Making a Murderer (Netflix) - New info

I'm arguing the '100% certainty', 95%? sure. maybe even 99%. I can't get on board with 100%.

I like to think there is some truth behind what BD is saying, but it's too tainted to tell.

Jesse confessed to multiple people and kept running his mouth about it, I guess that's the difference. BD maintained his innocence until they threatened to tell his mother. Even when the investigator for his attorney interviewed him his first inclination was to say he was innocent.

I'd have to re-examine the Jesse confession stuff, it's been so many years since I read anything about it. My opinion could change, I have no idea

Coincidentally I watched another doc last night, The Central Park Five, and it's chillingly similar. 5 Kids just making up confessions because the police said they could go home after - they all served 7-10 years in prison for it.

Noodlemod_sl said:

I'm arguing the '100% certainty', 95%? sure. maybe even 99%. I can't get on board with 100%.

Click to expand...

People just say 100% as shorthand. I mean, technically there is almost nothing you can ever be 100% certain about. We aren't talking about actual empirical standards here. A different way to phrase it would be that the idea of her being in his trailer or killed in the garage is so unlikely as to make it unworthy of consideration.

On one episode of Brain Games they had people walk up to a counter. The person behind the counter bent down saying he was getting a pen and then a different person popped up and gave them the pen. I think something like 70% of people didn't even notice a new person came up. Humans aren't quite as perceptive as we give ourselves credit. Especially when we aren't actively "making notes" if you will in our heads. I mean hell the lady who did get raped was trying to actively take notes in her head and (you could argue via inception almost) she still fingered the wrong person.

Tenks_sl said:

she still fingered the wrong person.

Click to expand...

Phrasing

Noodlemod_sl said:

I just think saying you have 100% certainty it didn't happen there isn't fair. We don't know where she died.

Click to expand...

This is the shit you have to prove though. The only way Avery is considered guilty is if everything presented shows us a clear picture of exactly how he did it and that there is no way anyone else is even up for contention.

The fact that you are responding to all of this by saying, "We don't know what happened", is exactly the reason this entire case is bullshit. The case is almost literally based on, "Well, it might not have happened there, but it COULD HAVE, DO YOU KNOW? SO MAYBE IT DID." [Give jury the wink and the gun.]

Yea Sylas is angry but it sounds more like he is just absolutely flabbergasted that the point is being missed all over the place. You have to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Not only did they not do that, but any evidence that even passingly refers to Avery is tainted to the point where it would have been thrown out or never used in the first place. Avery's case was a landmark where things like contaminated DNA were accepted.

The bottom line is that even if Avery is guilty as fucking sin, that isn't going to somehow miraculously make what the prosecutors/cops/judges etc did not criminal themselves. A guilty verdict does not render those dickwads innocent of all of that other horseshit.

Like, people keep saying bias is in this doc, and it is, but not where some think it lays. It wasn't that Avery was innocent - it wasn't an investigative piece and if that's what it was for they likely would have tried to prove a theory with someone else as the murderer. It wasn't that the justice system failed, because that assumes everyone did what was expected and we still came out with a shitty result.

The bias lay in the fact that almost everyone involved neglected or failed to do their jobs to such an extent that not only should they be terminated from said job, criminal charges should probably be brought against most of them.

And whether you believe Avery is innocent or guilty, you should absolutely fucking agree with the sentiment above.

I get the point of the documentary, if we're just basing this discussion on that then I agree thread over. I'm not that obtuse.

Noodlemod_sl said:

I get the point of the documentary, if we're just basing this discussion on that then I agree thread over. I'm not that obtuse.

Click to expand...

It's not that entirely. The theories are not unnecessary; considering the amount of shit we're given from both sides of it that require us to rely on a "What if" viewpoint, trying to reason out what actually happened is worthwhile.

But there are some people who are arguing it in such a way that if they CSI out that Avery is guilty, then BAM. The shit shown in the doc is more acceptable. Yea, the broke the law, BUT THEY GOT THE BAD GUY.

I do think you're having a disconnect somewhere along the line though; we are very quick to attribute some amount of guilt to Avery, in such a way that theories are more skewed in favor of the cops than him. You keep saying, "We don't know what happened", in such a way as to give some amount of credence to the investigators. "We have no evidence that shows he did it, but we don't have evidence that shows he DIDN'T DO IT."

And maybe that's the whole, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" shit coming into play, but really it feels like we're going down this line of thought where Avery is already guilty and we just have to figure out how.

Which is another reason the entire case is bullshit, because in normal cases, that burden of proof relies on the prosecutor. In this case, it was somehow shifted to Avery and because he can't 100% show innocence, it's subconsciously assumed he's guilty and we haven't connected the dots yet.

Jive Turkey_sl said:

Honestly, I'll post a video of someone being shot in the head with a much more powerful gun than Avery's rifle if you want to see how much mess it doesn't really make. It's nothing like Scanners

Click to expand...

You should probably do this, because otherwise your magic blanket theory sounds absurd and nobody will take you seriously until we see for ourselves what you keep claiming you have so others will think you're cool and like you.

LadyVex_sl said:

It's not that entirely. The theories are not unnecessary; considering the amount of shit we're given from both sides of it that require us to rely on a "What if" viewpoint, trying to reason out what actually happened is worthwhile.

But there are some people who are arguing it in such a way that if they CSI out that Avery is guilty, then BAM. The shit shown in the doc is more acceptable. Yea, the broke the law, BUT THEY GOT THE BAD GUY.

I do think you're having a disconnect somewhere along the line though; we are very quick to attribute some amount of guilt to Avery, in such a way that theories are more skewed in favor of the cops than him. You keep saying, "We don't know what happened", in such a way as to give some amount of credence to the investigators. "We have no evidence that shows he did it, but we don't have evidence that shows he DIDN'T DO IT."

And maybe that's the whole, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" shit coming into play, but really it feels like we're going down this line of thought where Avery is already guilty and we just have to figure out how.

Which is another reason the entire case is bullshit, because in normal cases, that burden of proof relies on the prosecutor. In this case, it was somehow shifted to Avery and because he can't 100% show innocence, it's subconsciously assumed he's guilty and we haven't connected the dots yet.

Click to expand...

There is physical evidence though. However it got there is obviously in question, but the focus now shifts that Avery does need to prove he is innocent.

Cad_sl said:

I don't know enough about the EDTA test, if they ran the test and it showed no EDTA but the blood in the vial did have EDTA, then I think it's reasonable to conclude the blood didn't come from that vial.

Click to expand...

You don't know much about it because it's basically junk science that has only ever been allowed in this and OJ's case, neither of which are paragons of how to properly handle evidence nor a shining example of the justice system. The way the EDTA test works is basically if they find EDTA, then it proves it came from a prepared sample. If they don't find it, then who the fuck knows because that only shows the test didn't work in finding, not that there wasn't any to find. Which is why it's rarely been allowed as evidence or actual expert testimony outside of the two cases.

Noodlemod_sl said:

There is physical evidence though. However it got there is obviously in question, but the focus now shifts that Avery does need to prove he is innocent.

Click to expand...

Right, and because the evidence was acquired in such a terrible way, it would have been inadmissible and we've never have known about it. Yet ANOTHER issue with it. You don't put these things in a case like this, because it automatically throws doubt onto the defendant, even if it's fucking bogus.

Noodlemod_sl said:

There is physical evidence though. However it got there is obviously in question, but the focus now shifts that Avery does need to prove he is innocent.

Click to expand...

What physical evidence do they have that couldn't be planned and planted after the investigators have come up with their theory, though? Usually you might have some suspicious evidence, and even proving it was mishandled or planted, there is other evidence that simply can't be explained that way. In this case it's not just that some of it seems that way, but all of it. The prosecution doesn't have one or two bits of evidence the defense/Avery simply can't explain away. Just like they don't have a clear trail of evidence being found and then leads being followed and instead they seem to first start with what they think happened or are saying happened and then evidence is later found to support that. Or they get the kid to confess and THEN happen to find evidence to support the confession instead of evidence first, then confession to support it. And it's not like the confession was taking them to somewhere else, but taking them back to the exact places they already searched but apparently missed the precise evidence they then suddenly find that supports the confession they already got?

LadyVex_sl said:

Right, and because the evidence was acquired in such a terrible way, it would have been inadmissible and we've never have known about it. Yet ANOTHER issue with it. You don't put these things in a case like this, because it automatically throws doubt onto the defendant, even if it's fucking bogus.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of this. THe judge was mentally retarded, he could've grown up in the Avery family with the way he acted. I'm just saying, physical evidence does exist - not all of it was tainted like the body being behind his house.

Noodlemod_sl said:

I don't disagree with any of this. THe judge was mentally retarded, he could've grown up in the Avery family with the way he acted. I'm just saying, physical evidence does exist - not all of it was tainted like the body being behind his house.

Click to expand...

The location of the bones was actually tainted because of the way they did the excavation.

popsicledeath_sl said:

others will think you're cool and like you.

Click to expand...

Are you a teenager? Honest question. This is the second or third time you've used the phrase "so people will think you're cool" or have said things like "you wanted to join the conversation to be cool". Because I don't know any grown adult that talks this way. And it would explain a lot about you

popsicledeath_sl said:

You should probably do this, because otherwise your magic blanket theory sounds absurd and nobody will take you seriously until we see for ourselves what you keep claiming you have so others will think you're cool and like you.

Click to expand...

Here you go. Nobody else click on this shit. I'm not even going to link, you can copy and paste. A mod can delete it if they see fit

http://www. liveleak . com/view?i=5d1_1448329610

popsicledeath_sl said:

You don't know much about it because it's basically junk science that has only ever been allowed in this and OJ's case, neither of which are paragons of how to properly handle evidence nor a shining example of the justice system. The way the EDTA test works is basically if they find EDTA, then it proves it came from a prepared sample. If they don't find it, then who the fuck knows because that only shows the test didn't work in finding, not that there wasn't any to find. Which is why it's rarely been allowed as evidence or actual expert testimony outside of the two cases.

Click to expand...

Thanks for repeating exactly what we were told in the documentary