OT: Making A Murderer on Netflix

[CloneIce]

So, in other words, no?

That was the motive the prosecution established. We can all certainly argue if they established it successfully.

From a common sense perspective (not a trial jury did they prove it beyond a reasonable doubt perspective), that is clearly a valid motive given his actions in obsessively trying to get her to his house, and his nephew's testimony, and the fact that most "man kills woman murders" that aren't domestic in nature often involve sex in some way.

 

[CloneIce]

Lol... it's really just to the point that I want everything in that area blown up so these people stop polluting the gene pool.

For me this documentary has become about the frightening place that NE Wisconsin is. It's so far north it's in the deep south.

They are all horrifyingly stupid and bad people. I think we can all agree on that, whether you believe he is actually innocent or not.

 

[CloneIce]

If the police did manipulate evidence they did frame him.

Sure. Did you read what I said? It certainly didn't disagree with your statement.

 

[CloneIce]

Yes, that's what our justice system is supposed to be about. What's the phrase? "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers, unless Occam's Razor applies."

Geez. Nobody said anything of the sort. I clearly was responding to his statement where he claims unless you accept his version you are "overthinking." There is no reason why you should possibly think that meant what you claimed it did.

Just wondering if anyone here can discuss the case without making crap up in response to any statement that doesn't 100% agree with your opinion based off watching the documentary?

 

[Ficklone02]

They are all horrifyingly stupid and bad people. I think we can all agree on that, whether you believe he is actually innocent or not.

Talking about the police or the Avery's here? In many ways its hard to tell a difference.

 

[VTXCyRyD]

That was the motive the prosecution established. We can all certainly argue if they established it successfully.

From a common sense perspective (not a trial jury did they prove it beyond a reasonable doubt perspective), that is clearly a valid motive given his actions in obsessively trying to get her to his house, and his nephew's testimony, and the fact that most "man kills woman murders" that aren't domestic in nature often involve sex in some way.

Have you watched the interrogation videos with his nephew? He doesn't have a clue what happened. He was just guessing so he could give the answers the police wanted and go back to school.

At this point I'm pretty sure your just trolling. You have agreed several times that there was reasonable doubt and you think the police planted evidence. Yet, you believe he should be in jail.

Maybe you don't understand how the justice system is suppose to work. You don't happen to be a LEO do you?

 

[cyclone101]

Ice, did SA kick your dog or something? You seem to really have something against him and his family.

I'm not saying SA is a stand up citizen but how could you possibly think this guy should be locked up based purely off what was presented in the trial.

They are all horrifyingly stupid and bad people. I think we can all agree on that, whether you believe he is actually innocent or not.

That's a pretty generalized comment for a family you have never met. As stated above, I'm not saying SA is a good guy with a family of saints but what have you seen that makes you believe that say... Avery's parents are bad people.

 

[CloneIce]

Talking about the police or the Avery's here? In many ways its hard to tell a difference.

Good point. I'd say both.

 

[CloneIce]

Ice, did SA kick your dog or something? You seem to really have something against him and his family.

I'm not saying SA is a stand up citizen but how could you possibly think this guy should be locked up based purely off what was presented in the trial.


That's a pretty generalized comment for a family you have never met. As stated above, I'm not saying SA is a good guy with a family of saints but what have you seen that makes you believe that say... Avery's parents are bad people.

1st and 3rd paragraphs - Just calling a spade a spade. I feel for him for being thrown in jail for that rape he didn't commit, but he was a bad person before that even. You disagree that he is a bad person? Let me give you a hint - only very bad people douse their pets in gasoline and light them on fire for fun. Only very bad people chase women down, run them off the road, and threaten them with a gun. These are just proven allegations prior to him going to jail for the 1st time. That doesn't factor in all the other allegations or Albach. Yes, I think he is a very bad person.

2nd paragraph - Have you read my posts? I clearly stated repeatedly that I thought he shouldn't have been found guilty due to the reasonable doubt introduced by the police and prosecutions actions. So what are you talking about?

I do think he murdered Albach.

 

[CloneIce]

Have you watched the interrogation videos with his nephew? He doesn't have a clue what happened. He was just guessing so he could give the answers the police wanted and go back to school.

At this point I'm pretty sure your just trolling. You have agreed several times that there was reasonable doubt and you think the police planted evidence. Yet, you believe he should be in jail.

Maybe you don't understand how the justice system is suppose to work. You don't happen to be a LEO do you?

At this point, I can't help but shake my head at these responses. Do I have to explain this again? I think he murdered her. I also think there was so much misconduct by the police, detectives, lawyers etc. that it introduces reasonable doubt and I probably couldn't convict him if I was a juror. Is that really that hard to understand? Hell, I have been on a jury before where I thought the guy did it, and I still fought to have him found innocent of that charge because it wasn't proven by the letter of the law.

I don't get these responses - I can't disagree, or point out blatant gaps in logic without this same response every time? The prosecution did introduce a motive. There was clearly a motive. I point out that simple fact, and this is your response?

Sorry, I get that you guys feel emotionally invested in the nextflix documentary and this case, and it bothers you when people disagree with your opinions on it. Can you actually address what I say, instead of making crap up or responding with silly patronizing statements like your 3rd paragraph?

 

[Tre4ISU]

1st and 3rd paragraphs - Just calling a spade a spade. I feel for him for being thrown in jail for that rape he didn't commit, but he was a bad person before that even. You disagree that he is a bad person? Let me give you a hint - only very bad people douse their pets in gasoline and light them on fire for fun. Only very bad people chase women down, run them off the road, and threaten them with a gun. These are just proven allegations prior to him going to jail for the 1st time. That doesn't factor in all the other allegations or Albach. Yes, I think he is a very bad person.

2nd paragraph - Have you read my posts? I clearly stated repeatedly that I thought he shouldn't have been found guilty due to the reasonable doubt introduced by the police and prosecutions actions. So what are you talking about?

I do think he murdered Albach.

Irrelevant. We are talking about the Halbach case.

 

[CY88CE11]

At this point, I can't help but shake my head at these responses. Do I have to explain this again? I think he murdered her. I also think there was so much misconduct by the police, detectives, lawyers etc. that it introduces reasonable doubt and I probably couldn't convict him if I was a juror. Is that really that hard to understand? Hell, I have been on a jury before where I thought the guy did it, and I still fought to have him found innocent of that charge because it wasn't proven by the letter of the law.

I don't get these responses - I can't disagree, or point out blatant gaps in logic without this same response every time? The prosecution did introduce a motive. There was clearly a motive. I point out that simple fact, and this is your response?

Sorry, I get that you guys feel emotionally invested in the nextflix documentary and this case, and it bothers you when people disagree with your opinions on it. Can you actually address what I say, instead of making crap up or responding with silly patronizing statements like your 3rd paragraph?

Maybe it's because you keep vehemently defending the prosecution's "evidence". That makes it seem like you're happy with how the trial went, when it should scare the **** out of you.

I get that you think he's guilty, and most of us think it's possible or likely he did it. But the point of this Doc and the subsequent discussion is that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the prosecution painted a picture of Avery doing the deed, then it was up to the defense to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was innocent. Again, that's not how it should work.

 

[Cyclone1985]

Yeah? Yeah. You betcha they ain't gone find out whoreally did dis.

Do I tink Steven did it? Could have. Do I tink da cops tampered wit evidence to get a conviction? Yeah. Yeah? Yeah.

Since I ain't convinced Steven is guilty, dos two huntin buddies would be my suspects. Yeah. Dat one all smiley and comin home dat night with cuts on his hands and scratches on his back. Tryin to sell his .22 and all. Yeah? Yeah.

 

[Tre4ISU]

Yeah? Yeah. You betcha they ain't gone find out whoreally did dis.

Do I tink Steven did it? Could have. Do I tink da cops tampered wit evidence to get a conviction? Yeah. Yeah? Yeah.

Since I ain't convinced Steven is guilty, dos two huntin buddies would be my suspects. Yeah. Dat one all smiley and comin home dat night with cuts on his hands and scratches on his back. Tryin to sell his .22 and all. Yeah? Yeah.

Was this in the documentary?

 

[CloneIce]

Maybe it's because you keep vehemently defending the prosecution's "evidence". That makes it seem like you're happy with how the trial went, when it should scare the **** out of you.

I get that you think he's guilty, and most of us think it's possible or likely he did it. But the point of this Doc and the subsequent discussion is that he was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the prosecution painted a picture of Avery doing the deed, then it was up to the defense to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was innocent. Again, that's not how it should work.

Bolded point - I haven't done that. However, I have pointed out some cases where you guys took the defense version as absolute gospel and pointed out the gaps (e.g. there must be blood splattered all over the gun and garage even though it was a .22, if one area of the garage was cleaned that means every square inch had to be also, etc) or responded to arguments that aren't valid in a legal sense or a human psychological sense (e.g. if Avery knew how to wipe up blood, he therefore also would automatically have been smart enough and rational enough to use the crusher). Some of the stuff that you guys believe was completely discredited by the defense was not, unless you simply nod your head and believe everything that two very good defense lawyers said. It is the job of these defense lawyers to do this and introduce doubt - that doesn't mean their statements are iron clad gospel truth.

 

[CY88CE11]

Bolded point - I haven't done that. However, I have pointed out some cases where you guys took the defense version as absolute gospel and pointed out the gaps (e.g. there must be blood splattered all over the gun and garage even though it was a .22, if one area of the garage was cleaned that means every square inch had to be also, etc) or responded to arguments that aren't valid in a legal sense or a human psychological sense (e.g. if Avery knew how to wipe up blood, he therefore also would automatically have been smart enough and rational enough to use the crusher). Some of the stuff that you guys believe was completely discredited by the defense was not, unless you simply nod your head and believe everything that two very good defense lawyers said. It is the job of these defense lawyers to do this and introduce doubt - that doesn't mean their statements are iron clad gospel truth.

So, everything you've said is "pointing out gaps", while everything everyone else has said is "taking it as gospel". Got it. You wonder why you aren't able to understand the responses you're getting...

 

[cyclone101]

1st and 3rd paragraphs - Just calling a spade a spade. I feel for him for being thrown in jail for that rape he didn't commit, but he was a bad person before that even. You disagree that he is a bad person? Let me give you a hint - only very bad people douse their pets in gasoline and light them on fire for fun. Only very bad people chase women down, run them off the road, and threaten them with a gun. These are just proven allegations prior to him going to jail for the 1st time. That doesn't factor in all the other allegations or Albach. Yes, I think he is a very bad person.

2nd paragraph - Have you read my posts? I clearly stated repeatedly that I thought he shouldn't have been found guilty due to the reasonable doubt introduced by the police and prosecutions actions. So what are you talking about?

I do think he murdered Albach.

Did I say he wasn't a bad person? I'll make that question easy for you... SA is a piece of ****. Are we clear on that now? I just hope I never have a family member allegedly commit homicide, because that makes me scum too, I guess.

You're right, you did say he shouldn't have been found guilty. It's a big thread and I've lost track of what all has been said by everyone. My mistake.

 

[Cyclone1985]

Was this in the documentary?

Not in the doc, but read it in one of the links someone posted earlier. Something about he had scratches on his hand(s) and back. Medical staff said they occurred within the previous week -- he was examined a couple days after October 31st.

 

[peteypie]

 

[StClone]

That sounds a lot like guilty until proven innocent which seemed to be a major problem with the trial. All of the jurors going into the trial were already very informed of the prosecutions side of things and had to have their minds changed.

If this is proven, as I said, Avery can get a mistrial - but is he innocent?