Making a Murderer Documentary on Netflix

bring the ghost on · January 23, 2016

oldblue said:
I think part of the problem a jury face is that nobody tends to instruct you clearly on what reasonable doubt means.

Actually, the judge and the defence counsel are usually be at great pains to make this point crystal clear.

I don't know if that bit was left out of the edit of the documentary, but it's importance it critical and I can't see Averys lawyers not having hammered home the point.

dublinbluenose · January 23, 2016

Some of the jury have begun to speak out now & some have said they convicted him because of the rape and dismemberment of the victim - which SA wasnt actually prosecuted for.

oldblue · January 23, 2016

bring the ghost on said:
Actually, the judge and the defence counsel are usually be at great pains to make this point crystal clear.

I don't know if that bit was left out of the edit of the documentary, but it's importance it critical and I can't see Averys lawyers not having hammered home the point.

I think you're right that they will always clearly make the point about reasonable doubt, but how you interpret reasonable doubt is really tricky in practice when you don't have access to how it was seen in similar cases.
I just find it very hard to see twelve people even vaguely agreeing on what reasonable means. Definitely some people will interpret any official or professional statements as being hard evidence. The prosecutors seemed to make a huge issue of the fact that if they questioned official statements then they were questioning authority. And judges seem to definitely guide in this way when summing up on what doubt might mean.
Only really going on my one experiece in a jury but it was seen as a way by a few jurors to question everything a victim said but same rules weren't applied to opinions from professionals examining evidence.

N.S.N.O. · January 23, 2016

dublinbluenose said:
Some of the jury have begun to speak out now & some have said they convicted him because of the rape and dismemberment of the victim - which SA wasnt actually prosecuted for.

Well that part was weird in itself....the jury finding him not guilty of rape & mutilation of the body.....I mean surely they had to find him guilty of all 3 offences, or innocent of all 3!....
And then once they've decided he wasn't guilty of rape & mutilation of the body, automatically that should have meant Brendan couldn't have been convicted of those 2 offences either....yet he was!...surely all his lawyers had to do was state that the other case had already (rightly or wrongly) proved that he didn't rape Theresa or mutilate her body....

dublinbluenose · January 23, 2016

Stephen Avery wasn't actually prosecuted for rape but because the prosecution had put it there after the arrest the jury were influenced by that, even though they weren't adjudicating on that crime.

N.S.N.O. · January 23, 2016

dublinbluenose said:
Stephen Avery wasn't actually prosecuted for rape but because the prosecution had put it there after the arrest the jury were influenced by that, even though they weren't adjudicating on that crime.

To be honest, I'm amazed a miss-trial wasn't called from the very beginning after that press conference from the prosecution...that was a huge influence on the jury before the trial had even begun...is that normal practice in America?...

dublinbluenose · January 23, 2016

Seems to be, prosecutors are often voter appointed and so grandstanding is common place. It's a weird system.

BigDunc'sFod · January 23, 2016

"What happened to her head, Brendan?"
"Um... we cut her hair off?"
"No, something else"
"Um... he punched her in the face?
"No, something else"
"Um, slit her throat?"
"Okay, I'm just gonna come out and say it... who shot her in the head, Brendan?"
"He did"

Brilliant. How this conversation alone didn't justify a mistrial I'll never know

oldblue · January 23, 2016

Suppose the most chilling aspect is how much this must be happening without anyone paying any attention.

RomanReigns · January 23, 2016

avery's new lawyer is the best appeals attorney in america

google kathleen zellner

justice is inevitable when she is on your side

Jags..class · January 23, 2016

BigDunc'sFod said:
"What happened to her head, Brendan?"
"Um... we cut her hair off?"
"No, something else"
"Um... he punched her in the face?
"No, something else"
"Um, slit her throat?"
"Okay, I'm just gonna come out and say it... who shot her in the head, Brendan?"
"He did"

Brilliant. How this conversation alone didn't justify a mistrial I'll never know

When he answered cut her hair off, you know of the bat this kid was just guessing and not doing a good job either.

bring the ghost on · January 24, 2016

oldblue said:
how you interpret reasonable doubt is really tricky in practice.

Yeah, it's a tricky one. Someone said earlier in this thread ''you can't convict if you're not 100% certain they did it'', but for me you can be 95% certain, maybe lower, and still say that you're satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. But that's the point, no two people will look at it the same way, so inconsistencies are inevitable.

oldblue · January 24, 2016

bring the ghost on said:
Yeah, it's a tricky one. Someone said earlier in this thread ''you can't convict if you're not 100% certain they did it'', but for me you can be 95% certain, maybe lower, and still say that you're satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. But that's the point, no two people will look at it the same way, so inconsistencies are inevitable.

Yeah 'I want to be 100% certain' was exactly what couple of people said when I was involved. I doubt I've ever been more than 80% certain about anything.

N.S.N.O. · January 24, 2016

bring the ghost on said:
Yeah, it's a tricky one. Someone said earlier in this thread ''you can't convict if you're not 100% certain they did it'', but for me you can be 95% certain, maybe lower, and still say that you're satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. But that's the point, no two people will look at it the same way, so inconsistencies are inevitable.

If I was on the jury I would have said not guilty, and asked if we could make a statement which the judge could read out, saying the reason we found Steven Avery not guilty was due to the appalling & highly suspicious way the police investigated this case....
I feel sorry for the jury in this case, not an easy position to have been put in....

N.S.N.O. · January 24, 2016

oldblue said:
Yeah 'I want to be 100% certain' was exactly what couple of people said when I was involved. I doubt I've ever been more than 80% certain about anything.

If the cops were 100% sure Avery done it.....then they should have been able to make a pretty solid case against him without planting evidence....they've either shown themselves to be incapable of doing their jobs, or corrupt as hell....either way they should no longer be in employment