HerbertFish
Member
Assuming were still talking about the brother, he's not part of the trial in any way so he doesn't need to heed by that presumption.
Making A Murderer - Netflix 10-part documentary series - S1 now streaming on Netflix
- Thread starter Armadilo
- Start date
neurosisxeno
Member
Well the Police and DA did a standup job graphically describing the attacks Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey allegedly committed on Television, so he had the police and the DA both telling him Steven and Brendan did this horrible thing and one of them even admitted to it! At that point he was probably convinced they did it and was physically incapable of looking at the evidence objectively.
HerbertFish
Member
Kratz tried bringing up evidence not brought up in the doc. There was an article earlier today which he wrote on that if you didn't see. Pretty much just regurgitated those points.
Dean Strang did a good rebuttal. Was actually disapointed at the film makers for not including the bone evidence because it was one of the defense's strongest arguments that stuff was planted. He's on again after the break.
chicko1983
Member
It would be impossible to say what I would think. However, I would never voice my opinion on his innocence or not, especially to the media, before a verdict is read.
Its generally why families refuse to speak to the media, and are advised not to by lawyers, while a trial is undergoing in Australia.
I mean, family press conferences during a trial seems a bit weird to me in the first place.
My father was a criminal magistrate (judge) and when I told him about the case he couldn't believe it.
arts&crafts
Member
I am still fuming Brendan went away for life....there is no evidence....like...at all...or any witnesses that corroborate his first coerced story... how did this actually happen? Steven I can see..planted or not there was evidence.
chicko1983
Member
The presumption of innocence is part of everyone's civil rights i.e. how everyone, whether or not they are formally part of the trial, should be viewing him.
Also, testifying in a court case makes you very much part of the court case.
Yep, exactly why the jury should not have been picked from locals.
The prosecutors should not be disclosing to the public ANY details of the alleged incident prior to the trial as it biases peoples' opinion.
JetBlackPanda
Member
What am I looking at?
chicko1983
Member
bottom left is the ex boyfriend.
It is not a civil right that anyone save the jury and the judge presume you innocent at the start of a trial.
Imagine that you're a witness in a murder trial and you saw the defendant kill the victim. You're 100% sure that it was them. Are you expected to presume the defendant innocent when they take the stand?
BronsonLee
Member
Other people went over this, but yeah, there was no way he would be able to do that, and it's not fair to expect him to think that.
Yeah. We have a lot more info in front of us, and presented in a more concise manner. With a relatively biased look, sure, but it's much more palatable.
It's also worth pointing out that this is a trial that took place in the -very- public eye, and nobody really followed the rules. Kratz basically did a live script read for his hot new crime procedural manuscript. I'm not going to hold it against the brother for being emotional/believing in the case against Steven, and you shouldn't either.
Also, remember, different countries. You're from Australia. This is a small ass town in Wisconsin, USA.
Askherserenity
Member
Finally decided to give the documentary a watch.
Wtf at that cat thing....
Are we supposed to sympathize with this dude somehow? Because it'll be pretty much impossible for me to do now.
Again, just started watching.
Wtf at that cat thing....
Are we supposed to sympathize with this dude somehow? Because it'll be pretty much impossible for me to do now.
Again, just started watching.
arts&crafts
Member
lol at first I was the same but shit keeps getting weirder
Vincent Alexander
Member
Jesus fuck. Just finished episode 9. Just how . . . I've lost all hope in humanity. I don't know what a better system is than jurors though. And fuck the judge for telling Steve that his crimes are escalating with age, CLEARLY insinuating that Steve went from sexual assault (for the crime he was exonerated from) to murder.
You don't have to sympathize with him to enjoy the show. And you don't have to think he is guilty or not. Just watch and see what happens.
arts&crafts
Member
lol yea that was really weird
Finally getting around to watching this. Growing up in the Fox Valley in nearby Outagamie County I remember the Avery case being a big story on the local news for months when I was in middle school. Of the people I know my mother in particular was very happy Avery was convicted at that time (I'm curious about her thoughts on this). I'm going to approach this with an open mind. Many people where I'm from scoff at this and say it's one sided, so I guess I'll see.
Not necessarily.
Child = animal abuse
Young adult = threatening person with gun
Adult = murder
Senior = genocide?
Infernostew
Member
Wasn't he like early 20s when he threw that cat in the fire?
Yeah, I think he was about 20.
Edit: He also had some nonviolent robbery charges before that, those might have been in his teens.
Vincent Alexander
Member
That's better.
But yeah...I suppose you're right. IF that is what the judge meant by it. I mean...the judge came off semi-decent besides that. Though I still don't understand why he allowed a pre-trial motion to disallow the defense from naming anyone else as a suspect other than Steve or Brendan. That didn't make sense to me.
I really hope so. There were multiple people up on that stand who STILL weren't willing to admit he was innocent for that sexual assault, so I guess it wouldn't surprise me to hear the judge is the same way. Surely he isn't one of them....but my cynical mind jumps there immediately.
I think the judge was referring to pouring gas on a cat and setting it on fire, and running a woman off the road and threatening her with a gun.
I've learned from the prosecution that I can create my own timeline for convenience.
Am I the only one who feels like The Beard might be Kratz?
Eventually he moves from cats to killing people. No less disgusting.
Never mind, EthanC is clearly Kratz.
HerbertFish
Member
Did anyone else think the cops were crooked, but not Kratz himself? Never really saw too much to tie them together. Ultimately thought he did his job as prosecutor. Sexual stuff later was irrelevant.
BronsonLee
Member
Beard hasn't really done anything too crazy, though. He thinks Steven is guilty, but I feel he's been presenting his reasoning and evidence for that pretty well.
Now all bets are off with Ethan, though.
Kratz did a SHITLOAD of weird stuff that kinda forced the trial to be more of a trial of public opinion. He did his job, but his way of doing his job in general was real fucked
Permanently A
Junior Member
I'm on episode 4 and wowowowowow I cannot fucking believe the judge said Brandon wasn't coerced in the interrogation. Like the whole "what else did you do to her head" fishing was fucking disgusting. Not to mention him saying he slashed her throat and there not being a single drop of blood in the room she was supposedly held in. Like how the fuck does that get past the judge? Well, maybe it'll turn out he was bribed later and this post was for nothing. Just kinda shocked at the brazeness of the interrogators and the incompetence of the judge here.
chicko1983
Member
It is a civil right that up until you are proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, you should be presumed innocent. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
As for your example, even if you are a witness to a murder, yes, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
What if you saw a murder, but missed what led up to what you saw, such as the defendant was acting in self defence. Yes you can testify that you saw the final blow or whatever, but you cannot declare someone is guilty solely based upon what you have seen. They have to be tried in an independent court and convicted before you can say he is guilty.
Its not fair to assume someone is guilty before they have had a fair trial in court either.
Obviously it would be bloody hard to not have an opinion on it, hence why the family should not participate in press conferences during a trial. Its stupid to ask them for their opinion. Let them make a statement after the trial has concluded.
In Steven's case, now he has been found guilty, so the family can call him guilty, no problems.
BronsonLee
Member
Hate to break it to you, but this was clearly a trial that took place in the court of public opinion first and foremost.
You can harp on the family for providing an opinion and harp on the media for asking for it, but that's how this case went. They were badgered constantly for an opinion from jump street. We can talk about Steven's rights all the live long day, but it is a very naive thing to focus specifically on the legality of it. It takes the emotion out of this whole thing, and it was a -very- emotional situation.
Only a fool would expect the family to say nothing. The brother was basically speaking for the family so the media would stop bothering all of them. Even when Teresa was just missing, he was the one they went to.
And remember, this is a case where the prosecutor basically read off the most harrowing description of the murder he could, specifically to poison the jury pool. He did that on purpose. Nobody played by the rules here.
He's used some specious reasoning at times and seems to be more fixated on Avery being guilty than 'let's get at the truth' which is generally the spirit of this thread, but I guess being in the minority forces one to overcompensate.
BronsonLee
Member
He may have arrived to the same conclusion I have, which is basically that we will never find out the truth of what happened. Avery's not lucky enough to have lightning strike twice.
RustyNails
Member
The judge was more interested in preserving whatever institution that manitowoc had. He probably also thought it would be ruinous for everyone if Avery did got out and sued the pants off the county. To me it was very clear from the start that he guided the case towards the conclusion he preferred.
BronsonLee
Member
Yeah, if Avery wins that lawsuit, everything burns. That's game over for the county, they can't afford a hit like that.
Then take into account all the top people who would go down.
Then take into account all the top people who would go down.
When you tire of sniping, lazy replies like that, consider providing us with the source I asked for over there.
Or... well, you could also admit that despite your condescending attitude, you don't really have your facts straight after all. That's another option.
Permanently A
Junior Member
Man this shit with the kid is heartbreaking. I hope he got help later or something. I mean, he's just so goddamn dumb and they take advantage of it so ruthlessly.
You're talking, now, about what the state presumes, not the witness. You're right, in that no matter how overwhelming the evidence against them every defendant has the right to a fair and impartial trial in which they are presumed innocent. Presumed innocence, "innocent until proven guilty," means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the state, to prove that the defendant committed the crime that they've been charged with.
It does not mean that witnesses can't believe that the defendant is guilty.
It does not mean that ordinary citizens can't believe the defendant is guilty.
It does not mean that the prosecutor can't believe the defendant is guilty.
It only means that the state can't consider the defendant guilty until the verdict comes in.
You're right that a witness can't claim a defendant's guilt on the witness stand (because they can only be asked for facts, not opinions), but the second that Teresa's brother walks out of the courtroom he can say whatever he wants to whomever he wants.
In my own words, the Jury basically thought:
...
So remember, before bling the Jury, that they didn't watch this Documentary. They heard something like the above over MONTHS while having news channels tell them that he did it.
Also Avery's ¯_(ツ
_/¯ expression the whole time while not testifying at all was just... ¯_(ツ_/¯
...
So remember, before bling the Jury, that they didn't watch this Documentary. They heard something like the above over MONTHS while having news channels tell them that he did it.
Also Avery's ¯_(ツ
_/¯ expression the whole time while not testifying at all was just... ¯_(ツ_/¯
Resident_UA
Member
You have to be trolling. LOL
Permanently A
Junior Member
Oh my god these lawyers are so fucking SMOOTH.
- Witness says the fire was 10 feet high the night of the incident.
- Lawyer asks the witness what time he got home the day of the incident, witness says before 3.
- Lawyer shows him a police report from the day after the incident where he stated that he got home at 3:15.
- Lawyer asks him if he thinks his memory would be better the night after the incident or a year after the incident.
- Witness admits the police report is probably more accurate.
- Lawyer then points out he said the fire was only 3 feet high in the report.
Here's that Fox News bit with Kratz and Strang
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/01/...idence-wasnt-shown-netflix-documentary-series
Kratz deals out more fluff and gets his moment to sanitize his name, as FOX no doubt promised in exchange for the appearance.
Strang responded to the "new evidence" well, though I'd like to hear more...
MaM 2 pls
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/01/...idence-wasnt-shown-netflix-documentary-series
Kratz deals out more fluff and gets his moment to sanitize his name, as FOX no doubt promised in exchange for the appearance.
Strang responded to the "new evidence" well, though I'd like to hear more...
MaM 2 pls
So just having finished the series and reading all of the stuff that was missing from the show, I still think Steven and Brendan
.
The entire prosecution team involved should be jailed imo.
are innocent.
Some of those "missing" tibits are things they already covered in the show, had no relevancy (they found a porn stash really?), or it was additional sources reported by Kratz of all people.
Some of those "missing" tibits are things they already covered in the show, had no relevancy (they found a porn stash really?), or it was additional sources reported by Kratz of all people.
The entire prosecution team involved should be jailed imo.
https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-free-steven-avery
300,000 signatures. last i checked, about a week ago, it was under 75k. god damn, this thing really blew up.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...eir-alleged-involvement-murder-teresa-halbach
100,000 signatures here too. last i saw, it was under 25k.
300,000 signatures. last i checked, about a week ago, it was under 75k. god damn, this thing really blew up.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...eir-alleged-involvement-murder-teresa-halbach
100,000 signatures here too. last i saw, it was under 25k.
Ah, so the white house will have to officially respond now right?
It's definitely big, there's an article on the series and the case on the frontpage of a Dutch paper today.
forknknife
Banned
One other thing. How often do you see somebody that is sentenced to life imprisonment, whom has also extinguished all possibilities of getting another trial and is left without a lawyer, get 20 fucking boxes of trial documentation and start studying it by himself to try to prove his innocence?
For me this, almost more than anything else said in the documentary, proves to me that Steven did not do it.
And to me, the most logical explanation is that the police did it.
My theory is that the police decided that they had to frame Steven at all costs and started surveillance on him. Then they figured that Theresa was going to visit him on that day and decided that if they would plant evidence of her killing at his property, that, together with little more manipulative tactics, would be enough to get a jury (who knows if also set up and coerced) to convict him. Then, after they killed Theresa, they looked at the actions from Steven on the day of the murder (made a bonfire, etc.) and fabricated the evidence in the most "logical" and "believable" way they could. Still, for me they did not achieve their goals because all planted evidence is so fucking obvious but they managed to convince the jury and for that they placed all their most corrupt people on the job to make it happen.
The brother is an asshole although blindly, he just wants to find who did it and probably police and prosecution acted as their best friends from minute one, so he was unable to go against them. Same with the ex-bf, I don't think there is enough evidence to prove him guilty but at the same time they never tried looking for it, so who knows....
For me this, almost more than anything else said in the documentary, proves to me that Steven did not do it.
And to me, the most logical explanation is that the police did it.
My theory is that the police decided that they had to frame Steven at all costs and started surveillance on him. Then they figured that Theresa was going to visit him on that day and decided that if they would plant evidence of her killing at his property, that, together with little more manipulative tactics, would be enough to get a jury (who knows if also set up and coerced) to convict him. Then, after they killed Theresa, they looked at the actions from Steven on the day of the murder (made a bonfire, etc.) and fabricated the evidence in the most "logical" and "believable" way they could. Still, for me they did not achieve their goals because all planted evidence is so fucking obvious but they managed to convince the jury and for that they placed all their most corrupt people on the job to make it happen.
The brother is an asshole although blindly, he just wants to find who did it and probably police and prosecution acted as their best friends from minute one, so he was unable to go against them. Same with the ex-bf, I don't think there is enough evidence to prove him guilty but at the same time they never tried looking for it, so who knows....