Making a Murderer Documentary on Netflix

[bignev23]

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?...

From what I've seen it seems quite common practice in America for evidence to be released in the media and then to the public in trials that are of high interest at the time and where a conviction is needed to show to the public that the authorities are doing a good job, I said a few times I'm sure a judge in this country(England) would have maybe declared a mistrial.

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 that was the same with a jury 1 in every 5 people convicted could be innocent. I think if I was on a murder jury then to convict I would have to be absolutely convinced the accused was guilty to have convicted them otherwise you are nearly just as guilty of talking an innocent life away from somebody as the murderer.

 

[toffeejack]

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

without doubt. The thing that infuriates me the most is that they weren't even good at it. Even i would have done a better job of making it not so obvious. Kratz didn't even come close to convincing me, as every day went by on the trial he seemed to make his case worse - there was question's to be asked of every whitness he brought. No surprise that he turns out to be a dodgy character.

"Right we know where the car is, let's just go straight there instead of wasting our time and searching most of the scrapyard first"

"right let's plant a key now, wipe any other evidence of fingerprints and make sure just avery's are on there .... let's also put it right out in the open."

"let's use the blood we obtained from when he was previously convicted, hoping that his lawyers won't actually check that bit of evidence."

It wasn't avery's fault they cocked up, he didn't mug the state off.

 

[bring the ghost on]

If that was the same with a jury 1 in every 5 people convicted could be innocent. I think if I was on a murder jury then to convict I would have to be absolutely convinced the accused was guilty to have convicted them otherwise you are nearly just as guilty of talking an innocent life away from somebody as the murderer.

Does ''beyond reasonable doubt'' means ''absolutely convinced'' though? I don't think it does.

The point we were making is that it is very difficult to ever be absolutely convinced as there are always other factors (a defence lawyer wouldn't run a case to trial it was clear cut) but you can still convict without needing to be absolutely convinced under the present system.

 

[oldblue]

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

This is definitely what's scary for me. I'm sure the idea that the ends justifies the means would be one that played well with many people but it's a horrible idea in practice.

 

[bignev23]

Does ''beyond reasonable doubt'' means ''absolutely convinced'' though? I don't think it does.

The point we were making is that it is very difficult to ever be absolutely convinced as there are always other factors (a defence lawyer wouldn't run it to trial it was clear cut) but you can still convict without needing to be absolutely convinced under the present system.

DNA evidence in either or both of his trailer or garage would have went a long way to convincing me I think, although in this case it could have well been planted even if there was, it seems highly unlikely that the crime took place as the prosecution described without it.

No way would I be convicting If I wasn't certain, I would have to be sure. I couldn't be responsible for locking someone up for life if they presented a good case which left me with anything more than a few questions but you're right it is a bit of a grey area in terms of how unreasonable doubt could be interpreted.

 

[oldblue]

If that was the same with a jury 1 in every 5 people convicted could be innocent. I think if I was on a murder jury then to convict I would have to be absolutely convinced the accused was guilty to have convicted them otherwise you are nearly just as guilty of talking an innocent life away from somebody as the murderer.

The original point though was that the reasonable doubt idea can't be a general feeling. Some people doubt themselves and question more than others. Others make their mind up at the start of a case and won't shift.
Also 'reasonable doubt' will depend on social prejudices and assumptions. In any court case it's generally not just that doubt has to be placed on the testimony of the accused but on those accusing them. It sadly is human nature in many cases to question people in authority a lot less, also question people who speak with authority a lot less.

 

[Jags..class]

I've seen someone suggested watching the 12 angry men. Is this worth watching?

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

I've seen someone suggested watching the 12 angry men. Is this worth watching?

V.Good film. Not one of my all-time classics but well worth a watch.

 

[bring the ghost on]

On a slightly related note, did anyone see Channel 4's ''The Murder Trial'' a few years back? It was a one-off 2 hour documentary based around a murder trial in Scotland (a jurisdiction which allows criminal trials to be filmed) and captures the case of a man who was convicted of murdering his wife, and who has been granted a re-trial. It isn't about police corruption, but it is nonetheless a very interesting case built on circumstances. I think it might still be on 4od if anyone is interested.

 

[bignev23]

The original point though was that the reasonable doubt idea can't be a general feeling. Some people doubt themselves and question more than others. Others make their mind up at the start of a case and won't shift.
Also 'reasonable doubt' will depend on social prejudices and assumptions. In any court case it's generally not just that doubt has to be placed on the testimony of the accused but on those accusing them. It sadly is human nature in many cases to question people in authority a lot less, also question people who speak with authority a lot less.

Can only speak for myself when saying I would have to be convinced, as you say reasonable doubt will differ because of prejudices and numerous other reasons. I think in a lot of murder cases the prosecutions evidence will be taken as truth by jurors unless it can be proven wrong by the accused and not that the accused evidence is taken as truth and has to be proven guilty by the prosecution. Almost like you could be innocent but if you don't have the evidence to disprove the prosecutions version of events you will be convicted. I think the general public would mainly believe the prosecutions version of events over joe publics as most would believe that the prosecution had no reason to lie or make stuff up to suit their story when some of the time they could have and in this case certainly did.

 

[oldblue]

I've seen someone suggested watching the 12 angry men. Is this worth watching?

Absolute classic beyond reasonable doubt. Sidney Lumet also made The Verdict, which is up there as well with best legal films.

 

[oldblue]

Can only speak for myself when saying I would have to be convinced, as you say reasonable doubt will differ because of prejudices and numerous other reasons. I think in a lot of murder cases the prosecutions evidence will be taken as truth by jurors unless it can be proven wrong by the accused and not that the accused evidence is taken as truth and has to be proven guilty by the prosecution. Almost like you could be innocent but if you don't have the evidence to disprove the prosecutions version of events you will be convicted. I think the general public would mainly believe the prosecutions version of events over joe publics as most would believe that the prosecution had no reason to lie or make stuff up to suit their story when some of the time they could have and in this case certainly did.

Think it's inevitable the type of crime and the consequences of your decision really does change what reasonable doubt means to you as well.

 

[lesbattersby]

I'm only getting around to watching this now. I'm up to the 4th episode and I'm finding what's happening that obsurd, I'm finding it hard to believe it isn't a made up show. Honestly how does it take his lawyers so long to realize 2 members of the police force from his previous trial, where in his house before keys where found. And to ask to see if his dna samples were tampered with. It would be one of the 1st things you'd look into.

 

[Prevenger17]

I've seen someone suggested watching the 12 angry men. Is this worth watching?

V.Good film. Not one of my all-time classics but well worth a watch.

Dixie is mental mate, it's amazing. Will watch it myself today.

 

[TheFinnFan]

So has Avery been set up that state dont have to pay him?