Making a Murderer (Guys, this thread will have spoilers)

24

Replies

  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    Sherb, should I trust the police?
  • Hextall wrote: »
    Sherb, should I trust the police?

    Nope. Just follow the evidence. You don't have to trust the cops to Find Avery guilty.

    What's the motive for framing Avery? If they get caught (and they would get caught, because law enforcement agencies are notoriously gossipy and contentious, and someone with an axe to grind would have ratted them out for sure) they will be fired and prosecuted. But even if every member of the department is marching in lockstep, there really isn't a good reason for framing Avery. The fact that Avery's lawsuit went away makes it seem like that was the motive, but its one you can only see with some degree of hindsight. There's no guarantee the lawsuit goes away just because Avery gets charged with murder. Frankly I was surprised the lawsuit did go away so easily.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Nope.

    Sorry... I meant in a more personal sense. Like if I'm brought in for questioning or just walking on the street and a cop says what's up. I think the answer should be "nope"... which leads us into some of the BLM's issues regarding cops killing people.

    Regarding the question you thought I was asking... if a cop is so stupid to plant evidence, they might also be stupid enough to think that the lawsuit will magically go away if they charge/convict Avery (while I had results based decision making, this actually happened). I guess the how far someone will believe a cop framed him really comes down to how stupid do you think a cop could be. Stupid enough to put back the vial of his blood with a needle hole in it? That's is monumentally stupid.

    Why couldn't Avery continue on with his lawsuit regarding the negligence of the county sheriffs regarding his **** conviction? I don't get why it went away at all.
  • I know it sounds like I'm defensive, that my argument really boils down to "my guys would never do that." But honestly, it has nothing to do with their character or their veracity. If you knew how these guys operate, you'd find it implausible too.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    Implausible doesn't mean impossible though.
  • Hextall wrote: »

    Why couldn't Avery continue on with his lawsuit regarding the negligence of the county sheriffs regarding his **** conviction? I don't get why it went away at all.

    he absolutely could have. Which is why its a bad motive for the frame-up.

    I think a more plausible framing theory is the one advanced by Jason Whitlock: some family members saw dollar signs coming Avery's way, killed TH, and planted the evidence on the property to frame Avery. This theory has the advantage of (1) providing an alternate perpetrator, which the police frame-up does not. (no one is claiming the police killed Theresa) and a plausible motive. The problem with this theory is of course the impossibility of pulling this sort of thing off, particularly since you aren't dealing with criminal masterminds. But really, the fact that this theory is more plausible than the cop theory only highlights for me how the simplest explanation is probably the truest: Avery killed her.
  • Hextall wrote: »
    Implausible doesn't mean impossible though.

    Well, to quote superlawyer Dean Strang, employing his eloquent juxtaposition of epistemology and law, nothing can be known with absolute certainty.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    he absolutely could have.

    Is the roadblock to him continuing his lawsuit that no lawyer will touch it?
  • Hextall wrote: »
    Is the roadblock to him continuing his lawsuit that no lawyer will touch it?

    given the potential payoff, that seems unlikely.

    Something else: those defense lawyers in Avery's case were top shelf, at least based on what I saw in the documentary. If they couldn't sell this defense, then I have my doubts than anyone could.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    If they couldn't sell this defense...

    This could be due to this jury being comprised of crazy folk (see:split of verdicts).
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 8,954 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    given the potential payoff, that seems unlikely.

    Something else: those defense lawyers in Avery's case were top shelf, at least based on what I saw in the documentary. If they couldn't sell this defense, then I have my doubts than anyone could.

    What they needed was a shrunken glove to try on.

    Just sayin'.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • Strang readily admits he thinks it’s possible that Avery is guilty. But, he argues, “If our system worked on convicting people on maybes, then everybody could pat themselves on the back and go out and have a beer, convicting a man on a maybe. Our system isn’t supposed to work on convicting people on maybes.

    “In our system, if we live the values we profess, that means you get to keep your liberty,” he continued. “That means you don’t spend the rest of your life in a cage. Could he be guilty? Sure, he could. Do I think he was proven guilty? No. Do I think there’s a real strong chance he could be innocent? Yes. But that’s just me. I wasn’t asked to decide.”


    Very telling.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/07/making-a-murderer-defense-attorney-dean-strang-we-may-represent-steven-avery-again.html?via=twitter_page
  • This is really good. Once again, America's favorite epistemologist/lawyer/modern-day Atticus Dean Strang weighs in. Very responsible, measured comments by him.

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-daum-netflix-avery-murder-20160107-column.html
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    What would Nancy Grace say?

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 9,711 Senior Member
    Guys I'm into my third episode of this series. Been binge watching since I knocked off work.

    Thanks a lot for the spoilers.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    A coworker just started watching it, and he works on a project in that area of Wisconsin, and said that the locals he works with all are absolutely certain Avery did it and part of the reason is that all the Avery's are scumbags and they wish they all will rot in hell.

    But then I remember they are in Wisconsin so they are already rotting.

    [/Swimwalk across Green Bay]
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 9,711 Senior Member
    My question (only on episode 3) is why? Why in the hell would he be so stupid? He spent 18 years rotting for something he didn't do, and he decides to **** and murder someone?

    It just makes no sense.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    Why in the hell would he be so stupid?

    Have you ever **** someone? I hear it's puddingpop delicious!

    [**** like this is why sherb had to leave]
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    Sherb, can you explain in layman's terms the rationale behind removing first Dassey's lawyer due to incompetence (or whatever it was)... but letting the prosecution use the results of that incompetence?
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 9,711 Senior Member
    Hextall wrote: »
    Have you ever **** someone? I hear it's puddingpop delicious!

    [**** like this is why sherb had to leave]

    Quit driving him away! Where else will he get sound fashion advice, if not here?
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 9,711 Senior Member
    Hextall wrote: »
    Sherb, can you explain in layman's terms the rationale behind removing first Dassey's lawyer due to incompetence (or whatever it was)... but letting the prosecution use the results of that incompetence?

    I got this, sherb.

    However, you may do so in a lawsuit) alleging that Licensed Product due to statute, judicial order, or regulation which provides that the Source Code version from the Work. If a Derived Work in an interactive mode: Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) <YEAR>, <ORGANIZATION> and others. All Rights Reserved.

    C. In addition, each Contributor hereby grants to You under this Agreement, including all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control the behavior of that collection of files belonging to the extent necessary to enable recipients of the License, you must give the recipients may install the Licensed Product from you under Sections 2.1 or 2.2 shall be reformed to the Licensed Patents. The patent license is granted: 1) for any text you hold the copyright license to a patent infringement claim against Participant alleging that such Participant's Contributor Version or Modified Versions for any work based on or incorporates Python or any part thereof, to be a Contribution. Once a Contribution incorporated within the Work.

    Maintainer' A person or entity authorized by the Licensed Product, and you may arrange for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, you may choose to license it under the terms of this License Agreement shall automatically terminate at the time the Contribution of such claim, and b) allow the Commercial Distributor to control, and cooperate with the conditions of Clause 6, above, are met for that Work or Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices cannot be construed as creating an agency, partnership, joint venture between CNRI and Licensee. This License Agreement and does not cure such failure in a commercial product offering should do so in a commercial product offering should do so only on Your own attribution notices from the Licensed Product or portions thereof, but solely to the Program (independent of having been made by that Contributor with other code not governed by the Copyright Holder. The resulting Package will still be relevant, and authors intending to distribute software through any other for compensation, indemnity or liability obligations and/or rights consistent with this Agreement. Program" shall mean a Digital Document File then such Recipient's rights granted under Section 2) in object code form.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    I believe that's the formula for KFC. Sherb... do we have a lawsuit on our fingerlicked hands?
  • Buffco wrote: »
    My question (only on episode 3) is why? Why in the hell would he be so stupid? He spent 18 years rotting for something he didn't do, and he decides to **** and murder someone?

    It just makes no sense.

    I think a better question than "Did Avery do this?" is what happens to a man after 18 years in prison. I think that angle on the documentary could have borne fruit. In fact, I kept waiting for that facet of the story to be explored, but its pretty obvious the filmmakers wanted to tell a different story.

    Long story short: he wasn't exactly a model citizen to begin with, and I don't think he would win any awards in the brains department. Couple that with 18 years in custody, and something bad was bound to happen.
  • Hextall wrote: »
    Sherb, can you explain in layman's terms the rationale behind removing first Dassey's lawyer due to incompetence (or whatever it was)... but letting the prosecution use the results of that incompetence?

    Explain what you mean here: do you mean Brandon's initial confession, or do you mean the confession he gave at the insistence of his lawyer?
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    do you mean the confession he gave at the insistence of his lawyer?

    I guess this one. I thought the cops got some new confession stuff that they used in the interview that his lawyer set up (and the one that got him removed as Dassey's attorney)... but maybe I'm misremembering it.
  • Well, the simple answer is that the voluntariness of the confession is a separate issue from the conduct of the attorney. Whether the confession was voluntary requires an inquiry into whether the police had overborne the will of the defendant. So in terms of suppressing the statement, the only thing that matters is the conduct of the State actors, not the attorney. The attorney can still face consequences for his decisions, but those are separate from the conduct of the State.

    But since no one else has made this point, either here or in anything I've read, let me ask you something: would it have been better for Brandon Dassey to cooperate and get a 15 year sentence, or go to trial, lose, and get a life sentence? Isn't it possible that the defense attorney's conduct, while outwardly indefensible, might have produced a better deal for Dassey then he ended up getting?
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    would it have been better for Brandon Dassey to cooperate

    You are a prosecutor to your soul.
  • Hextall wrote: »
    You are a prosecutor to your soul.

    I'm just spitballing, since you know, firing his "incompetent" lawyer and getting a new one resulted in a life sentence.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    I'm just spitballing, since you know, firing his "incompetent" lawyer and getting a new one resulted in a life sentence.

    I pictured you putting your chacos on your hands and making air quotes with them. That's the only way I can take you seriously!

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file