Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Making a Murderer Making a Murderer

03-17-2016 , 01:44 AM
Also can I get some proof for the claim that the US has the best justice system in the world?
03-17-2016 , 01:56 AM
Only second best imo. Seychelles crushing USA#1 with 799 prisoners per 100k population. USA looking sad in second place with only 698.
03-17-2016 , 03:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Yeah there was physical evidence (turned out to be wrong), and he was IDed by the victim (turned out to be wrong).

I suppose we'd better rule out victim eyewitness testimony as a source of evidence also.
Eye witness testimony is important. But it should not overrule other evidence, including alibis.

In the first case, the victim's original eye witness testimony didn't even match later testimony. It morphed into Steve Avery. The victim brought up her beliefs that maybe they had the wrong suspect and her concerns were dismissed. An officer gets a call from a detective saying the wrong person may be in jail and his concerns were ignored. There is new DNA found that is acknowledged by the Supreme Court, yet a new trial is denied.

Seems like a very effective system to ensure convictions and that the prisons remain populated. Job security for many people/businesses. Does it reduce crime? Probably. I don't know how to value the cost of a system that will, beyond a reasonable doubt, snare innocent people in the web. Cost of doing business.
03-17-2016 , 04:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Some of the questions he was cornered into giving correct answers but other information he offered willingly, which lead to future discoveries that the police didn't know at the time. And some information was fed to him that the police knew was untrue to see how he would react. The untrue information he didn't go along with. Such as the tattoo on her stomach that the police asked if he remembered.
Let me ask you this.

Do you think Brendan was involved?
Do you think Brendan just watched?
Why did Brendan say he cut her hair over and over and over? What was to be gained by lying about that? As the police said, he already admitted to raping and killing her. There would be nothing to gain by lying about details like that.
Do you think bleach and paint thinner can clean up the crime scene that he described? Any of the various crime scenarios?
Do you think he forgot that she was shot 11 times?
Do you think the investigators telling him that if he tells the truth and nothing serious will happen to him, that may influence his testimony.
Why wasn't he called as an EYE WITNESS by Ken Kratz? EYE WITNESS testimony, especially in Wisconsin, takes precedence over all other evidence.

Instead of parading all the experts and DNA hunches and vendettas, just put the kid on the stand and end it all. He saw AND participated in the crime. Very little else needed.

Unless Kratz knew the confession and kid was a joke. And if he did, he should have apologized immediately for holding that news conference where he broadcasted the confession as evidence. It should be incumbent for a government employee to correct a known error of that magnitude.
03-17-2016 , 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 28renton Making a Murderer
Enough with the loaded hypotheticals. At the end of the day, the justice system is supposed to be built on what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (maybe fraley can remind us all what reasonable doubt is). End of.

The reason for this is the core concept that an innocent person spending time in prison for a crime they did not commit (or worse, being executed for it) is a greater injustice than a guilty person going free.

This system that you and fraley endorse not only condones a bias that puts innocent people away for crimes they didn't commit...well guess what, that same bias therefore ensures guilty people go free since an innocent person is doing the time instead.

For two people (you and fraley) who claim to not want guilty people to walk, I have no idea how you endorse a concept (a bias skewed towards convicting the innocent) that ensures that very thing. You and fraley have not really thought this through.

What you two are really condoning is a system that gets convictions, with innocence or guilt being secondary. It's supposed to be a justice system. Not a conviction system.
Attn: Manitowoc 3


Also, LOLEYEWITNESSTESTIMONY. I thought this was common knowledge. Guess not.
03-17-2016 , 08:54 AM
Geez, this conversation has really taken a bizarre turn. While his phrasing may have been a bit incendiary, all fraleylight was saying is that there is a trade off between the risk of convicting innocent people versus the risk of acquitting guilty people.

There will never be a system where no innocent person can ever be convicted. And attempting to reduce the risk of false conviction to absolute zero would create a system where an unacceptable number of guilty people get off.

For instance stipulating that police interrogations can never be admitted as evidence (as one poster suggested) would be taking it a bit too far. But stipulating that suspects must be advised of their rights, given access to legal counsel, and that interrogations must be recorded, are all attempts to strike the right balance.
03-17-2016 , 10:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by master3004 Making a Murderer
Have YOU never met a christian? Cause thats pretty much exactly what they think, whether it was a physical showing or not.
No, I have never met a christian that thinks that way. I suggest you study christian theology a little more and talk to some christians if that is what you think.
03-17-2016 , 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
Let me ask you this.

1)Do you think Brendan was involved?
2)Do you think Brendan just watched?
3)Why did Brendan say he cut her hair over and over and over? What was to be gained by lying about that? As the police said, he already admitted to raping and killing her. There would be nothing to gain by lying about details like that.
4)Do you think bleach and paint thinner can clean up the crime scene that he described? Any of the various crime scenarios?
5)Do you think he forgot that she was shot 11 times?
6)Do you think the investigators telling him that if he tells the truth and nothing serious will happen to him, that may influence his testimony.
7)Why wasn't he called as an EYE WITNESS by Ken Kratz? EYE WITNESS testimony, especially in Wisconsin, takes precedence over all other evidence.
1- Yes, I do
2- No, I don't. I think he was involved and helped at the very least in getting rid of the body. Which makes him guilty of murder as well. It makes him an accessory.
3-I don't necessarily think he was lying about that. But it was very clear during the whole process he was trying to get into the least trouble possible and didn't understand what would get him in the most trouble.
4-Yes, bleach and paint thinner can remove dna evidence. And if a low powered .22 caliber gun shoots a nearly dead or dead person in the head there will not be as much blood as you might imagine from movies.
5- What are you talking about? He told police she was shot around 10 times and 3 times in the head.
6- Yes, it may influence him to tell the truth. They also asked him stuff they knew was false to see if he was just agreeing with them.I already posted an example of this but The tattoo on the stomach. They asked if he remembered her tattoo on her stomach (she didn't have a tattoo) and he said no that he didn't remember one. If he was just going along with everything they said, why not this too?
7-What? How can Kratz call him as an eye witness when he no longer wants to testify and says he lied to police? They initially tried to cut a deal with him which he refused after pressure from his family.. Whom I think was pressured by Avery's lawyer.

Anyways, long story short.. You need to address the stuff I posted.

Why was he lying in november about a bonfire? Why did he initially bring up a bonfire and say that they canceled?

What were they spot cleaning in the garage? How come that spot matches his confession and where he says they cleaned up her blood? Why did he initially say "it was just a reddish orange spot and he didn't know what it was" what was he trying to hide?

How did he know which weapon was used to shoot her and where she was shot?
03-17-2016 , 10:22 AM
Nice quote mine 28. I am not suggesting innocent people should have a bias to be wrongfully convicted. I am saying that there is no system where we can completely prevent this from happening without allowing a whole lot of guilty people free. And I would prefer having a few innocent people in prison over a lot of guilty people in society. I am talking about violent crimes by the way just so we are clear.
03-17-2016 , 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
Geez, this conversation has really taken a bizarre turn. While his phrasing may have been a bit incendiary, all fraleylight was saying is that there is a trade off between the risk of convicting innocent people versus the risk of acquitting guilty people.

There will never be a system where no innocent person can ever be convicted. And attempting to reduce the risk of false conviction to absolute zero would create a system where an unacceptable number of guilty people get off.

For instance stipulating that police interrogations can never be admitted as evidence (as one poster suggested) would be taking it a bit too far. But stipulating that suspects must be advised of their rights, given access to legal counsel, and that interrogations must be recorded, are all attempts to strike the right balance.

Jesus.. Bingo!
03-17-2016 , 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 28renton Making a Murderer
Also can I get some proof for the claim that the US has the best justice system in the world?
We have the most people in jail, obv.

Checkmate , rest of the world. USA #1 again.
03-17-2016 , 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Do you honestly think crooked cops are more dangerous than criminals for society? Chew on it for a minute. Seriously.
Yes, I believe that society is more dangerous and less civilized when the police are corrupt.
03-17-2016 , 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
Geez, this conversation has really taken a bizarre turn. While his phrasing may have been a bit incendiary, all fraleylight was saying is that there is a trade off between the risk of convicting innocent people versus the risk of acquitting guilty people.

There will never be a system where no innocent person can ever be convicted. And attempting to reduce the risk of false conviction to absolute zero would create a system where an unacceptable number of guilty people get off.

For instance stipulating that police interrogations can never be admitted as evidence (as one poster suggested) would be taking it a bit too far. But stipulating that suspects must be advised of their rights, given access to legal counsel, and that interrogations must be recorded, are all attempts to strike the right balance.

Thank you for trying to talk some sense into this thread.
03-17-2016 , 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrChesspain Making a Murderer
Yes, I believe that society is more dangerous and less civilized when the police are corrupt.
I said, crooked cops. Not the police who are corrupt. The police who are corrupt implies all police are corrupt.
03-17-2016 , 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrChesspain Making a Murderer
Yes, I believe that society is more dangerous and less civilized when the police are corrupt.
Did he really ask if criminals that have the power, authority and resources of law enforcement are more dangerous than those without?
03-17-2016 , 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
Geez, this conversation has really taken a bizarre turn. While his phrasing may have been a bit incendiary, all fraleylight was saying is that there is a trade off between the risk of convicting innocent people versus the risk of acquitting guilty people.

There will never be a system where no innocent person can ever be convicted. And attempting to reduce the risk of false conviction to absolute zero would create a system where an unacceptable number of guilty people get off.

For instance stipulating that police interrogations can never be admitted as evidence (as one poster suggested) would be taking it a bit too far. But stipulating that suspects must be advised of their rights, given access to legal counsel, and that interrogations must be recorded, are all attempts to strike the right balance.
But there shouldn't be a trade off and there is not supposed to be a trade off. We are supposed to let guilty people go free if it means keeping innocent people out of prison.

So let's stop trying to strike a "balance" where there is not supposed to be a balance. We are supposed to err on the side of keeping innocent people out of prison. I feel like civics teachers all over the country should be fired.

You guys know when an innocent person goes to prison it means that in those cases it is proven a crime took place, the guilty person went free. So what exactly are you trying to balance? You want to balance putting guilty people in prison by letting guilty people go free? How does that make any sense.

And you are simply wrong about removing confessions as evidence. If a prosecutor can't convict on evidence then they shouldn't be able to convict. Interrogation methods make confessions unreliable as evidence. There is no reason to allow them as evidence, and the changes you mention fail to fix the problem. All those things happened in the Dassey confession and it was clearly coerced. It also yielded no corroborating evidence.

Simply no reason to allow them in trials. They can be used to investigate but they simply are not reliable as evidence.
03-17-2016 , 04:52 PM
By the way it has been demonstrated that eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable and should be presented in a more proper context. I feel like the Mantiwoc 3 & friends took a time machine from 60 plus years ago.
03-17-2016 , 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Lol at mark not understanding people who attribute things to god. Have you never met a christian? when they say "god showed me the way" they don't mean he came down and pointed his finger.
O rly
03-17-2016 , 05:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I said, crooked cops. Not the police who are corrupt. The police who are corrupt implies all police are corrupt.
How many people are serving time for Cannabis possession & are serving more than 10 years for less than 5 grams? 1-10? 10-100? 100-1000? More than 1000?
What percentage of these people are Black 10% 25% 50% 90%?

In some american states you are 6 times more likely to 60 times more likely to spend time in prison for Cannabis possession. Can you name the 1 state that locks up blacks at a rate of 60x more than any other race for simple possession? ( hint, the use of cannabis is actually lower among Black people in these state's)
CAN YOU NAME ME? 10 white people who has been convicted for possession of cannabis of under 5 grams who is serving more than 10 yrs?

I picked cannabis because it is the crime that is the most abused by the local sheriff's dept & in so they have taken to building a prison for profit system in rural area's to help boost the funds of the local sheriff's office in which they can employ more people & buy more toy's.

When the sheriffs/DA association vote in laws for min sentence's, provide the prisons to hold these prisoners & collect the TAX $ for doing so then YES USA#1 has a problem, and that does not even include the skimming that goes on, i.e No resources for education/books/physical exercise or min medical supplies it would put the MAFIA to shame imo, Corruption?

Its a sad country that gives convicted pedophiles less time than cannabis user's or when a prosecutor can & will give a reduced sentence to a murderer for a plea deal but will not reduce a +15 years jail term for possession of 2 joint's.
What I find even worse about USA#1 is that you will receive 90 days in jail before trial if you cannot post bail for NON-Violent crimes even for 1st offenders.
The mantiowoc 3 imo have a vested interest in this money making system of a police state grabbing tax dollars & have proved so in there recent attempts to justify why innocent people being found guilty as exceptions to the norm when in fact the system for poor/minorities is constructed to convict these very people.
The USA excels in most avenue's in life but the justice system/prison system is NOT ONE OF THEM. FACT.
03-17-2016 , 05:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
But there shouldn't be a trade off and there is not supposed to be a trade off. We are supposed to let guilty people go free if it means keeping innocent people out of prison.

So let's stop trying to strike a "balance" where there is not supposed to be a balance. We are supposed to err on the side of keeping innocent people out of prison. I feel like civics teachers all over the country should be fired.

You guys know when an innocent person goes to prison it means that in those cases it is proven a crime took place, the guilty person went free. So what exactly are you trying to balance? You want to balance putting guilty people in prison by letting guilty people go free? How does that make any sense.

And you are simply wrong about removing confessions as evidence. If a prosecutor can't convict on evidence then they shouldn't be able to convict. Interrogation methods make confessions unreliable as evidence. There is no reason to allow them as evidence, and the changes you mention fail to fix the problem. All those things happened in the Dassey confession and it was clearly coerced. It also yielded no corroborating evidence.

Simply no reason to allow them in trials. They can be used to investigate but they simply are not reliable as evidence.
Are you even reading anything anyone posts? just curious because 1/2 the time it is people agreeing with you, the other half it is like you don't even understand the points being made to you.

Confessions without evidence should not be used. I agree with you. That is why the most common wrongful conviction is rape cases because before good dna evidence, rape trials pretty much relied entirely on the eye witness testimony of the victim. That is what happened to avery the first time.

However, when someone confesses to something it is generally if not almost always because they can confess to evidence that wasn't previously known about. Not that the evidence can tie the person to the crime. If I confess to killing someone, know where the body is, how the person was killed and my confession leads to this new evidence but nothing aside from my confession can tie me to the persons murder.. I should be convicted. That relies entirely on my confession to convict me.

Eye witness testimony should also be allowed in court, it is up the defense to argue if someones testimony is reliable.

As for you arguing that the criminal justice system is supposed to be designed to keep innocent people out of jail/prison. Yes, I also agree with you. However, it is impossible to make that a reality and not have any risk that an innocent man will go to prison ever. So we have to weigh risk vs reward. We can't just acquit everyone. That is not the solution, however.. That is the only way to accomplish what you are suggesting. Because there is always a chance a conviction could have it wrong. There is no way to be 100% sure about anything.

My argument is not to have the criminal justice system lean toward the side that favors the accused. I am arguing that we shouldn't make it impossible to convict the guilty, which is what you are arguing against. Even if you don't realize it.
03-17-2016 , 05:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
O rly
Yes really. Just read her testimony. She laid out step by step how she found the car. She explained which entrance she went in and why she was where she was. She explained why she went over to the area where avery's car was located. She just attributes these circumstances to God. That God lead her that way. If you don't believe in God you just simply think she was lead there by the steps she mentioned. You can logically argue how she found his car without adding God to the equation but since she is a Christian she blames the whole thing on God.
03-17-2016 , 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre Making a Murderer
Did he really ask if criminals that have the power, authority and resources of law enforcement are more dangerous than those without?
YES, lOl.
03-17-2016 , 05:19 PM
If I could change one thing about the criminal justice system, I would do something about the defendants who are poor getting poor defense. Or somehow level the playing field. Maybe make it a complete socialist system where every accused person gets the same level of defense council. Only problem with doing that is I don't know which lawyers would be willing to do it and we would eventually see a decline in quality of lawyers.
03-17-2016 , 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre Making a Murderer
Did he really ask if criminals that have the power, authority and resources of law enforcement are more dangerous than those without?
Considering "criminals" refers to a much larger group of people than crooked cops.. yes, I think it is a legitimate question to consider.
03-17-2016 , 05:28 PM
Well if for example they did something like making sure defense counsel is paid the same as the prosecution, had access to the same budget for tests, expert witnesses paralegals interns and junior counsel, their case load were limited in some sane way, and a public defender were an option for everyone regardless of income or assets that would be a start.

      
m