Anybody seen this series ?

I'm on epi 8.

Seems like fodder for a long thread.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 1/17/2016 2:51 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Anybody seen this series ?

I'm on epi 8.

Seems like fodder for a long thread.

I've watched the entire series.

It's a grabber but without introducing "spoilers" I will only say that
episode 10 is good, but. . .

Investigation Discovery will be airing what you could call a rebuttal by
the prosecution.

Making a Murderer had a story to tell and took sides. Likewise, the
prosecution has a story to tell and will put their best foot forward.

When all is said and done, we will not see all the cards played by
either side in a television program (or series of them),

The only folks who get to sit down (without popcorn and their favorite
beverage) and see/hear the best shots of both the defense and
prosecution are the jurors. That should count for something.

On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 2:51:41 PM UTC-6, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Anybody seen this series ?

I'm on epi 8.

Seems like fodder for a long thread.
--
Pete Cresswell

It's just entertainment...this guy is a creep of the 1st order and threatened the woman that vouched for him. This happened not far from here...so it's all hype and little truth to it.

Per Unquestionably Confused:
Investigation Discovery will be airing what you could call a rebuttal by
the prosecution.

Maybe they will include the recent Nancy Grace interview with Avery's
1st girlfriend: http://tinyurl.com/j47uas3
--
Pete Cresswell

(PeteCresswell) posted for all of us...



Anybody seen this series ?

I'm on epi 8.

Seems like fodder for a long thread.

The is in the news for at least a week. It's one sided; not a true
documentary.

--
Tekkie

Per (PeteCresswell):
Maybe they will include the recent Nancy Grace interview with Avery's
1st girlfriend: http://tinyurl.com/j47uas3 ....
In which she characterizes Avery as a Jekyll/Hyde type...
--
Pete Cresswell

On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 4:32:19 PM UTC-5, Tekkie® wrote:
(PeteCresswell) posted for all of us...



Anybody seen this series ?

I'm on epi 8.

Seems like fodder for a long thread.

The is in the news for at least a week. It's one sided; not a true
documentary.

--
Tekkie

That's what I've heard too and Netflix is taking a lot of heat.
It appears they put in everything favorable to the convict and
left out most of the incriminating evidence, like that he had
been threatening the women, harrassing them, his DNA was found
on the dead woman's car, etc.

On 1/17/2016 3:51 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Anybody seen this series ?

I'm on epi 8.

Seems like fodder for a long thread.


I avoid these type trial series.

I learned in the nearly a year wasted time following the O J Simpson
trial with a major disappointment in the verdict. **** poor jury, ****
poor judge and **** poor prosecutors got the rich defendant off. I'm
sure the media knew it but they just wanted to suck you in to watch it.

One of my sons was in law school at the time and I asked him how his
professors felt about the O J trial and they told the students to avoid
watching it. They were right.

If you like the entertainment, I guess it is OK. If you want the truth,
I'd avoid it.

Per trader_4:
That's what I've heard too and Netflix is taking a lot of heat.
It appears they put in everything favorable to the convict and
left out most of the incriminating evidence, like that he had
been threatening the women, harrassing them, his DNA was found
on the dead woman's car, etc.

After Googling alternative views, I would agree that the documentary was
more biased than I would have expected.

But I also think they surfaced two legitimate issues that I had never
even heard about, much less given any thought to:

- The widely-used "Reid" interrogation method.
More at http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...he-interview-7,
but the bottom like seems to be that any competent team of
interrogators can get somebody whose mental functioning is
sufficiently below normal to confess to just about anything you can
think of - in spite of the fact that he did not do it.

The kid they nailed had an IQ of about 70 - and, after confessing
to a rape/murder, he asked the interrogator if he could go back
to school..... Something seriously lacking there...

- A general mentality of getting a confession rather than seeking the
truth. Maybe baked in to an adversarial system, but the cops and
prosecutors seem to take it too far when they get a gut feeling that
somebody committed a crime and then dedicate themselves totally to
proving it - instead of being open to other possibilities.

On Avery's first time around - when he was proven innocent after
18 years in the can - the actual perpetrator was suggested by another
police agency, but the locals pushed that aside and just kept on
with their case.


Also, I think the documentary made a reasonable case for evidence
planting, especially the car key: seven days of investigation and nobody
sees it, and then there it is in plain sight on the floor ?..... and the
only DNA on it was Avery's ?.... After being used for years by the
victim ? Doesn't compute.

I also came away wondering about the lack of blood. Seems like, in the
police scenario, there would have to have been considerable victim blood
wherever the murder was committed....but they looked really hard and
found none.

But evidence tampering/planting and a forced confession are not, IMHO,
incompatible with Avery's actually having killed the victim.

The impression I get so far from all the stuff I have seen and read is
that the Avery family in general were undesirable, to say the least, and
the cops in question were looking for any means possible to get at least
some of them off the street.

Listen to the interview with Avery's 1st girlfriend at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTz673OMTF0 and you come away thinking
either she's psycho or Avery is a real Jekyll/Hyde character who
probably did kill the victim - albeit maybe not in the way the police
got the halfwit nephew to confess to.

I enjoyed reading the thread at http://tinyurl.com/hpln2l8
(https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...urs_of_sexual/)
which seems to be contributed to by intellectually-careful people who
really know how to think and argue - in short, people much smarter than
I...
--
Pete Cresswell

On 1/19/2016 10:40 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per trader_4:
That's what I've heard too and Netflix is taking a lot of heat.
It appears they put in everything favorable to the convict and
left out most of the incriminating evidence, like that he had
been threatening the women, harrassing them, his DNA was found
on the dead woman's car, etc.

After Googling alternative views, I would agree that the documentary was
more biased than I would have expected.

But I also think they surfaced two legitimate issues that I had never
even heard about, much less given any thought to:

- The widely-used "Reid" interrogation method.
More at http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...he-interview-7,
but the bottom like seems to be that any competent team of
interrogators can get somebody whose mental functioning is
sufficiently below normal to confess to just about anything you can
think of - in spite of the fact that he did not do it.

That would/might apply to Dassey(Sp?) but hardly to Avery who continued
to maintain he was innocent.


The kid they nailed had an IQ of about 70 - and, after confessing
to a rape/murder, he asked the interrogator if he could go back
to school..... Something seriously lacking there...

A bucket of fries short of a Happy Meal, for sure.

On Avery's first time around - when he was proven innocent after
18 years in the can - the actual perpetrator was suggested by another
police agency, but the locals pushed that aside and just kept on
with their case.

Very bothersome. Explains why they were in negotiations to settle up
with him for the wrongful conviction


Also, I think the documentary made a reasonable case for evidence
planting, especially the car key: seven days of investigation and nobody
sees it, and then there it is in plain sight on the floor ?..... and the
only DNA on it was Avery's ?.... After being used for years by the
victim ? Doesn't compute.

And the apparent tampering with the evidence from his prior case.


I also came away wondering about the lack of blood. Seems like, in the
police scenario, there would have to have been considerable victim blood
wherever the murder was committed....but they looked really hard and
found none.

If you tie the place of her killing to what Dassey said, you're correct.
Had her throat been slit, etc. in his bedroom, there is no way, short
of burning the place to the ground and grinding the ashes that some
trace of blood would not have been found. So... she wasn't killed there.

Remember, too, that they looked at the garage as a possible scene and
supposedly checked out a crack in the pavement and, I think, some
mention was made of bleach. Again, maybe maybe not, logically you
would think that he'd have done the deed in close proximity to the house
but. . . Maybe not.


But evidence tampering/planting and a forced confession are not, IMHO,
incompatible with Avery's actually having killed the victim.

Even a broken watch is correct two times a day. As for the planting of
the keys - it certainly looks bad for the prosecution but that trailer
was a rat's net and I suppose it's possible.

Said it before and it's worth repeating.

Both the prosecution and the defense had an opportunity to make their
case in front of a jury. Only the jury got to see everything that both
sides had. They saw it and they convicted. That counts for a great
deal in our system of justice. The appeals courts can only look to
mistakes made by - or allowed - by the Court and, to limited extent, NEW
evidence. That said, twelve jurors voted to convict so Avery isn't
likely to skate out.

Per Unquestionably Confused:
That would/might apply to Dassey(Sp?) but hardly to Avery who continued
to maintain he was innocent.

Yes, I would agree. Although Avery's IQ is also supposed to be about
70 also, his thinking seems much clearer.

Both the prosecution and the defense had an opportunity to make their
case in front of a jury. Only the jury got to see everything that both
sides had. They saw it and they convicted. That counts for a great
deal in our system of justice.

Did you see epi 10?.... My takeaway was that the jury was mostly in
favor of acquittal except for three very stubborn members who had their
minds made up on Day 1.... and those 3 wore down the rest....

If I got that part right, then I have to wonder if it was, perhaps, a
combination of fatigue, wanting to go home, needing to get back to
work, and some gut feeling about Avery rather than a rational decision
based on the two sides' arguments.

Did you watch the interview with his 1st girlfriend?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTz673OMTF0

Either she's some sort of psycho or Avery is a real-live Jekyll/Hyde
character. I'd kind of like to her what her IQ is.... in fact, my
morbid interest would extend to knowing if the whole bunch had
room-temperature IQs and not just Avery and Dassey.

--
Pete Cresswell

On 1/19/2016 2:59 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Unquestionably Confused:
That would/might apply to Dassey(Sp?) but hardly to Avery who continued
to maintain he was innocent.

Yes, I would agree. Although Avery's IQ is also supposed to be about
70 also, his thinking seems much clearer.

If you take the entire Avery family and look at it two things are
apparent 1) The only time you'll get a full set of teeth is if they
pose for a family portrait and 2) the average IQ probably falls south of
the mean summer temperature in that part of Wisconsin.

That said, there is a difference between IQ and innate animal cunning.



Both the prosecution and the defense had an opportunity to make their
case in front of a jury. Only the jury got to see everything that both
sides had. They saw it and they convicted. That counts for a great
deal in our system of justice.

Did you see epi 10?.... My takeaway was that the jury was mostly in
favor of acquittal except for three very stubborn members who had their
minds made up on Day 1.... and those 3 wore down the rest....

I saw it but... if the source of that "box score" was the juror who was
excused, I think I'll call bulls**t on that. Number 1, he was only
privy to about 4 hours of deliberation before he bugged out. Number 2,
it makes no sense that three could lock up the jury and make them come
over to the guilty side if nine were in favor of acquittal. I've seen
it go the other way. One or two will dig in and hold out for acquittal
and you wind up with a deadlocked jury and a mistrial. For that premise
to be true you'd have to agree that nine people thought him "innocent"
and didn't have the stones to hold their ground and allowed three others
to "force" them into voting guilty.


If I got that part right, then I have to wonder if it was, perhaps, a
combination of fatigue, wanting to go home, needing to get back to
work, and some gut feeling about Avery rather than a rational decision
based on the two sides' arguments.

Disagree. I can see the proponents of a not guilty swarming and
overcoming one or two jurors and having them give in and say "aw, what
the hell, let him walk" more easily than what we see here.


Did you watch the interview with his 1st girlfriend?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTz673OMTF0

Either she's some sort of psycho or Avery is a real-live Jekyll/Hyde
character. I'd kind of like to her what her IQ is.... in fact, my
morbid interest would extend to knowing if the whole bunch had
room-temperature IQs and not just Avery and Dassey.

I think the only non-mouth breather in the entire show (other than the
cops and lawyers, etc) was the victim, Teresa.

Per Frank:
I learned in the nearly a year wasted time following the O J Simpson
trial with a major disappointment in the verdict. **** poor jury, ****
poor judge and **** poor prosecutors got the rich defendant off. I'm
sure the media knew it but they just wanted to suck you in to watch it.

One of my sons was in law school at the time and I asked him how his
professors felt about the O J trial and they told the students to avoid
watching it. They were right.

OTOH, it seems to have provided a veritable treasure trove of material
for stand-up comics..... -)
--
Pete Cresswell

Here's a link to some intelligent-sounding comments on some of the basic
issues:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...xeowYIrX1E/pub
--
Pete Cresswell

On 1/19/2016 5:09 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Frank:
I learned in the nearly a year wasted time following the O J Simpson
trial with a major disappointment in the verdict. **** poor jury, ****
poor judge and **** poor prosecutors got the rich defendant off. I'm
sure the media knew it but they just wanted to suck you in to watch it.

One of my sons was in law school at the time and I asked him how his
professors felt about the O J trial and they told the students to avoid
watching it. They were right.

OTOH, it seems to have provided a veritable treasure trove of material
for stand-up comics..... -)


You're right. Would have better spent my time watching them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQPVA2bGsB4

On 1/19/2016 9:41 AM, Frank wrote:
I learned in the nearly a year wasted time following the O J Simpson trial with a major disappointment in the verdict. **** poor jury, **** poor judge and **** poor prosecutors got the rich defendant off. I'm sure the media knew it but they just wanted
to suck you in to watch it.

OJ was found innocent because it was cheaper than to have OJ's fan club riot/loot/burn down America's cities.

"Dr. Cheswick" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 1/19/2016 9:41 AM, Frank wrote:
I learned in the nearly a year wasted time following the O J Simpson
trial with a major disappointment in the verdict. **** poor jury, ****
poor judge and **** poor prosecutors got the rich defendant off. I'm sure
the media knew it but they just wanted
to suck you in to watch it.

OJ was found innocent because it was cheaper than to have OJ's fan club
riot/loot/burn down America's cities.

Same reason the Rodney King's white cops had to found guilty the second time
around, after being found innocent.

Per (PeteCresswell):

Seems like fodder for a long thread.

Looks like it might get even more interesting.

A heavy hitter defense lawyer named Kathleen Zellner has taken up on
behalf of Avery: http://tinyurl.com/z2h7sqj, http://tinyurl.com/guxehv9
--
Pete Cresswell

Per (PeteCresswell):
Here's a link to some intelligent-sounding comments on some of the basic
issues:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...xeowYIrX1E/pub

And the root page for the Reddit discussions is
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/

An interesting (to me, at least...) aspect of this is that it may be the
first time that a major murder case has effectively been crowd-sourced.

Once Zellner gets up to speed, she will have the benefit of the Reddit
discussions where smart, observant people have been combing through the
evidence and picking up on things like the photo that shows the victim
next to her Rav4 holding keys - presumably the car key among them....
but attached to a bunch of other keys..... OTOH, the key "discovered" in
Avery's trailer was detached...

And another person went back over the photos of the piece of furniture
that was supposedly tipped/shaken to make the magic key fall into plain
view after 7 days and found that there were coins laying on it and which
had not changed position between before and after the key was found....

Stuff like that.... Whichever side one favors, it's got to get
interesting....
--
Pete Cresswell