Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Nice. It’s lucky he never confided in you.
runningbuddy wrote: » There are a lot of accusations of sexual abuse from younger Averys (male and female) by SA. Most of it dismissed as "rough housing"
Drumpot wrote: » One thing I can’t understand is why the police, Kratz or the family don’t actually employ some sort of PR group to balance things out. I understand the family not wanting to get involved but any of the above three publically stating “you don’t know the full story, he’s guilty” is not really adding anything to the evidence. If anything it actually adds to the narrative that they all believed Avery was guilty and made the evidence and story fit to have him convicted. Again, I don’t think MAM proves Avery and/or Dassey weren’t involved but they showed that there was most likely incompetence, corruption and non due diligence in this case that leaves many many questions unclear. Saying “but you have to understand he’s guilty” does your own beliefs an injustice to be honest. Better off saying nothing if you aren’t going to at least challange or respond directly to very questionable things about this case.
jv2000 wrote: » Seems like there is an alternative documentary in the works that will focus on the other side of things:https://deadline.com/2018/02/convicting-a-murderer-steven-avery-follow-up-documentary-filmmaker-shawn-rech-1202298462/
Drumpot wrote: » That is worth seeing. . The people saying "hes guilty" are coming across like Trump, effectively saying MAM was "fake news" with no actual information to back it up.
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Practically everyone who posted in here acknowledge the documentary is biased. I even posted about the blood vial as evidence of bias.
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Thanks for the link. Kratz is involved so that’s something that would put me off. He’s a gobshyte and a slimeball. His press conference after Dasseys confession was a disgrace.
Mountainsandh wrote: » But did you see in MAM2 ? Zellner herself dispells that, it's one of the first things to be tackled. Not saying the doc is not biased, the family footage pretty much ensures that we feel sorry for the Averys throughout, but the evidence side is pretty factual.
jv2000 wrote: » Agree although I do think that between this documentary and MaM we may actually fall somewhere close to the real facts (or 2 vastly biased accounts at either end of the spectrum). I do think Part 2 of MaM is somewhat more balanced than Part 1 though because they went with a more theoretical/teaching approach and could not do this for Brendan's story at least. The additional scientific tests for SA could be a bit more biased however, I am actually a scientist (not forensic) and the approach they took of knowing the outcome they wanted and working backwards is not generally supported in the scientific community, I will admit however that Zellner's desire to find out what actually happened has lead to some more conventional investigative tests that could be a lot more beneficial in any potential appeal.
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Zellner is just accusing everyone rather than Avery. I’m on episode 6 and so far we have had the guy who owned the quarry, then the ex boyfriend and now the roommate. All accused of having a part to play.
Maxpfizer wrote: » That's part her job though, to prove that the investigation was narrowed in on Avery when there are other viable suspects out there. I don't think that's unreasonable. Again it comes down to bizarre decisions that the police made surrounding this case. There are massive question marks around the quarry owner, ex-bf, roommate and also Bobby and Scott. For me, Avery is still the number one suspect but if she could prove that some of this evidence was definitely planted or if she could prove that the prosecutions story is verifiably false then everything gets thrown open again. At the bare minimum I would say there is something far wrong with this case and how it was handled and honestly Zellner just reaffirmed that belief. Even just small things like the coroner not being allowed access to the crime scene? WTF is that all about. Had the police made different decisions like not allowing Lenk and Colburn into Avery's trailer then maybe a lot of the question marks go away. Now we've a witness saying the saw the RAV4 by the side of the road and they told Colburn where it was and then you've got Colburn calling in about the plates sounding suspiciously like he is standing by the car as he is making that call. She would not be doing her job if she isn't fully looking into all of these different things. Personally I don't think the ex-bf did it. That's a stretch. However, something isn't right there. Was he helping the cops with evidence? How does he end up with the journal, for example? She really has to ask these questions because they just seem like obvious red flags that something is up with this case. I think Zellner is at the very least exposing gross incompetence. At worst she's going to prove that the cops maliciously put someone back in prison and allowed a killer to just walk free.
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Good post and I can see your point. The thing is though that MaM (wait a minute is that when’re MaM of 4 gets her username from)
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: Anyone listen to the ‘Real Crime Profile’ podcast about the case? It’s pretty good and mostly free of bias (one lady is biased). There’s 3 people talking about the case, ex FBI, Scotland Yard Cop and some other person (biased lady). I’m on Part 3 and they have gone to town on Kratz and the detectives involved. The beauty of it is they are looking at the case from a purely professional capacity.
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Anyone listen to the ‘Real Crime Profile’ podcast about the case? It’s pretty good and mostly free of bias (one lady is biased). There’s 3 people talking about the case, ex FBI, Scotland Yard Cop and some other person (biased lady). I’m on Part 3 and they have gone to town on Kratz and the detectives involved. The beauty of it is they are looking at the case from a purely professional capacity.
Commanchie wrote: » Enjoyed it also but please remember. Cops neither defend nor prosecute. They bring charges and then its left to legal professionals
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Ye because cops don’t know how the legal system is supposed to work.
Commanchie wrote: » Exactly so to judge 2 cops opinion of a case or participants in the trial is irrelevant.
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Complete rubbish. These are two experienced cops who know how the legal system works. Jesus you don’t even need to be a cop or lawyer to have an opinion on the trial. As long as you are looking at the facts you can form an opinion. Should Brendan Dasseys confession have been used against him in court, no. Was there any other evidence to tie Brendan Dassey to the crime, no. So if you don’t allow the confession there is no evidence against him and he doesn’t go to prison for life. Thats the trial of Brendan Dassey nicely summed up in 2 short sentences.
jv2000 wrote: » The additional scientific tests for SA could be a bit more biased however, I am actually a scientist (not forensic) and the approach they took of knowing the outcome they wanted and working backwards is not generally supported in the scientific community
Kingp35 wrote: » This is important. I'm sure a lot of people were swayed by the scientific testing done by Zellner and her team but it's pure conjecture and guess work on their part and they are looking to support and conclusion they've already reached. "Experts" in criminal trials can really say whatever you want them to say by doing the above and working backwards. it's why you often get "experts" on both the defence and prosecution side who think the exact opposite of each other.
Mountainsandh wrote: » I don't know how anyone can possibly try and rubbish that.
