Making a Murderer *spoilers*

Interesting series. Be interesting to see what everyone thinks about the claims that the police framed him. I'm only about half way through and I'm sold on that idea so far.

 

Oh there is a twist, but I won't give you any spoilers.

 

I've only seen the first episode that offers the backstory, and only briefly touches on his murder conviction. I'll return to discuss it, but so far Mr. Avery's handling is very disturbing.

 

Well. I finished it.

I don't know if he committed the murder or not but I know that from what was presented in the documentary would have been enough for me to find reasonable doubt. The cops just seemed sketchy as hell and there seemed to be good evidence that they planted evidence. Cops going where they weren't supposed to and then finding evidence days to months after other cops didn't, tampered with evidence (blood), detective not signing in when he entered the crime scene, a cop radioing in the victim's licence plate 2 days before the car was officially found, etc, etc, etc.

And wtf? They entered into evidence an inconclusive test as conclusive evidence after the lab tech had contaminated the test.

 

I think the hardest thing for the jury to do was to imagine the police could've done it. If you think he was framed, you sort of must believe the police killed her. Quite a stretch. But I think it's possible, not probable. In any event, the kid needs a new trial. He was railroaded by his own defense. It's a serious miscarriage of justice.

 

Framed? LOL. He set a cat on fire. Good enough for me.

 

That's a false dichotomy the prosecutor set up. It's entirely possible that the police used her murder to try and frame Avery. The $36 million was a big motive. Another possibility is that Avery did murder her and they planted evidence to make a better case.

- - - Updated - - -

You're not a logic orientated person, are you?

 

Sure I am, killing small animals for fun is a precursor for killing people. Proven by the FBI.
And only a worthless waste of oxygen would do that anyway. He has no value as a human.

 

He wasn't on trial for killing a cat. Are you confused?

 

No. He admitted doing it.
In March 1981, at age 18, Avery was convicted of burglarizing a bar with a friend and sentenced to two years in prison. The sentence was stayed and instead Avery served ten months in the Manitowoc County Jail, was placed on probation for five years, and was ordered to pay restitution.[6] In 1982, at age 20, Avery and another man were convicted of animal cruelty for pouring gasoline and oil on Avery's cat and throwing it into a fire; he was sentenced to prison for nine months.[6] In 1985, Avery was charged with assaulting his cousin after he ran her off the road at gunpoint. The cousin, the wife of a part-time Manitowoc County sheriff's deputy, had complained that Avery had exposed himself when she drove past his house.[6] Avery was sentenced to six years for endangering the safety of another person.
Real peach of a person. The world is best off without him.

 

Yes, over 20 years earlier. You seem confused to how time functions.

 

Not at all. He is a vile worthless POS of an individual that has zero redeeming value as a human.
And will be for all time, and seems has been pretty much all his life.
He is right where he belongs. Locked up.

 

Only if he's guilty of the murder, beyond a reasonable doubt, should he now be in prison. He did his time for the aforementioned crimes. It doesn't matter how passionately you feel about cruelty to animals nor what profile he may fit. He's either guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or he's a free man.

 

He'd already been punished for his previous crimes. He wasn't on trial for them again.

 

Prior acts. And I don't care. He can be punished for the rest of his life. Maybe I was not clear on how I felt about it?

- - - Updated - - -

He was found guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. He is in prison where he belongs.

 

What about Brendan? that kid had absolutely NOTHING to do with this..... For one the detectives had zero right to question him without his attorney present or a parent, also this kid has an IQ of 69, he would have confessed to the assassination of JFK - not only that but the detectives basically TOLD him what he allegedly did - for hours on end...

How in the hell was that kid convicted?

As far as Avery.... IDK about him but what type of moron would keep this womans RAV4 on his property under some brush? he had a car crusher - he could have destroyed the vehicle but he didn't...

Lets also not forget the prosecutions theory of the crime were completely different in BOTH trials... They presented one theory for Avery and another for Brendan... That goes to show how full of (*)(*)(*)(*) the judicial system is...

There was easily enough reasonable doubt for both - especially the kid.

That kid is clinically retarded, he was NOT capable of committing an alleged murder...

I think Brendan's brother or maybe even the victims brother killed her and Avery was the perfect patsy (and evidence may have even been planted by police) and Brendan was just sucked into this travesty, and because of his IQ was incapable of understanding what was happening and ended up incriminating himself because the detectives were evil in the way they handled his interrogation..

Either way the trial was a sham for both...

They didn't get a fair trial or IMO, adequate representation/council....

Both deserve a new trial.

 

lol....

Guilty because people like you will be on a jury and you have guilty already on your mind and cant wait until you can vote guilty because people like you believe the law is perfect and you love cops...

I'll bet that 20% of people today are either innocent of the crime they're in prison for or played a minor role in them or unknowingly played a role...

 

OK, I will take that bet.
Or you can say "a recent poll of prisoners claim they are innocent is at 95%". So we should just close all the jails.
Work a turn at a facility then come tell me all about it.

 

I was an inmate and I was 100% innocent of what I plead to.

The system is so (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up...... You wouldn't know tho...

Yea some people are straight up guilty but there is a significant minority that don't, that are either blatantly innocent or played a small role in a crime but the crime was pinned on them...

I'm no criminal your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing system you love so much just labeled me one...

God people like you destroy peoples lives with your faith in a system that is WRONG....

 

Yea yea yea. Heard it a million times.

 

Don't worry, you will end up in a pickle one of these days, you CO's always do.... Then your position will change.....

People always act right until they're judged.....

 

I think it's possible he was framed and I think it's also perfectly plausible that Avery murdered the woman, the police department involved in his lawsuit should have been 100% recused from the case, and not allowed to be present during the week-long search of the Avery complex. Because they had a motive to frame him, and all of the evidence I'm aware of could have been planted by them, then I would not be able to have convicted Avery at the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. Police are humans and can do horrible things too, particularly when they have a strong motive and opportunity for doing so.

The police could have fabricated evidence, but she could have been killed by somebody else who lived there, or could have been killed elsewhere and planted there by police. They wouldn't necessarily have to have killed her themselves. But do I think it's impossible that a cop could have killed her to frame Avery? No.

And this is why juries aren't a very good way of determining guilt.

 

Right. At 52 I think my days of running so wild I could end up in the joint are pretty slim.

 

The problem is the old Normalization of Deviance thing. People understand sloppy procedures by multiple people. It almost becomes a burden shift--if you are trying to say you were framed, you have the burden of proving that, as opposed to just saying "I'm not guilty". I would have an easier time finding someone not guilty because of sloppy work than because they took it upon themselves to try to prove they were being framed.

Either way, I am more into American Crime this season so I prefer me some fictionalized drama.

 

Not exactly, the standard is always supposed to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the burden is always on the prosecution. It's just that I doubt juries really follow that standard very often. Juries are given instructions, and they may be asked if they will follow the instructions, but at the end of the day they do what they want. Many people worry about letting a criminal get away with something more than convicting an innocent person, so I think the standard juries use in practice is really preponderance of evidence. But assuming the jury actually did what they're supposed to do, the question becomes whether the assertion that he was framed creates a doubt that is reasonable. The standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is, in theory, pretty high, but it's not beyond all doubt. It's often possible that the police could frame somebody (some forensic evidence could make it almost impossible, but not the evidence in this case), but that doubt passes from just possible to reasonable in this case when you consider the fact that the police had a substantial motive to frame him in this case, had the means to do it, and had caused the wrongful conviction of this very same individual in the past. This combination of facts creates reasonable doubt in this case, unless they have evidence I am unaware of.