Support NeoGAF

[msdstc]

What is this offended nonsense?

You wanted to make a thread about Thin Blue Line, but you brought another show into it and basically drew a line in the sand on it. Given that it's a hot button topic right now, you can't be silly enough to think people wouldn't want to discuss that instead.

Your intentions and your OP basically conflict with each other.

I made my point pretty clear, but like I said I expected people to respond on it and just asked they didn't. They did, however once people started calling me out or attacking me I fed into it. I've never stopped making my point though, which is you can see both sides of the coin on the others, where in TTBL you can't, period.

One thing in a sea of doubt.

- The police searching the house for days and only on the day when Lenk wasn't been monitored. all of a sudden he finds the Key.
- Claiming that TH was killed in the garage, but not a single spec of blood was found anywhere in the garage.
- TH's blood in the car, If she was killed in the garage, why put the body in the back of the car, to transport her 5 feet away to the burn pit.
- Coulhorns 2 day early call in of the license place
- Police claimed Lenk wasn't at the scene when the car was found, but somehow despite never logging in, he logged out from the scene.
- City police despite being told to stay away from the evidence, were the ones who found the most damning pieces.
- Not finding any thing in the garage, and randomly going back and lo and behold, magic bullet just laying on the ground
- The chemist testing the bullet admits to cross contamination, decides to give a positive ID for TH anyways.
- Avery who managed to clean up every single spec of blood at the scene of the crime, forgets to clean up a blood smear next to the ignition?
- Avery who was just using the car crusher the day before they cordoned off his property, decides to crush cars, but NOT the car of the chick he just supposedly killed?

These are just off the top of my head... doesn't any of these things give you some reasonable doubt?

Did you read the thread?! Not reading the OP is a bannable offense.

 

[BronsonLee]

I made my point pretty clear, but like I said I expected people to respond on it and just asked they didn't. They did, however once people started calling me out or attacking me I fed into it. I've never stopped making my point though, which is you can see both sides of the coin on the others, where in TTBL you can't, period.

Did you read the thread?! Not reading the OP is a bannable offense.

You didn't actually make it clear though, that's the problem. You kind of buried the lead by going so hard on the other point. There's a legitimate discussion to be had about Thin Blue Line, but it won't be happening here.

And I have no idea what you're getting on that guy for.

 

[methane47]

Did you read the thread?! Not reading the OP is a bannable offense.

Sooo should you have been banned for responding to my post about Avery?

 

[msdstc]

You didn't actually make it clear though, that's the problem. You kind of buried the lead by going so hard on the other point. There's a legitimate discussion to be had about Thin Blue Line, but it won't be happening here.

And I have no idea what you're getting on that guy for.

Because he just asked me if all of that stuff leads to reasonable doubt, when I quite literally have said over and over again that there was reasonable doubt. I also summed it up very clearly what my point was in the OP and in responses, it's crystal clear to anybody who isn't angry that I implied Mr. Avery could in fact be guilty.

 

[msdstc]

1. I 1000% agree. I think it's funny that people try so hard to defend that. Does that implicate him without a reasonable doubt? Absolutely not, but it's a very common tendency in the mind of a psychopath.

2. I agree he most likely did as I'm more apt to occams razor in this case, but reasonable doubt does exist , and as stated countless times, the trial was incredibly biased.

3. on netflix, and it's unbelievable. You should also watch "paradise lost" which to me was the most addicting of the bunch, and one that will leave you wondering quite a bit.

I've seen a lot of these documentaries/shows/films w.e over the years, and each one is infuriating in their own way. Most recently Making a Murderer has taken the nation by storm claiming the courts have taken yet another innocent man and framed him. All of these movies proclaiming the innocence of a convicted individual have a ton in common

Ultimately I feel like it generally ends with the same result- it's inconclusive.

At the end of the day this is more of a review/rant about the film. It is a reminder of who he was and what he represents, because honestly I hadn't even heard of this until today. I think it's important that cases like this are brought forth more often, and hopefully something in the future changes... although I sincerely doubt it.

Unfortunately as I expected it's broken down into this, but yes I agree you can't presume guilt given a person's past, however you can use a criminal record or a person's past to get an understanding if they were capable of something. That being said it's far from a bible or a death sentence for the defendant. I agree the lawyers did an amazing job of raising reasonable doubt, and the police employed questionable tactics, without question. I'm not arguing here if the case was fair or not, I just said I think given the circumstances he is likely the one that did it, but that doesn't mean he should be in jail, because I don't know that 100%. My argument stems from the fact that the system is broken.

I left saying there's reasonable doubt. I've said that so many times in this thread have I not? I've said the trial was unfair. There's definitely reasonable doubt, in this case and in the WM3 case, however there is no reasonable doubt in the thin blue line, he just flat out didn't do it, and there's nothing that says he did.

By digging deeper I mean the fact that the guy didn't accidentily toss the cat "over" the fire, I mean that he soaked it in gasoline and threw it into the fire with the intent to kill it. I meant with the testimony of people close to him about who he is as a person, which the documentary glosses over, that's a fact. It doesn't change the evidence, and a lot of it is obtained in strange/illegal fashion and can be questioned, but it still exists that he saw her last, he set up the appt., he has a violent past, he's threatened to kill numerous people, etc. same with the WM3 in that Damien echols had a rap sheet, proclaimed himself homicidal, mocked the grieving families, gave inconsistent testimony and alibies, etc.

None of that stuff happens in TTBL. I wanted to bring up this particular case as a reminder that not only does it happen, but it happens on far shakier ground, and people have been put away for far less.

Are you serious? I not only said in the OP the trial and the evidence are inconclusive... I went on to use the exact phrase you questioned if I had. Read the thread if you're going to participate please.


edit- wow, so where did you get the idea you responding on the case is bannable? Not reading the OP is bannable according to the TOS is what I'm saying, and you clearly didn't read my original post, or you didn't comprehend it.

 

[LifeLike]

Good lord, sometimes I just want to punch Brendan in the face! This is infuriating! You can be stupid but why come up with something like this? What was he thinking?

 

[Dalek]

This thread.

 

[Crimson_Gold]

Good lord, sometimes I just want to punch Brendan in the face! This is infuriating! You can be stupid but why come up with something like this? What was he thinking?

He wasn't... And here we are.

 

[Jenov]

For me the bias is so heavily towards Avery that it is hard to come away from it feeling like he is 100% innocent. I feel like there is something really dishonest about making a 'documentary' when you're approaching the subject matter with the goal of convincing your audience of something. It's part of why I enjoy Serial as a contrast to Making A Murderer. I genuinely feel like Serial is trying to find out what happened, whereas MAM is out to push an agenda. I'd feel better about Making A Murderer if the people making it gave any screen time to people in the prosecution. As is, it's a persuasive opinion piece masked as documentary and there's very little objectivity in it at all.

I was really entertained by Making A Murderer. It's great TV, and I definitely came away from it feeling like Avery and his nephew didn't get fair trials. I mostly have a problem with it when I see petitions being sent to the President asking for someone to be released from prison because they spent 10 hours watching a documentary. There's something irresponsible at work when you have a large swath of people convinced that they know all the ins and outs of a case because they watched a one sided documentary on it.

That being said, while I feel like Avery probably did it, I don't think the prosecution and the local police treated him fairly, or turned up enough evidence to prove their case. The problem is that none of us here that watched Making A Murderer were there at the trial and none of us got to see both sides of the case. It's great TV, and I think it absolutely highlights big problems with our justice system, particularly when it comes to interrogations and confessions. I just don't think it is objective enough for me at the end of the day.

^^^ That's how I saw it as well. Avery is most likely guilty. Also, I feel like a lot of these smaller town police and courts are more prone to messy investigations because of less oversight, less resources, less personnel, etc. Human error and corruption are hard to mitigate against in the justice system, it will always be flawed.

 

[Tatsumi Oga]

Yesterday i watched The Thin Blue Line on Netflix. Yes at first it was a bit odd to see how old the documentary was, but pretty soon i didn't mind it anymore. Don't think i even minded it at all to begin with. Pretty crazy what happened to the guy, especially the way he was treated, being called a Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler after just a chat of 15 minutes. Or those bullshit witnesses, damn man. Poor guy, damn poor guy. And eventually he got a brain tumor, it's just not right man.

Oh and the guy who actually did it, you'd really not think he'd do such things, assaults, robberies, murder etc, because in that interview, this David Harris seemed like a really decent and friendly dude. How wrong you can be about people huh.

So as for the other one, Paradise Lost....you mean these ones?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117293/?ref_=nv_sr_1

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0239894/?ref_=nv_sr_4

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2028530/?ref_=nv_sr_3