Steven Avery (making a murderer) Guilty or innocent?

weisses · 07-02-2016 02:57PM

timthumbni wrote: »

As someone said earlier I almost hope he is guilty. As otherwise it's too horrific to think about.

It is already horrific by looking at his false conviction for rape

DNA evidence got him out Much to the dislike of some coppers

John_D80 · 07-02-2016 02:58PM

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Your attitude is ridiculous. I'm not sure whether he did it or not but I wouldn't waste another second debating it with you and I don't see why anybody else would.

Joking aside folks (this is the AH forum after all), I really dont see the point of debating an issue with people who have plainly based their opinion solely on the documentary that is highly highly flawed in that is basically ignoring very important facts. Especially when all the evidence that wasn't shown in the doc is widely available for all to scrutinise.

I was as outraged as everyone else is when I saw it first but it didn't take long to change my mind when I really looked into it.

I'm not trying to wind people up here.

John_D80 · 07-02-2016 03:01PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

What was strange was:

1) it was found months after the initial search
2) there is no other evidence that indicates she was shot in the garage. Not a molecule of DNA.

It's not certain that it was from his rifle either.

The defence acknowledged that the bullet was fired from his gun based on the experts testimony. They dont dispute that at all actually.

weisses · 07-02-2016 03:01PM

John_D80 wrote: »

Joking aside folks (this is the AH forum after all), I really dont see the point of debating an issue with people who have plainly based their opinion solely on the documentary that is highly highly flawed in that is basically ignoring very important facts. Especially when all the evidence that wasn't shown in the doc is widely available for all to scrutinise.

I was as outraged as everyone else is when I saw it first but it didn't take long to change my mind when I really looked into it.

I'm not trying to wind people up here.

The evidence shown in the Documentary alone is enough to not convict him ...Or do you disagree there was reasonable doubt ?

John_D80 · 07-02-2016 03:05PM

weisses wrote: »

The evidence shown in the Documentary alone is enough to not convict him ...

Thats kind of my whole point and the reason that the whole world has got behind him and his case.

Based on the doc alone he is innocent, as the makers intended him to be seen. But its what is not in the doc that tells the truth.

Eugene Norman · 07-02-2016 03:08PM

John_D80 wrote: »

Joking aside folks (this is the AH forum after all), I really dont see the point of debating an issue with people who have plainly based their opinion solely on the documentary that is highly highly flawed in that is basically ignoring very important facts. Especially when all the evidence that wasn't shown in the doc is widely available for all to scrutinise.

Your schtick is that you are the only person in the world who can google. We've all seen the documentary and most of us have googled the supposed evidence left out.

I was as outraged as everyone else is when I saw it first but it didn't take long to change my mind when I really looked into it.

I'm not trying to wind people up here.

I don't think you are but you could link to your arguments rather than say "Google it".

Flint Fredstone · 07-02-2016 03:11PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Your schtick is that you are the only person in the world who can google. We've all seen the documentary and most of us have googled the supposed evidence left out.

I don't think you are but you could link to your arguments rather than say "Google it".

I've seen all the stuff that was left out of the doc and I've seen most of it explained to the contrary. I'm still on the fence.
That guy seems to think he's in on some big secret that nobody else has heard about.

John_D80 · 07-02-2016 03:13PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Your schtick is that you are the only person in the world who can google. We've all seen the documentary and most of us have googled the supposed evidence left out.

My schtick? Get over yourself mate. I'm just not in the habit of leading people by the nose when what they are looking for is right in front of them even though they choose not to see it.

timthumbni · 07-02-2016 03:13PM

I also think the documentary highlights the underbelly of small town America. It is truely a broken place.

John_D80 · 07-02-2016 03:16PM

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

I've seen all the stuff that was left out of the doc and I've seen most of it explained to the contrary. I'm still on the fence.
That guy seems to think he's in on some big secret that nobody else has heard about.

Bingo, you figured me out!!

I mean there is no way someone would genuinely have the temerity and outright gall to express an opinion that differs from the majority. God forbid, especially on THE INTERNET!!!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

weisses · 07-02-2016 03:18PM

John_D80 wrote: »

Thats kind of my whole point and the reason that the whole world has got behind him and his case.

Based on the doc alone he is innocent, as the makers intended him to be seen. But its what is not in the doc that tells the truth.

There is still enough conflicting evidence presented in that Doc to cause reasonable doubt

Unless what is presented is factually false

John_D80 · 07-02-2016 03:28PM

weisses wrote: »

There is still enough conflicting evidence presented in that Doc to cause reasonable doubt

I'm sorry but that reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Both sides managed to discredit each others evidence at times during the trial.

To make an informed decision, you must look at the trial as whole in all instances.

Graham Dwyer was (rightly) convicted with far less material and physical evidence than Avery was but there aren't many people advocating his case. I'm sure if the makers of ''Making a Murderer'' wanted to they could present him in an equally flatering light as they did to Steven Avery.

weisses · 07-02-2016 03:41PM

John_D80 wrote: »

I'm sorry but that reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Both sides managed to discredit each others evidence at times during the trial.

To make an informed decision, you must look at the trial as whole in all instances.

Graham Dwyer was (rightly) convicted with far less material and physical evidence than Avery was but there aren't many people advocating his case. I'm sure if the makers of ''Making a Murderer'' wanted to they could present him in an equally flatering light as they did to Steven Avery.

Don't think so ... Jury only needs reasonable doubt, and that was presented in the Doc

Problem was the Jury

Richard Mahler claims

“After the trial, I found out…[one juror] was the father of a Manitowoc County Sheriff’s deputy. Another juror, his wife works for the Manitowoc County Clerk’s Office… I thought to myself, they shouldn’t have been on the jury. That was a conflict of interest

The allegation states that there was behind-the-scenes vote-trading, which lead to the compromise that was suggested in the show.
“That was the actual word the juror used and went on to describe the jurors ultimately trading votes in the jury room and explicitly discussing, ‘If you vote guilty on this count, I will vote not guilty on this count.””

This was also left out of the Documentary

And more that was left out

http://www.avclub.com/article/read-pro-steven-avery-list-what-was-left-out-makin-230634

Eircom_Sucks · 07-02-2016 03:44PM

personally feel he's not guilty , the fact alone that manotowic police found the car key 7 or 8 days after initially searching his place , plus they were never meant to be a part of the search , alot of fishy **** going on there

John_D80 · 07-02-2016 03:46PM

weisses wrote: »

Don't think so ... Jury only needs reasonable doubt, and that was presented in the Doc

The documentary was purposely engineered to leave you, the viewer with doubt. Is that not obvious to you?

Of course you are going to think this was the case. I did too before I actually went out of my way to read up on it.

weisses · 07-02-2016 03:49PM

John_D80 wrote: »

The documentary was purposely engineered to leave you, the viewer with doubt. Is that not obvious to you?

Of course you are going to think this was the case. I did too before I actually went out of my way to read up on it.

I just did and read up on it ..Hence my previous post

Or did the documentary makers influenced all these points as well ?

Rabo Karabekian · 07-02-2016 03:52PM

John_D80 wrote: »

So.... much ...... waffle ........ in one post.

Being devoid of any desire to trawl through that TLDR post of yours, I'll just answer this bit.

Yes I do.

It was 19 lines (most of the TLDR was quoting your posts) all directly responding to things you said. If you can't wade through 19 lines of text, all in direct response to what you've said, I think you might be on the wrong site.

John_D80 wrote: »

Joking aside folks (this is the AH forum after all), I really dont see the point of debating an issue with people who have plainly based their opinion solely on the documentary that is highly highly flawed in that is basically ignoring very important facts. Especially when all the evidence that wasn't shown in the doc is widely available for all to scrutinise.

I was as outraged as everyone else is when I saw it first but it didn't take long to change my mind when I really looked into it.

I'm not trying to wind people up here.

None of the evidence (that I've seen) either from the trial (and left out of the documentary) or post-trial indicates anything that is irrefutable truth. This is why people are asking you to point out exactly what was irrefutable about the evidence. The only thing that you've pointed to that might be considered 'proof' is the DNA found in the car, but as has been pointed out numerous times, this is far from irrefutable.

I'm not sure why you think people would be blindly waving the flag for Avery: he seems to have been quite an odious person (particularly in his earlier years) and there is nothing in the documentary that would make me think that he's definitely guilty or innocent. The salient point is there are numerous areas which would definitely suggest police tampering with evidence. If that's the case, there's is no way that you can say that he is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

That was only 9 lines. I'm sure you can manage that.

Flint Fredstone · 07-02-2016 03:53PM

John_D80 wrote: »

Bingo, you figured me out!!

I mean there is no way someone would genuinely have the temerity and outright gall to express an opinion that differs from the majority. God forbid, especially on THE INTERNET!!!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I didn't say anything like that. You are carrying on as if you are the only one here that has bothered to investigate after the documentary. I've seen all that stuff you refer to, I've also seen it explained. If you lost the superiority complex there might be a decent discussion to be had.

John_D80 · 07-02-2016 03:57PM

weisses wrote: »

I just did and read up on it ..Hence my previous post

Or did the documentary makers influenced all these points as well ?

You clearly said that the documentary alone was enough to provide reasonable doubt. Can you not see what a ludicrous statement that is when the documentary only showed about 5% of the actual evidence?

EDIT:Sorry what you actually said was the doc alone was enough to 'not convict'. My bad.

John_D80 · 07-02-2016 03:59PM

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

I didn't say anything like that. You are carrying on as if you are the only one here that has bothered to investigate after the documentary. I've seen all that stuff you refer to, I've also seen it explained. If you lost the superiority complex there might be a decent discussion to be had.

Its quite obvious that there are plenty people who didn't bother doing even a little deeper reading on it.

As someone that has read the trial transcripts you should have been able to see that from reading their posts.

John_D80 · 07-02-2016 04:00PM

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

It was 19 lines (most of the TLDR was quoting your posts) all directly responding to things you said. If you can't wade through 19 lines of text, all in direct response to what you've said, I think you might be on the wrong site.

None of the evidence (that I've seen) either from the trial (and left out of the documentary) or post-trial indicates anything that is irrefutable truth. This is why people are asking you to point out exactly what was irrefutable about the evidence. The only thing that you've pointed to that might be considered 'proof' is the DNA found in the car, but as has been pointed out numerous times, this is far from irrefutable.

I'm not sure why you think people would be blindly waving the flag for Avery: he seems to have been quite an odious person (particularly in his earlier years) and there is nothing in the documentary that would make me think that he's definitely guilty or innocent. The salient point is there are numerous areas which would definitely suggest police tampering with evidence. If that's the case, there's is no way that you can say that he is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

That was only 9 lines. I'm sure you can manage that.

Just about. Thanks.

recylingbin · 07-02-2016 04:02PM

Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. Why take a chance?

The Raptor · 07-02-2016 04:09PM

John_D80 wrote: »

The documentary was purposely engineered to leave you, the viewer with doubt. Is that not obvious to you?

Of course you are going to think this was the case. I did too before I actually went out of my way to read up on it.

Didn't some of the jurors have doubts too? 7 of them originally thought he was innocent. These were the people day in, day out who watched it unfold in front of them. So I don't think the documentary was made to leave us with doubt.

Ken Kraft was also asked to take part but refused. We could have seen the other side during the whole trial.

He too put doubts into peoples minds on television holding a press conference the day after Brendan's confession and thats what he wanted. It was like as if he had all the proof needed.

John_D80 · 07-02-2016 04:15PM

The Raptor wrote: »

Ken Kraft was also asked to take part but refused. We could have seen the other side during the whole trial.

Everyone knew the filmmakers agenda perfectly well. Of course they would not have taken part.

Were Teresa's family asked to take part? Any other law enforcement officials? What about prominent members of the Community in Manitowoc? After all Stevens family and friends took part didn't they?

From day one the makers of the doc had one goal. And it certainly wasn't to present the 'other side' as you call it.

Birneybau · 07-02-2016 04:19PM

recylingbin wrote: »

Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. Why take a chance?

Really?

John_D80 · 07-02-2016 04:20PM

recylingbin wrote: »

Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. Why take a chance?

Birneybau wrote: »

Really?

He's joking I'm sure!! At least I hope so! :-)

Senna · 07-02-2016 04:25PM

Say he did do it and say the police did plant evidence, do you think he should get off because of the polices actions?

The Raptor · 07-02-2016 04:29PM

John_D80 wrote: »

Everyone knew the filmmakers agenda perfectly well. Of course they would not have taken part.

Were Teresa's family asked to take part? Any other law enforcement officials? What about prominent members of the Community in Manitowoc? After all Stevens family and friends took part didn't they?

From day one the makers of the doc had one goal. And it certainly wasn't to present the 'other side' as you call it.

Yes Teresa's family was asked to take part but refused. For a brother who loved talking and being on TV, you would think that he would take part and tell the whole world just how guilty he was.

The filmmakers didn't know at the start how it was going to go. They stood back quietly to film it. Either side of it. After all, its real interesting that a man due to get 36 million was released from prison two years earlier for a crime he didnt commit and spent 18 years in prison for. Did he do it or not.

So no, everyone didn't know their agenda. The cops and detectives didn't want the story exposed to the whole world. It shows them in a bad light.

Also, during the trial Ken Kraft says "so what if we planted the evidence". What a thing to say. Of course, they wouldn't take part, they were too busy framing someone and lies can catch up with you the more people they had to talk to.

smash · 07-02-2016 04:31PM

John_D80 wrote: »

Documentary was the most lopsided and biased piece I have ever seen. When you look at all the evidence that was left out of the doc, it's obvious they are both guilty as well.

Avery is one sick puppy.

There was no left out evidence which points to his guilt. Any supposed evidence that came out as being omitted by the directors of the documentary has all been debunked or was completely unsubstantiated. It was Ken Kraft who spread the rumours just to save face. For some better insights have a look here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/40dquo/prodefense_information_that_was_left_out_of_mam/

mynamejeff · 07-02-2016 04:37PM

big rapey head on him ,

guilty of course

Steven Avery (making a murderer) Guilty or innocent?

Comments