The two cases were tried separately and the prosecutors came up with another scenario for each.
The documentary showed how problematic jury selection was for example.

Also you didn't say that just because you agree with the jury?

What about the jury in the '85 trial. Do you have the same opinion about that jury? If not, why?

You sure seem to know at least something about manipulation.

I'm hard core Avery is innocent. But this point you make is exactly what the prosecution used as part of their reasoning of why Avery's guilty.

These two statements are in direct conflict of eachother. OR, your idea of "failings of the system" is that the "system" failed to educate us on why we should accept the outcome of what happened to SA and BD and not question it.

Hey Mike!

I'm not sure why you think so.

Are you saying there was reasonable doubt that OJ was guilty? In other words, that there was a decent chance he was victim of a massive conspiracy to frame him? I'm legitimately curious. I have no intention of engaging in a conversation on that topic, but I thought the overwhelming percentage of people now thought he was indeed guilty (even among African-Americans). It would be interesting if the Avery documentary were somehow turning the tide back to thinking OJ was framed in the popular imaginary.

,

LOLOLOL yeah the system failed miserably but everyone should mindlessly support his conviction because "evidence" no matter how problematic that evidence might be and "respect for the jury" even if they may have been bullied into a verdict.

YOU don't know what the jury was thinking. YOU don't know what REALLY happened to the victim. You CERTAINLY don't know that "PoorSkillz is right"

There are a dozen or more deeply troubling aspects of this case, and to paint those over with "emotional manipulation" is missing the whole point of the documentary.

Jury got it right. Except in 85 when they completely **** the bed. Oh and the jury got it right this time except for the one guy who said he would have voted not guilty had he not been excused and another now saying they feared for their safety so voted guilty. Open and shut case.

When Brendan was being questioned by the police I immediately thought of the corner kids from the wire being questioned by police responding to every question with "Lawyer". One time Brendan!

Jury got it wrong until DNA evidence was shown right? Despite 16 alibi witnesses testifying in the case.

Interesting to look at the series through the lens of liespotting.

Watched football with a guy from Wisconsin last night, he was around during all the hoopla. He hasn't seen the doc and didn't know any of the details of the trial. But he was 100% sure Avery was guilty based on what he saw on the news. I mean that right there just sums it all up. He was also fairy sure Avery was guilty of the first crime. This is a guy with a degree in dentistry, 32 years old. Imagine if that demographic is certain he's guilty.

The problem is that even if we assume we are great at spotting lies (I think there's research that says we're not), we're not always looking at people's natural reactions at that point in time.

One of the things that stood out to me as I was watching the series was Avery's attempt at finding someone else to blame. He immediately starts pointing at the police as framing him. If I were accused of a murder and a body was found on my property, I'd be like: "wtf? I have no idea. I just don't know what to tell you."

You didn't spend 18 years in prison for a rape you didn't commit though. I imagine that would change your outlook.

Fair point. Nonetheless, look at the video of his demeanor and language from 1985 versus the murder. It's night and day.

i m sure 18 year in jail(unjustified) would change my demeanor aswell

Right - which is Payoffwiz's point.

Why does your claim
not apply to Brendan's case?

Given the police, prosecutors' and media job and the flaws that we saw regarding the judge and the jury, do you sincerely believe that either had a fair trail, to which they are entitled?

Why would someone leave a body on your property?
What if you were involved in a huge trial against the police who framed you 20 years ago?

Pretty awful video, if you have spend some time reading about bodylanguage, it 's pretty much just to entertain a crowd for 10 minutes and doesn't go below the surface.

But apropos bodylanguage, the most annoying person in the entire series to me was the sketchartist, I just really really wanted to punch that guy in the face. He was so condescending it made me really angry.

Like I said before, I believe the flaws the series points out in the Dassey case are a lot more legitimate, and we have the full transcripts so we are able to know a lot more about the trial.

There's a lot of differences between:

the Avery case - all the evidence points to him doing it (and the defense's only case is the evidence was part of a complex conspiracy theory and/or technicalities in how the case was handled)
and
the Dassey case - there's less evidence tying him to the murder, but he confessed to doing it. He definitely wasn't completely telling the truth, although it's still very possible he did murder her too (and he was definitely involved in some way that night).

And honestly, I'm still not sure the jury was wrong to convict him - evidence ties to him being involved in something, and he did confess to doing it, and I haven't read all of the transcripts. But I really don't know what to make of his case and think I would find him not guilty; it all really depends on the whole "false confession" issue and IANAL, so I don't know... We'll see what happens with Dassey's appeal.


What are the flaws we saw here?

What I found more odd was Steven talking to news on Nov 4 when they ask:

he describes what she does "most of the time" rather than what happened that time:

Read more at: http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.o...264ab6c48ad62b


But I realize these things can be interpreted many ways, so I prefer just sticking to discussing the evidence most of the time.