Making a Murderer (Netflix) - New info
- Thread starter Adebisi
- Start date
- 24,487
- 45,378
Clearly tainted jury and appearance of corruption/bias on the police force, at a minimum retard boy's confession should have been thrown out (which would have resulted in a not guilty) and SA should be re-tried somewhere untainted (probably nowhere, now).
It's unbelievable to me that they didn't ask the jury in voir dire if they had seen anything about the case, and if so then excused them for bias.
Grabbit Allworth
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 1,373
- 5,805
If I was to ever get a murder pass, she'd be pretty high up on the list....
- 1
DaliLhama
Golden Squire
- 136
- 48
So watched this a couple days ago and for a couple episodes i thought this was not a documentary at how it just seemed so unreal. But the one thing that really sticks out for me is the ruling the judge made that they cant say it was someone else that could of murdered her. I assume it was because of the confession from his nephew that made that ruling possible?
popsicledeath
Potato del Grande
- 7,421
- 11,625
If I recall the jury questionnaire had such a question, but everyone had knowledge of the case and they wouldn't move it or something. Like didn't they mention of all the potential jurors only one said they didn't already think Avery was guilty going into it, or something. The frame-job, media and Kratz got a lot of the attention, but I find the tainted jury and judge seeming to not care were more interesting and far more damning.
- 1
popsicledeath
Potato del Grande
- 7,421
- 11,625
It's a stupid state law they have on the books. Even if the nephew hadn't "confessed" they weren't allowed to go in their and claim a bunch of other people could have done it. Basically have to prove reasonable doubt without showing other people could have done it. Really exposes that law's flaws in a case like this where the evidence is pretty iffy and there are several other people that could have easily been prime suspects if the cops had chosen to focus on them instead. But you can't directly point out like 5 other people could have done it just as easily as Avery, had just as much (or little) motive, had the opportunity, had questionable pasts, etc, you have to instead hope the jury comes to that conclusion on their own, and juries aren't really supposed to come to their own conclusions like that.
TJT
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 40,930
- 102,727
I'm no lawyer but it always seemed like the motive of Manitowoc County and the State was obvious. They had a $36 Million dollar lawsuit in their lap that they were very likely to lose. Now I'm sure that the State would be forced to cover it in the manner that police agencies are able to pay out lawsuits for various misconduct we see all over TV.
But shit rolls downhill and that police department and County would have been fucked. Careers, pensions, etc were all on the line as there would be a line of people forced to fall on the sword of the Avery lawsuit and made an example of for wrongfully convicting someone/ignoring evidence of his innocence.
That alone is why basic lawyering rules were bent or outright ignored all through the case.
The second season of this show they're talking about is likely to be trash though. It will all be current events. The creators of this season spent years gathering material to make it.
But shit rolls downhill and that police department and County would have been fucked. Careers, pensions, etc were all on the line as there would be a line of people forced to fall on the sword of the Avery lawsuit and made an example of for wrongfully convicting someone/ignoring evidence of his innocence.
That alone is why basic lawyering rules were bent or outright ignored all through the case.
The second season of this show they're talking about is likely to be trash though. It will all be current events. The creators of this season spent years gathering material to make it.
- 24,487
- 45,378
It all comes down to the confession really. With the very thin physical evidence they had, the jury should not have convicted SA. But they all knew Dassey confessed, so they connected the dots to make it work.
Without the confession Dassey would not have been convicted either. Getting the confession through coercion and then basically reading a dramatization of it at a fucking press conference before the trials should have gotten that guy disbarred.
All the rest of the police planting evidence, yea maybe... police corruption... almost certainly... police pinning everything on SA regardless of the truth... absolutely.
But it all starts and ends with that confession, without it none of this happens.
DO NOT TALK TO THE FUCKING POLICE WITHOUT A (good) LAWYER.
- 2
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 71,669
- 212,888
others have , but i was one of them. i also linked this and it is STILL VERY IMPORTANT to watch
- 3,389
- 141
I agree with everything you've said about Dassey and while the tainted jury was certainly shitty and unfair in Avery's case, I'm not sure that any court finds him not guilty even without that. People are dumb, it was 2007 and combine that with her body and his DNA. When you look into murder convictions, it's pretty obvious that the general public doesn't actually understand what reasonable doubt means. These people get in a room and they end up leaning one way and that's enough to send a guy away for life.
Edit: I reread your post and I agree with you more and more. They went after Brendan first on purpose and that was the foundation for everything. I still think he gets convicted by a random group of people just from the physical evidence too. No regular person in 2007 is thinking that a police cover up to this scale is possible anywhere but the movies.
- 24,487
- 45,378
I think the jury would have bought into the police planting the evidence narrative a lot more (as we all did, because it's obvious and shady) if the confession wasn't generally known. I think the jury seriously doubted the police corruption considering they thought the kid fairly admitted the crime.
popsicledeath
Potato del Grande
- 7,421
- 11,625
Also considering their were two county employees or relatives on the jury who surely were familiar with the case and the narrative that was being given by the PA. And allegedly one member of the jury reportedly being openly hostile during deliberations against notions of not guilty. And the potential for jurors to be afraid of retaliation.
Probably still would have been found guilty by a local jury even without the Dassey stuff, but that partly why the story is so fucked.
A non bias jury that isn't tainted, isn't local, etc and Avery probably walks. Basically if given a fair trial.
- 5,427
- 12,258
The follow-up interview they did with that guy Dean was eye-opening too, anyone who hasn't seen it can get more questions answered. Its on youtube. Someone asked him about the jury and eliminating members at the beginning, and he says something about that result was what they were left with. Which means they removed people who were probably even worse.
kaid
Blackwing Lair Raider
- 4,647
- 1,187
- 24,487
- 45,378
Ok so there's 2 ways to remove someone from a jury (qualifier: never done a case in rural WI):
You can remove them for cause, which is you ask them a question in voir dire and they demonstrate bias, then they can be removed for cause. You can remove the ENTIRE PANEL for cause! If you run out of venire panelists you "bust the panel" and they have to bring an entirely new panel from central jury pool. This is why on murder trials or child molestor trials where you know a bunch of the jury will be biased, they sometimes bring like 400 veniremen.
Secondly, you can peremptorily strike X number of jurors. If it's a 12 person jury you can usually strike 6 per side, if it's a 6 person jury you can strike 3 per side.
Strang was probably referring to the peremptory strikes, because there is no limit to the strikes for cause (although the judge has to agree to strike these and this judge is clearly functionally retarded.)
Jury selection procedure 101 presented today by Cad
- 24,487
- 45,378
Ok I watched the video and where I think he missed it (not saying that he actually missed it, but in this explanation) where he said "once people have passed muster as plausibly unbiased and able to serve" because I think the father of a sheriff's deputy IN THE VERY DEPARTMENT YOU PLAN TO ACCUSE OF PLANTING EVIDENCE is not going to be plausibly unbiased.
I don't know if he made that argument or not to the judge to strike those jurors. I'd hope he did. I've never seen a voir dire transcript from the SA trial.
I don't know if he made that argument or not to the judge to strike those jurors. I'd hope he did. I've never seen a voir dire transcript from the SA trial.
