdict vs. Steven would directly and immediately destroy Lenk and Colburn's careers, or the defense in one of my cases claiming that a witness slept around). It's all very weird and formalized and strongly depends on jurors' individual recall. loving nonsense system. stev fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:But trials go on forever. It makes no sense not to at least have the testimony itself written down or filmed so they can work out which parts actually make logical sense. Otherwise they're just stuck with whatever impression the defence or prosecution left them with weeks earlier. I think most trials are pretty quick (1-2 weeks, of which a good proportion of jury time is spent on lunch break or waiting for the judge and counsel to do things behind closed doors). It's just the occasional bigger case that takes longer to try. But I agree the system is pretty ridiculous especially with our current state of technology. Realistically the jury should be able to get video playback of any portion of the trial. Judge and counsel could still do their thing wrangling over the specific chunks to be shown and the bailiff could control playback.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
These pigs and prosecutors are disgusting. What a disgusting line of work to go into. gently caress them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Why are closing statements even allowed? "If you find steven avery not guilty then you [the jury] are saying the police did it!" If the loving district attorney had just told me that i would be inclined to believe thats how it works. Instead its just a total and complete lie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
I'm still shocked that Brenden is in jail
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Robotnik Nudes posted:These pigs and prosecutors are disgusting. What a disgusting line of work to go into. gently caress them. The law is a fine line of work to go into, it's just that a lot of assholes and fuckups go into it and unlike most other jobs, people's lives are at stake when they cock up. This is why transparency and accountability in our law enforcement and judiciary needs to be way the gently caress higher than it is right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Robotnik Nudes posted:These pigs and prosecutors are disgusting. What a disgusting line of work to go into. gently caress them. Man if I were a criminal defence lawyer I would be jumping for that this documentary was made. I have heard a million times from a million people that people that defend murderers for money are the scum of the earth. Its kinda nice to have a shining example that flies in the face of that retarded thinking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
TheAbortionator posted:Man if I were a criminal defence lawyer I would be jumping for that this documentary was made. I have heard a million times from a million people that people that defend murderers for money are the scum of the earth. Its kinda nice to have a shining example that flies in the face of that retarded thinking. I thought what Strang said about this was really interesting and perceptive, that you have to be the sort of person who instinctively takes a devil's advocate position or backs the underdog simply by the nature of their personality, and has a real calling for that sort of thing. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing - and that it takes a great deal of empathy to be able to be that sort of person at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
So I binged through this as well and have a few thoughts and questions. It says that after the juror had to be excused that they were told to either choose a replacement juror, go forward with 11 jurors or having a mistrial/retrial. The documentary doesn't mention why they chose a replacement juror instead of the other choice, does anyone understand that choice? I can't say whether or not I'm certain of Avery's guilt or innocence, but based solely on the evidence and testimonies brought up I'd lean toward a not guilty decision. There's just too much at doubt in my mind. Everything about the case is just off, the timing, the evidence, the Manitowoc County being way too involved, suspicious evidence, the motive, the extreme lack of evidence of Teresa's blood being anywhere. I am in absolute agreement with most of you that Dassey is the most victimised person involved (excl. Teresa who was murdered, no matter who did it) and should never have been brought to trial in the first place. Someone brought up the blood in the car but no fingerprints, a cloth or leather glove wouldn't leave fingerprints but could soak up enough blood to leave it on surfaces. Likewise, a surgical glove could be torn, or cut while a person is wearing it and get blood all over it. So I can see how that could happen and I don't find it hard to believe that the Averys have work gloves or mechanics rubber/latex gloves laying around a junkyard. Would a backyard burn pit get hot enough to destroy that much of a body? This isn't a conspiracy type question, just an honest one. Crematory ovens are purpose built and still take several hours to get a body to ash. I also don't understand completely the vial of blood as being potentially tampered with. Those types of blood vials are filled through the top via needle, so a needle hole doesn't automatically mean that it was used to steal blood for planting evidence. https://youtu.be/e58lLJ-2gBI?t=113 As seen in the video, the entire blood vial is inserted and a needle is shoved through the top of the vial to fill it. Again, I don't know whether or not Avery killed her, but based on the documentary (while biased, for sure) I don't see enough evidence for him to be convicted. I truly don't comprehend the legal system completely refusing to hear either Dassey, or Avery for appeal. Oh and gently caress that Kachinsky guy, and his fill out this form buddy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
kaworu posted:I thought what Strang said about this was really interesting and perceptive, that you have to be the sort of person who instinctively takes a devil's advocate position or backs the underdog simply by the nature of their personality, and has a real calling for that sort of thing. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing - and that it takes a great deal of empathy to be able to be that sort of person at all. Dean Strang loving owns
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 08:58
|
|