AwayGoalsRule Football Forum

The Internet's Finest Football Forum

Get moneyback specials on your football betting at PaddyPower


It is currently Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:11 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Making a Murderer
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:56 pm 
Offline
General of the Army
General of the Army

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:53 am
Posts: 31161
Location: Milton Keynes
Anyone caught this on Netflix?

Smashed through all 10 episodes in about 3 days was totally hooked on it.

Spoiler:
Still not convinced he actually did it his legal team shot so many holes in the evidence and can't believe they had a jury from his county given his previous conviction and if he had done it why leave so much stuff on your property body, key & the car. That said him and his family look like wrong'uns :lol:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Making a Murderer
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:17 am 
Offline
General of the Army
General of the Army
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:12 am
Posts: 19588
Highscores: 1
Haven't watched it yet but plan on starting it.

_________________
Because I'm young enough to be all pi**ed off
But I'm old enough to be jaded
I'm at the age where I want things to change
But with age my hopes have faded


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Making a Murderer
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:22 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:28 pm
Posts: 11549
Highscores: 12
Spoiler:
I'm torn. Initially after watching it I was certain he'd been framed, as you say the holes they picked in the prosecutions case it was hard not to come to the conclusion that he was innocent.

I then read a couple of articles after watching it and I'm now not sure, but I'm fairly certain that there was evidence planted to ensure the prosecution got the verdict.

There was also certain things left out by the documentary makers that makes you think from the outset it was never going to be 100% unbiased and they want you coming out of it thinking that he was 100% innocent. One piece of evidence that was completely omitted from the show was some sweat was found under the bonnet of the girls car, DNA matched Avery's and apparently it's impossible to plant that type of DNA. Obviously that isn't evidence to a murder, but I think more went on than perhaps he admitted to (or at least than was shown).

_________________
Erik The Viking wrote:
I personally hope Corden dies in a house fire.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Making a Murderer
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:06 pm 
Offline
General of the Army
General of the Army

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:53 am
Posts: 31161
Location: Milton Keynes
Spoiler:
The documentary makers said they concentrated on the prosecutions key issues as they couldn't do everything.

I don't think the cops killed her but they definetly made sure all the evidence pointed to him the people who looked most guilty in the whole thing were her ex boyfriend who just looked shifty and her family plus Branden's brother in law looked a bit dodgy.

I was reading that thing as well but his lawyers said how did the DNA get under the hood when there was nothing on the outside of the hood to say he'd oppened it DNA/Fingerprints etc. Apparently that pin prick hole in the top of his blood sample test tube is normal as once sealed that is how they extract it in the lab and that blood had obviously been tested previously as part of his case but the evidence box seals had clearly been broken and they couldn't explain why.

As for the evidence

The Car ~ why didn't he crush it when they had a crusher on site those people searching the yard (not police officers) found that a little to easily.
The Body ~ why burn and bury it next to your house when you live in the middle of nowhere.
The Key ~ how did that just appear on the 8th time they looked
The Bullets in the Garage ~ again how did they not find those first time around
The lack of victim Blood ~ given the fact they say he shot her in his garage how did he clear up the blood on every single item that place was a complete mess.
His Nephew ~ That kid is clearly special needs and you can't take anything he says seriously especially when there's no evidence to suggest what he said happened actually happened

The conspiracy angle is the only angle his lawyers could really go down as all the evidence pointed at him they couldn't really try and point to another person


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Making a Murderer
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:02 am 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:12 am
Posts: 10116
Downloaded but not getting enough tym.. Thanx you put all inspoiler :thumbup:

_________________
pakrooney wrote:

So true mate ...he is consistently inconsistent throughout his united career ..but what if he turns consistent ..he will get around 40 goals...ATM im waiting for that time as his age is 24/25 :wait: ... :|
on Rooney ,Jan 16th, ..and as they rest is history


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Making a Murderer
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:52 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:28 pm
Posts: 11549
Highscores: 12
JSP wrote:
Spoiler:
The documentary makers said they concentrated on the prosecutions key issues as they couldn't do everything.

I don't think the cops killed her but they definetly made sure all the evidence pointed to him the people who looked most guilty in the whole thing were her ex boyfriend who just looked shifty and her family plus Branden's brother in law looked a bit dodgy.

I was reading that thing as well but his lawyers said how did the DNA get under the hood when there was nothing on the outside of the hood to say he'd oppened it DNA/Fingerprints etc. Apparently that pin prick hole in the top of his blood sample test tube is normal as once sealed that is how they extract it in the lab and that blood had obviously been tested previously as part of his case but the evidence box seals had clearly been broken and they couldn't explain why.

As for the evidence

The Car ~ why didn't he crush it when they had a crusher on site those people searching the yard (not police officers) found that a little to easily.
The Body ~ why burn and bury it next to your house when you live in the middle of nowhere.
The Key ~ how did that just appear on the 8th time they looked
The Bullets in the Garage ~ again how did they not find those first time around
The lack of victim Blood ~ given the fact they say he shot her in his garage how did he clear up the blood on every single item that place was a complete mess.
His Nephew ~ That kid is clearly special needs and you can't take anything he says seriously especially when there's no evidence to suggest what he said happened actually happened

The conspiracy angle is the only angle his lawyers could really go down as all the evidence pointed at him they couldn't really try and point to another person

Spoiler:
Any fingerprints would be easy to get rid of, or he could have worn gloves. I mentioned the sweat under the bonnet purely because they said it was impossible to fake.

The evidence you mentioned is crazy, from a layman's point of view how anyone could find him guilty with the sheer amount of question marks over nearly every piece of evidence the prosecution had is beyond me.

With regards the lack of blood I believe the prosecution said he cleared it up so of course there isn't any. But there were cracks in the floor in the garage, which would have been nearly impossible to clean thoroughly, the police dug it all up and didn't find a shred of DNA evidence. Also the whole garage was covered in dust. Is he supposed to have shot her, cleaned all the blood up, left bullets and then replaced the dust?! It's completely illogical.

The car itself is also completely baffling. As you say he had a car crusher on his property that he knows how to operate, yet he chose to leave the car on the edge of a huge piece of land filled with cars. Again, it's so stupid I can't believe how not one juror said 'hang on a minute, what about XYZ? That bit doesn't really add up'.

Also the fact Manitowoc police weren't supposed to be involved at all, then it turns out that they actually uncovered most of the evidence...is that not in the slightest bit suspicious to any of the jury?! A police force that effectively framed him years earlier and were now being investigated for it, yeah they'd definitely not have any kind of grudge against him :lol:

Watching it makes me even more grateful that I don't live in the US. It's f**king mental out there.

_________________
Erik The Viking wrote:
I personally hope Corden dies in a house fire.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Making a Murderer
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 3:54 pm 
Offline
General of the Army
General of the Army

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:53 am
Posts: 31161
Location: Milton Keynes
Spoiler:
I think the thing with a jury trial is they have to return a verdict and if you're on the jury it must be very hard to not get swayed and eventually give up and just go with the crowd to get back to your normal life as while you're on the jury you're basically locked up in a room during the day then over night in a hotel.

The juror who had to be excused due to a family illness basically said there were a few strong personalities in there who from the start said guilty and wouldn't even discuss the fact he might be innocent they were never going to change their opinion.

Not 100% sure how a jury works to deliver a guilty verdict I always thought they had to all agree he's guilty when they call a vote.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Making a Murderer
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 5:17 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:28 pm
Posts: 11549
Highscores: 12
JSP wrote:
Spoiler:
I think the thing with a jury trial is they have to return a verdict and if you're on the jury it must be very hard to not get swayed and eventually give up and just go with the crowd to get back to your normal life as while you're on the jury you're basically locked up in a room during the day then over night in a hotel.

The juror who had to be excused due to a family illness basically said there were a few strong personalities in there who from the start said guilty and wouldn't even discuss the fact he might be innocent they were never going to change their opinion.

Not 100% sure how a jury works to deliver a guilty verdict I always thought they had to all agree he's guilty when they call a vote.

Spoiler:
Yeah I think that's right, they all have to agree guilty if a guilty verdict is to be given.

_________________
Erik The Viking wrote:
I personally hope Corden dies in a house fire.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Making a Murderer
PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 5:22 pm 
Offline
General of the Army
General of the Army

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:53 am
Posts: 31161
Location: Milton Keynes
Spoiler:
Quote:
In the United States, the result is a mistrial, and the case may be retried. Some jurisdictions permit the court to give the jury a so-called Allen charge, inviting the dissenting jurors to re-examine their opinions, as a last-ditch effort to prevent the jury from hanging. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure state, "The verdict must be unanimous...If there are multiple defendants, the jury may return a verdict at any time during its deliberations as to any defendant about whom it has agreed...If the jury cannot agree on all counts as to any defendant, the jury may return a verdict on those counts on which it has agreed...If the jury cannot agree on a verdict on one or more counts, the court may declare a mistrial on those counts. A hung jury does not imply either the defendant's guilt or innocence. The government may retry any defendant on any count on which the jury could not agree."[9]

Juries in criminal cases are generally, as a rule, required to reach a unanimous verdict, while juries in civil cases typically have to reach a majority on some level. If a defendant has been found guilty of a capital offense (one that could result in the death penalty if the person is eligible) then the opinion of the jury must be unanimous if the defendant is to be sentenced to death. Currently, two states, Oregon and Louisiana, do not require unanimous verdicts in criminal cases. Each requires a 10–2 majority for conviction, except for capital crimes: Oregon requires at least 11 votes and Louisiana requires all 12.

In jurisdictions giving those involved in the case a choice of jury size (such as between a six-person and twelve-person jury), defense counsel in both civil and criminal cases frequently opt for the larger number of jurors. A common axiom in criminal cases is that "it takes only one to hang," referring to the fact that, in some cases, a single juror can defeat the required unanimity.

One proposal for dealing with the difficulties associated with hung juries has been to introduce supermajority verdicts. This measure would allow juries to convict defendants without unanimous agreements amongst the jurors. Hence, a 12-member jury that would otherwise be deadlocked at 11 for conviction and 1 against, would be recorded as a guilty verdict. The rationale for majority verdicts usually includes arguments involving so-called 'rogue jurors' who unreasonably impede the course of justice. Opponents of majority verdicts argue that it undermines public confidence in criminal justice systems and results in a higher number of individuals convicted of crimes they did not commit.

In United States military justice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. Chapter 47) Article 52 specifies the minimum number of court martial panel members required to return a verdict of guilty. In cases that involve a mandatory death sentence, a unanimous vote of all panel members is required. In cases that involve mandatory life sentences or sentences of confinement over ten years, a three-fourths vote is required. In all other cases, only a two-thirds vote is required to convict. Additionally, the Manual for Courts-Martial requires only a judge and a specified number of panel members (five for a general court-martial or three for a special court-martial; no panel is seated for a summary court-martial) in all non-capital cases. In capital cases, a panel of 12 members is required


From Wiki this is how it works in America.

Unless that TV programme left out something big how did 12 people all agree with the prosecutor who was almost as creepy as Steven Avery :laugh:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Making a Murderer
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:06 pm 
Offline
General of the Army
General of the Army
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:12 am
Posts: 19588
Highscores: 1
Spoiler:
Ive just finished watching this. I can't say I'm 100% sure he's innocent but I certainly couldn't say he's guilty. The police planted evidence that much is obvious and if they've done it with the key then who knows how far they'd be willing to go.

I don't feel as sorry for Avery as much as I do is obviously retarded Nephew. He's made a stupid mistake at the age of 16 coerced by the police and will live with ruining not only his own life but that of his uncles too.

In terms of the family I do find it hard to feel pity for any of them they're so retarded and irritating that I think would the world be worse off for them not being here? To highlight that point they get confused by the most basic of words eg. 'Inconsistent'. Every other word they use is either 'yeah' or 'don't know'.

What a story it would be if he managed to get himself out though. Surely after the money made off the back of this documentary and the amount of people discussing it some defence lawyer could be brought in with some idea of what legal avenues were open to them

The prosecutor is bringing out a book that might give some more insight in to the case.

What Netflix should do to really make money is finance a documentary doing the opposite to the one we've just seen. Making Avery look without doubt the most guilty man on earth if they could pull off changing people's opinions then it would be one of the most talked about shows ever people would be outraged/impressed/torn by a documentary of that ilk if managing to pull it off

All of the documents relating to the case are available at stevenaverycase.org

_________________
Because I'm young enough to be all pi**ed off
But I'm old enough to be jaded
I'm at the age where I want things to change
But with age my hopes have faded


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Making a Murderer
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:24 pm 
Offline
General of the Army
General of the Army

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:53 am
Posts: 31161
Location: Milton Keynes
Spoiler:
I'm not sure the family would've made that much money this was all filmed a long time ago while his trial was on going think they said the whole thing was filmed over a 10 year period and it looks fairly low budget so I'm guessing it was something the makers were trying to sell for a long time. Netflix took a chance on it and it became a huge hit but in terms of any money the Avery family received they probably had it a long time back when he was fighting the case first time around.

The best case for them is the publicity might get someone to take a look at it but his legal fees would be huge and the thing is with no new evidence he won't get an appeal that's just how it works because based on the evidence he's already been found guilty by a jury same goes for his nephew.

As for the state of the family I think this is just the way things are in some parts of America education standards are low and it's probably no different to some areas in England. They clearly have issues with authority and are outsiders they even admit to that they keep themselves to themselves (they look pretty inbred) plus they have had brief run ins with the law but to see 2 members of the family on life without parole sentences for crimes they might not have done it's hard not to feel sympathy.

The biggest problem they had is they didn't have any proof that the police did plant evidence all they were trying to do is suggest it could've happened to explain why certain things were found where they were. The only way they get out is if someone from the police department turns whistleblower and admits they framed him & his nephew for it and that seems highly unlikely as all it will do is put them in jail.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Making a Murderer
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:00 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 3:40 pm
Posts: 8003
Location: The Library
Highscores: 1
Great show. If you enjoyed this be sure to check of Serial season one (podcast), and The Jinx (documentary). Both brilliant.

_________________
Do nothing; nothing will change.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron