Always-honest
Banned
Yes i do. Not sure about most. But that could be the case.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
'Making a Murderer' subject Steven Avery denied new trial
- Thread starter Dalek
- Start date
Yes i do. Not sure about most. But that could be the case.
Tapioca
Banned
Eating an animal and burning it alive are not comparable situations.
One is torture, the other is survival. People who burn animals alive/torture animals often go on to kill and torture people. They get off on pain and suffering. It's a sign of psychopathy. They crave it.
I can't believe you actually compared these two situations.
Tapioca
Banned
I don't think he is innocent. So, nope.
Not really. There is physical evidence connecting him to this crime.
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
It was a one-off incident which also upset me when I learned about it but nothing Ive seen in video of Avery suggests that hes a psychopath. Yea he fucked up by doing that but that doesnt have anything to do with his current trial.
Tapioca
Banned
Have any of his defenders actually read up on the guy? Did they just watch the documentary and become his number one defender?
You guys sound like the people who watched "Loose Change" and then went on about how steel can't ever melt.
He is a trash human being. He burned a cat alive, beat up his wife, beat up his former fiance, beat up a girlfriend, ran a woman off the road and tried to kidnap her, allegedly raped an underage family member, on and on. He is a CLASSIC psychopath.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steven-avery-making-a-murderer_us_56992180e4b0ce4964243136
http://stevenaverycase.com/steven-a...accusitions-against-him/#sthash.gm95kVye.dpbs
And yet he may have not murdered this woman.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but police and prosecution really fucked up every possible aspect of the case and created more doubt than removed.
TheOfficeMut
Unconfirmed Member
I did say nothing Ive seen in video. I was speaking more to the idea of an actual psychopath who doesnt convey emotion but from video Avery certainly does. Some of those things you mentioned were mentioned in the documentary.
But at the end of the day that doesnt change the fact that what youre pointing out has nothing to do with this trial.
Wheres your outrage over the police system and how they handled this case from the onset? Thats the more absurd part about this whole thing that should worry you considerably more, because it can happen to anyone, including you, and if someone deems you guilty when you arent, you can very easily go to prison. Thats alarming.
boneyjangles
Member
Seemed like an unsavory character to begin with, but decades of injustice would probably sour anyone's outlook on life. Existing flaws and broken logic of his character amplified. Seemed like he killed her as some sort messed up 'payback'.
It's all just very sad and depressing. Hard to watch at times, particularly the Brendan stuff. Documentary couldn't be more aptly named.
It's all just very sad and depressing. Hard to watch at times, particularly the Brendan stuff. Documentary couldn't be more aptly named.
MarkMclovin
Member
Such a dodgy case.
I need to see the documentary.
I need to see the documentary.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Dude, spoilers! Season 2 hasn't even started yet!
No, but this is shitty. He may be guilty or he may not, but the way this was handled was such a shitshow either way, and to just leave it at that is fucked.
No, but this is shitty. He may be guilty or he may not, but the way this was handled was such a shitshow either way, and to just leave it at that is fucked.
Please never sit on a jury, this is not the logic that should be used to determine whether he killed her or not.
I find it really weird how so many people are 100% sure that Avery did it, given how clear it is that the police were fucking around with the evidence. If it was so clear it was him then why would they have to do so much dodgy stuff?
Why Brenden deserves benefit of doubt and go free where Avery doesn't?
"He was railroaded and abused!", okay. So how Avery wasn't?
There is sooo much questionable actions taken by police and prosecution that both men deserve to get new trial(s). Did they commit the crime or not.
This is horse shit. Wisconsin's legal system is fucked.
Like, the prosecution couldn't even pick a consistent theory of the crime. Like, there were seriously like 4 perfectly valid other suspects (Tadych, Avery's brother, Zipperer, Hillegas) that were not investigated at ALL, and one of whom was even allowed to participate in the investigation himself after provably destroying evidence. The judge specifically hamstrung the defense at trial by refusing them the ability to present an alternate suspect on top of that. The timeline doesn't line up at all for Avery to have killed her either. We have evidence the burn remains were moved ONTO Avery's property from elsewhere. Anyone who says they are certain of Avery's guilt should be ashamed and should never serve on a jury.
Like, the prosecution couldn't even pick a consistent theory of the crime. Like, there were seriously like 4 perfectly valid other suspects (Tadych, Avery's brother, Zipperer, Hillegas) that were not investigated at ALL, and one of whom was even allowed to participate in the investigation himself after provably destroying evidence. The judge specifically hamstrung the defense at trial by refusing them the ability to present an alternate suspect on top of that. The timeline doesn't line up at all for Avery to have killed her either. We have evidence the burn remains were moved ONTO Avery's property from elsewhere. Anyone who says they are certain of Avery's guilt should be ashamed and should never serve on a jury.
I have a surprise for you.
Didn't they convict Avery of killing her in the garage with a gun, and then also convict Dassey of killing her in the bedroom with a knife?
This whole case was fucked.
Did he do It? Possibly
Did his trial prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt? No fucking way. There is a shit ton of reasonable doubt all over the place.
I think it was the ex boyfriend personally.
This whole case was fucked.
Did he do It? Possibly
Did his trial prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt? No fucking way. There is a shit ton of reasonable doubt all over the place.
I think it was the ex boyfriend personally.
The crazy thing is that Brendan and Steven have been sentenced for the same murder when the "truths" in both cases were so different and conflicting, i.e Teresa Halbach being killed in the garage with no rape or mutilation for Steven and in the bedroom with rape and mutilation for Brendan.
Yup
Yup
Permanently A
Junior Member
What about Brendan though?
arts&crafts
Member
Was there even any evidence for Brenden aside from the forced confession?
I don't remember anymore but presumably the prosecution put forth evidence for their theory of the case along with the confession. Last I read he was getting a retrial.
Any Questions
Member
Which is why he went into jail the first time
biggersmaller
Banned
I'm pretty sure he did this, but if I were on a jury I would have been forced to have voted not guilty.
He was straight up ordered released. He's still in jail while the State of WI's appeal of that decision is considered.
After listening to the Generation Why podcast episode about the case by thoughts changed pretty dramatically. A key point which really stood out to me was how the Brendan side of things was portrayed in the show. It made it very clearly seem like a coerced confession but what they didn't tell you is how he'd apparently already previously confessed and the reason they were egging him on was to repeat what he'd said so it was on camera. It changes the whole situation.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
I can only imagine that if the ex did it he would have needed an accomplice, heck same would be likely for Avery. They need to walk away from the lot, or have someone pick them up after bringing her car and herself or her body or remains there. They can't drive her car there along with another car to come back alone. Unless she herself was lured to drive there herself.
Why did the police assume she was not killed where her remains were found? Did any autopsy indicate how she could have died?
Why did the police assume she was not killed where her remains were found? Did any autopsy indicate how she could have died?
A federal judge has ruled it was coerced and ordered him released.
Humm... what? I'll need a source for that.
Nappuccino
Member
More like he was coached through it off camera and coached through it on camera too. Brendan just said what he thought the officers wanted.
Darren870
Member
Yea, exactly. And what over the course of 5-8 hrs it took them to get his "confession".
Which of course didn't even reflect the crime scene.
LordRaptor
Member
Most of those things are hearsay, and for half that list they seem to all be accusations made by the girlfriend(? wife?) of one of the sheriffs that seemed to have bad blood with him personally.
Maybe he would have committed a crime as an adult that was a progression from the dumbass things he did as a teenager that were not rape murder that would serve as a justification for his presumed guilt.
We'll never know because he spent most of his adult life in prison for a crime he provably did not commit.
Coercing a confession from a vulnerable youth who is clearly on the borderline of being legally mentally incompetent on camera because of a supposed confession off camera doesn't come across as any less shady.
I mean, there are really really really good reasons why modern police procedures involve recording what occurs during an interview, and those reasons are the result of a long history of police officers abusing their power.
Big Baybee
Member
I have no idea if he did this or not, but how is there no blood evidence in the garage or bedroom? That place was a mess. If he killed her, it wasn't where the prosecution claimed that he killed her.
LordRaptor
Member
The fundamental problem with evidence tampering is its not a police officers job to determine if someone is or is not guilty, its to try and determine what happened based on the evidence available. Its then a prosecutors job to use that evidence to create the narrative of what happened, a juries job to determine if that narrative is convincing enough, and a judges job to ensure that the prosecution and jury are adhering to the guidelines of existing law.
If you start creating evidence that doesn't exist, or changing how evidence could be interpreted by - for example - moving the location of collected evidence the probability of 'false positive' results goes up hugely. Its not like nobody has ever been wrongfully convicted even when everyone involved has done their job 'correctly' in the first place.
He probably deserves a new trial just because of the shady shit the police did. That being said, I'm pretty confident that Avery is still guilty. The Making a Murderer documentary leaves out a bit of important information that makes Avery look way more guilty than the documentary made him look
Skellig Gra
Member
Never setting foot in that state with how fucked their legal system is.
Can you link some of this important information?
Could you say beyond reasonable doubt that he did it when you also know all shady fuckery that police and prosecution committed in order to reach some of their conclusions?
This post is why people hate some animal lovers.
Skellig Gra
Member
That's all nonsense. It's just Kratz whining and there is nothing definitive.
PhantomThief
Banned
I dont believe he killed her
I would not say it is all nonsense but it is highly dubious. Sweat DNA is complete and utter nonsense. The burned bones/teeth and bullet is a bit more problematic.
Insane Metal
Member
Even if he is innocent, he will never get another trial... they won't admit that the system failed.
I wouldn't go that far. The current issue now is that his attorney does not have a very strong case for a retrial. They can ask for one but absent newly discovered evidence that is material at trial they are not likely getting one.