Why Obama Can’t Help "Making A Murderer” Steven Avery

Macdoc · **#81** by **Macdoc** » Jan 10, 2016 8:02 pm

sure whatever....why the fuck do you think seven of the jurors thought him innocent AND they did not convict him of abuse of a human body ...THEY thought it would cause a mistrial ...that's what they wanted...
I don't know if he's innocent or not but that was a crook trial period....and 100s of thousands of people agree....even in his home state.

have you watched it or not???

purplerat · **#82** by **purplerat** » Jan 10, 2016 8:39 pm

Macdoc wrote:sure whatever....why the fuck do you think seven of the jurors thought him innocent AND they did not convict him of abuse of a human body ...THEY thought it would cause a mistrial ...that's what they wanted...
I don't know if he's innocent or not but that was a crook trial period....and 100s of thousands of people agree....even in his home state.

have you watched it or not???

So your argument is that the jurors were dumb so he should get a new trial?

Or are you just relying on the argumentum ad populum that because a lot of people think he was wrongfully convicted that means he gets a new trial?

Fuckit, lets just turn the whole legal system into American Idol. Let the at home audience watch a few hours of TV and call in to vote guilty or not guilty.

felltoearth · **#83** by **felltoearth** » Jan 10, 2016 9:17 pm

I like the caricature being lobbed around here by people who admit they haven't watched the show, let alone claiming that anyone wants something other than a fair trial.

felltoearth · **#84** by **felltoearth** » Jan 10, 2016 9:19 pm

Can anyone explain how the deputy calling in the plates two days before the car is discovered on the property not sketchy? What does such evidence imply to you?

purplerat · **#85** by **purplerat** » Jan 10, 2016 9:21 pm

what wasn't fair about his trial?

purplerat · **#86** by **purplerat** » Jan 10, 2016 9:22 pm

felltoearth wrote:Can anyone explain how the deputy calling in the plates two days before the car is discovered on the property not sketchy? What does such evidence imply to you?

That's a good question for the jury who heard that evidence and still chose to convict Avery.

Acetone · **#87** by **Acetone** » Jan 10, 2016 9:45 pm

Macdoc wrote:sure whatever....why the fuck do you think seven of the jurors thought him innocent AND they did not convict him of abuse of a human body ...THEY thought it would cause a mistrial ...that's what they wanted...
I don't know if he's innocent or not but that was a crook trial period....and 100s of thousands of people agree....even in his home state.

have you watched it or not???

Lmao... Yes I've watched it now on Netflix. Care to give up your ridiculous rant? Not that it matters, its a piece of entertainment nothing more. What matters is the actual evidence and not skewed interpretation of it, from either side.

Acetone · **#88** by **Acetone** » Jan 10, 2016 9:51 pm

purplerat wrote:
Macdoc wrote:sure whatever....why the fuck do you think seven of the jurors thought him innocent AND they did not convict him of abuse of a human body ...THEY thought it would cause a mistrial ...that's what they wanted...
I don't know if he's innocent or not but that was a crook trial period....and 100s of thousands of people agree....even in his home state.

have you watched it or not???

So your argument is that the jurors were dumb so he should get a new trial?

Or are you just relying on the argumentum ad populum that because a lot of people think he was wrongfully convicted that means he gets a new trial?

Fuckit, lets just turn the whole legal system into American Idol. Let the at home audience watch a few hours of TV and call in to vote guilty or not guilty.

Doesn't USA have perjury?

Acetone · **#89** by **Acetone** » Jan 10, 2016 9:54 pm

Macdoc wrote:So you have not seen it .........ridiculous stance on your part. There is NOTHING you can say that has ANY validity in this discussion.
You patently have not a clue what you are talking about.

Calm the fuck down.

I've literally yet to see you make any substantial contribution to this thread.

For instance. You seem so fucking attached to this case but on request for raw data, which would be pretty fucking necessary to be so god damn certain of your conclusion as you are that everyone else can be blindly dismissed if they don't agree with your narrative, you didn't link to anything.

Does that mean you haven't seen the raw data outside whats in the documentary? It's a pretty simple enough request. In the Meredith kercher case thread I never backed down to post what data I found and any background information necessary to make my point. All you're doing is being a cunt.

At the end of the day the story given in the documentary is NOT robust.

purplerat · **#90** by **purplerat** » Jan 10, 2016 10:03 pm

Acetone wrote:
purplerat wrote:
Macdoc wrote:sure whatever....why the fuck do you think seven of the jurors thought him innocent AND they did not convict him of abuse of a human body ...THEY thought it would cause a mistrial ...that's what they wanted...
I don't know if he's innocent or not but that was a crook trial period....and 100s of thousands of people agree....even in his home state.

have you watched it or not???

So your argument is that the jurors were dumb so he should get a new trial?

Or are you just relying on the argumentum ad populum that because a lot of people think he was wrongfully convicted that means he gets a new trial?

Fuckit, lets just turn the whole legal system into American Idol. Let the at home audience watch a few hours of TV and call in to vote guilty or not guilty.

Doesn't USA have perjury?

Yes. And if somebody were to be found guilty of perjurying themselves in a way that materially affected the case that would constitute new evidence which could be used for a new trial.

People on the interwebz (even a whole bunch of them) thinking a cop lied doesnt mean shit legally. Its kind of sad that has to be said on this forum.

felltoearth · **#91** by **felltoearth** » Jan 11, 2016 12:07 am

One of the jurors reportedly feared for their life.

http://www.vulture.com/2016/01/making-a ... ramed.html

Directors Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos, in an interview with the Today show, say that juror has contacted them with new information regarding the deliberation process that ultimately led to Avery's conviction. "[The juror] told us that they believe Steven Avery was not proven guilty,'' Ricciardi said. "They believe Steven was framed by law enforcement and that he deserves a new trial, and if he receives a new trial, in their opinion, it should take place far away from Wisconsin." The juror, who has not been identified, says he or she cast a guilty vote because "they feared for their personal safety." "They told us, really, that they were afraid that if they held out for a mistrial, that it would be easy to identify which juror had done that, and that they were fearful for their own safety," the directors say.

felltoearth · **#92** by **felltoearth** » Jan 11, 2016 12:09 am

purplerat wrote: People on the interwebz (even a whole bunch of them) thinking a cop lied doesnt mean shit legally. Its kind of sad that has to be said on this forum.

It's sad that it has to be pointed out that no one on this forum has actually suggested that.

felltoearth · **#93** by **felltoearth** » Jan 11, 2016 12:11 am

purplerat wrote:
felltoearth wrote:Can anyone explain how the deputy calling in the plates two days before the car is discovered on the property not sketchy? What does such evidence imply to you?

That's a good question for the jury who heard that evidence and still chose to convict Avery.

Oh yes, because it's impossible to use your own critical faculties.

purplerat · **#94** by **purplerat** » Jan 11, 2016 1:09 am

felltoearth wrote:
purplerat wrote: People on the interwebz (even a whole bunch of them) thinking a cop lied doesnt mean shit legally. Its kind of sad that has to be said on this forum.

It's sad that it has to be pointed out that no one on this forum has actually suggested that.

Here's some of the statements from our esteemed legal experts

Macdoc wrote:
I fail to see how anyone can watch Making a Murderer and not demand a retrial.

Willie71 wrote:The fact that all of the incriminating evidence was found by officers involved in the initial conspiracy (proven) is grounds for a mistrial.

And these mus be real super duper legal experts because they've made these claims without bothering to provide one shred of an argument for a legal basis for mistrial or retrial.

purplerat · **#95** by **purplerat** » Jan 11, 2016 1:14 am

felltoearth wrote:
purplerat wrote:
felltoearth wrote:Can anyone explain how the deputy calling in the plates two days before the car is discovered on the property not sketchy? What does such evidence imply to you?

That's a good question for the jury who heard that evidence and still chose to convict Avery.

Oh yes, because it's impossible to use your own critical faculties.

Way to miss the point :thumbup:

All that matters from a legal standpoint is what the jury thought of that evidence. Every single other person in the world can think that means the cop did something wrong but all that matters in terms of whether Avery getting a fair trial is what the jurors thing.

FWIW, I watched the show and was flabbergasted myself by that evidence and would if I were a juror have a hard time convicting with something like that in the evidence. But my opinion means shit outside of being my opinion.

purplerat · **#96** by **purplerat** » Jan 11, 2016 1:17 am

felltoearth wrote:One of the jurors reportedly feared for their life.

http://www.vulture.com/2016/01/making-a ... ramed.html

Directors Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos, in an interview with the Today show, say that juror has contacted them with new information regarding the deliberation process that ultimately led to Avery's conviction. "[The juror] told us that they believe Steven Avery was not proven guilty,'' Ricciardi said. "They believe Steven was framed by law enforcement and that he deserves a new trial, and if he receives a new trial, in their opinion, it should take place far away from Wisconsin." The juror, who has not been identified, says he or she cast a guilty vote because "they feared for their personal safety." "They told us, really, that they were afraid that if they held out for a mistrial, that it would be easy to identify which juror had done that, and that they were fearful for their own safety," the directors say.

That would certainly qualify as new evidence, assuming there is actual evidence of juror intimidation. I imagine Avery's lawyers are looking into that.

felltoearth · **#97** by **felltoearth** » Jan 11, 2016 3:16 am

purplerat wrote:But my opinion means shit outside of being my opinion.

Well no shit.

purplerat · **#98** by **purplerat** » Jan 11, 2016 3:28 am

felltoearth wrote:
purplerat wrote:But my opinion means shit outside of being my opinion.

Well no shit.

Well you're the one who asked for it.

felltoearth · **#99** by **felltoearth** » Jan 11, 2016 3:35 am

purplerat wrote:
felltoearth wrote:
purplerat wrote:But my opinion means shit outside of being my opinion.

Well no shit.

Well you're the one who asked for it.

Indeed, but to conclude that anyone thinks their opinion here is anything but is a bit of a presumption.

purplerat · **#100** by **purplerat** » Jan 11, 2016 3:44 am

felltoearth wrote:
purplerat wrote:
felltoearth wrote:
purplerat wrote:But my opinion means shit outside of being my opinion.

Well no shit.

Well you're the one who asked for it.

Indeed, but to conclude that anyone thinks their opinion here is anything but is a bit of a presumption.

You know what, you're right.

I think I was just giving members here too much credit when presuming that their saying there should have been a mistrial or should be a retrial that was based on something that didn't come out of their ass. That's my fault as I should have realized from the title of the thread that there is little basis in legal reality to these opinions.

Why Obama Can’t Help "Making A Murderer” Steven Avery

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help "Making A Murderer” Steven Avery

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help "Making A Murderer” Steven Avery

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help "Making A Murderer” Steven Avery

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help "Making A Murderer” Steven Avery

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help "Making A Murderer” Steven Avery

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help "Making A Murderer” Steven Avery

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help "Making A Murderer” Steven Avery

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help "Making A Murderer” Steven Avery

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help "Making A Murderer” Steven Avery

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help "Making A Murderer” Steven Avery

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help "Making A Murderer” Steven Avery

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help "Making A Murderer” Steven Avery

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help "Making A Murderer” Steven Avery

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help "Making A Murderer” Steven Avery

Re: Why Obama Can’t Help

Who is online