6 ms·

The article focuses too much on Avery's actual guilt or innocence, in my opinion. It's possible he murdered her. It's possible he didn't. But what the docume

The article focuses too much on Avery's actual guilt or innocence, in my opinion. It's possible he murdered her. It's possible he didn't. But what the documentary really showed me was how utterly corrupt, venal, incompetent and evil the entire system of justice can be, from the 'court appointed lawyers' all the way up to the sheriffs that clearly, unequivocally framed Avery. And it's fundamental to the principles of the legal system that the police and the prosecution must not be permitted to do that; and that we, as a society, must find some way to make that impossible and to punish those who violate the trust. Even if one, or ten, or a hundred believed-murderers go free.

toddmorey 11y ago
I was also disappointed that the documentary took a bias towards Avery being innocent. I wish they'd left it more undecided, more murky, and more honest. Even if there was compelling video evidence, it would still be a fascinating story of incompetence and misconduct throughout the investigation. Even if you believe Avery to be guilty (as I lean towards), you can't help but to sit in awe as officials motivated to lock up their case almost cost themselves a verdict based on their own actions. It's a story with no heroes.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- kenbellows 11y ago
  Are you implying that this kind of corruption happens in every single investigation? No one should be prosecuted in cases where it is present, that's for sure. But I don't see how that leads to the conclusion that "no one should be prosecuted for anything so long as this kind of corruption exists". Plenty of investigations and prosecutions are conducted above board with no corruption to be found.
- ssmoot 11y ago
  As far as is reasonable/moral. You're using a slippery slope fallacy.
- crpatino 11y ago
  In an quasi-ideal world[1]: 1. Framing a suspect should be a career terminating offense, for both the law enforcement side and the prosecution side. This is not limited to the actual perpetrators, but also to the people higher up in the chain of command that encouraged or can be demonstrated to have failed to know due to lack of diligence. 2. For crimes where no violence was involved, the culprit walks scott free. If there was violence involved, the culprit has the right of a new trial with all the ill aquired evidence dismissed. 3. It is a capital offense to bribe, extortion or otherwise cahole law enforcement or prosecuition officials into "screwing up" the investigation/trial on purpose to invalidate the charges. Defense lawyers who accumulate more than 3 clients suspected of doing this (regardless of they being found guilty or not) are prohibited to practice for a period of 5 years. [1] In an ideal-ideal world, corruption does not exist and this measures are not needed.
kbenson 11y ago
> But what the documentary really showed me was how utterly corrupt, venal, incompetent and evil the entire system of justice can be, from the 'court appointed lawyers' all the way up to the sheriffs that clearly, unequivocally framed Avery. Which is an example of what the article was actually about. You've seen a documentary that by some accounts is very biased, and is presenting information to you in a specific way, and neglecting to mention other information that is not conducive to the opinion they are pointing the audience towards. Is it impossible to believe that the evidence presented to you might have lead you to believe something "clearly, unequivocally" which when all the facts are present may not seem nearly as cut and dry? For that matter, Making a Murderer was not really the subject of the article, just the prime example with which to express its point; Courts of last resort have little oversight, and can be used to manipulate the public when not held accountable for biased presentation. If anything, your comment unwittingly bolsters the original point.
- felixgallo 11y ago
  The documentary did absolutely try to sway me, but I'm basing my opinion on the sworn testimony of the actual officers that did the framing, as well as the officers of the neighboring county. The key, the blood, the bullet, all appeared only once the Manitowoc sheriffs arrived at the scene, in plain sight, despite upwards of 6 previous searches performed by their neighbor sheriff's department. Do you have another explanation? Do you feel that the documentarians faked this testimony?
  - kbenson 11y ago
    > I'm basing my opinion on the sworn testimony of the actual officers that did the framing All the sworn testimony, or the testimony the documentary showed you, in the order they showed to you, with you primed by earlier scenes? > Do you feel that the documentarians faked this testimony? It's not about the documentary faking the testimony, it's about the documentary being able to manipulate the information presented to you, and then forming an opinion about whether the documentary was biased by using that same curated view of information to decide one party was in the wrong, and therefore the documentary as in the right. That's circular logic, unless you have some other source to counter the presentation from the documentary in question. The point here is that you, as a watcher of the documentary, were not presented the same evidence as the jury. It's easy to assume you were given a superset of the evidence, but there are indications that what some people believe to be important parts of the prosecution and defense were left out. Without access to, at a minimum, all the information the jury saw, it's impossible to say what conclusion you would come to. Now, my own opinion is that from the evidence I've seen so far, which the vast majority but not all was received from the documentary, that the trial should have ended in a mistrial at a minimum, or a not guilty due to reasonable doubt. That said, at this point I lean slightly towards thinking he did it. That doesn't matter though, because I don't know all the evidence, nor even all the evidence that was presented in the trial. That's the whole point.
rayiner 11y ago
I think Avery's prosecution was corrupt enough to be worth vacating on police misconduct alone.[1] However, implicit in your comment is the premise that process is more important than outcome. While I fully agree with that (as a lawyer), I think ordinary peoples' view of the justice system is a bit different. Watch the beginning of the 1983 Michael Douglas movie, "Star Chamber." The first scenes show two men getting away with the rape and murder of a young boy, because the damning piece of evidence (a bloody shoe), was found in their van pursuant to a search in violation of the 4th amendment. The audience is supposed to be outraged by this failure of justice. Surely you've heard the consternation about criminals "getting off on a technicality." A lot of people view procedural protections as just that: technicalities. It's people with that mindset reacting so negatively to this documentary. To them, Avery's actual guilt or innocence is the important thing. The process is just technicalities. The same mindset makes it easy to justify police misconduct, and I imagine it was strongly at work with Avery's jury. Once you admit the evidence excluded in the documentary, such as Avery's prior conduct, it becomes quite reasonable to conclude that Avery is actually guilty. At the same time, with the "planted blood" theory seemingly debunked by the FBI test, the only blatantly obvious police misconduct you're left with is the planted key. If you view outcome as being more important than process, it's very easy to think of finding Avery innocent based on the planted key as simply letting him off on a "technicality." [1] Not to mention the pervasive logical and legal fallacies in Ken Kratz's statements, which left me yelling at the TV.
- solutionyogi 11y ago
  Did you see the documentary? The FBI test and related testimony was bullshit. This is only the second time an EDTA test was done so we have to worry about the accuracy of it and more importantly, logic says: 1. If EDTA is found in the blood, blood definitely came from vial. 2. If EDTA is not found in the blood, no conclusion can be made. It is possible that test is not capable of testing for EDTA.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    I binge-watched the whole thing over a weekend. I don't think your logic follows at all. If the test isn't reliable, it may well falsely indicate EDTA is present, even if the blood didn't come from the vial. Leaving aside the FBI test, the "hole in the vial" theory has some holes in it, namely that a nurse was apparently ready to testify that the hole was how she filled the vial, and doing so that way was not uncommon: http://www.businessinsider.com/steven-avery-blood-vial-test-tube-2016-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/steven-avery-blood-vial-test-....

toddmorey 11y ago

I was also disappointed that the documentary took a bias towards Avery being innocent. I wish they'd left it more undecided, more murky, and more honest. Even if there was compelling video evidence, it would still be a fascinating story of incompetence and misconduct throughout the investigation. Even if you believe Avery to be guilty (as I lean towards), you can't help but to sit in awe as officials motivated to lock up their case almost cost themselves a verdict based on their own actions. It's a story with no heroes.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

kenbellows 11y ago
Are you implying that this kind of corruption happens in every single investigation? No one should be prosecuted in cases where it is present, that's for sure. But I don't see how that leads to the conclusion that "no one should be prosecuted for anything so long as this kind of corruption exists". Plenty of investigations and prosecutions are conducted above board with no corruption to be found.
ssmoot 11y ago
As far as is reasonable/moral. You're using a slippery slope fallacy.
crpatino 11y ago
In an quasi-ideal world[1]: 1. Framing a suspect should be a career terminating offense, for both the law enforcement side and the prosecution side. This is not limited to the actual perpetrators, but also to the people higher up in the chain of command that encouraged or can be demonstrated to have failed to know due to lack of diligence. 2. For crimes where no violence was involved, the culprit walks scott free. If there was violence involved, the culprit has the right of a new trial with all the ill aquired evidence dismissed. 3. It is a capital offense to bribe, extortion or otherwise cahole law enforcement or prosecuition officials into "screwing up" the investigation/trial on purpose to invalidate the charges. Defense lawyers who accumulate more than 3 clients suspected of doing this (regardless of they being found guilty or not) are prohibited to practice for a period of 5 years. [1] In an ideal-ideal world, corruption does not exist and this measures are not needed.

kbenson 11y ago

> But what the documentary really showed me was how utterly corrupt, venal, incompetent and evil the entire system of justice can be, from the 'court appointed lawyers' all the way up to the sheriffs that clearly, unequivocally framed Avery. Which is an example of what the article was actually about. You've seen a documentary that by some accounts is very biased, and is presenting information to you in a specific way, and neglecting to mention other information that is not conducive to the opinion they are pointing the audience towards. Is it impossible to believe that the evidence presented to you might have lead you to believe something "clearly, unequivocally" which when all the facts are present may not seem nearly as cut and dry? For that matter, Making a Murderer was not really the subject of the article, just the prime example with which to express its point; Courts of last resort have little oversight, and can be used to manipulate the public when not held accountable for biased presentation. If anything, your comment unwittingly bolsters the original point.

felixgallo 11y ago
The documentary did absolutely try to sway me, but I'm basing my opinion on the sworn testimony of the actual officers that did the framing, as well as the officers of the neighboring county. The key, the blood, the bullet, all appeared only once the Manitowoc sheriffs arrived at the scene, in plain sight, despite upwards of 6 previous searches performed by their neighbor sheriff's department. Do you have another explanation? Do you feel that the documentarians faked this testimony?
- kbenson 11y ago
  > I'm basing my opinion on the sworn testimony of the actual officers that did the framing All the sworn testimony, or the testimony the documentary showed you, in the order they showed to you, with you primed by earlier scenes? > Do you feel that the documentarians faked this testimony? It's not about the documentary faking the testimony, it's about the documentary being able to manipulate the information presented to you, and then forming an opinion about whether the documentary was biased by using that same curated view of information to decide one party was in the wrong, and therefore the documentary as in the right. That's circular logic, unless you have some other source to counter the presentation from the documentary in question. The point here is that you, as a watcher of the documentary, were not presented the same evidence as the jury. It's easy to assume you were given a superset of the evidence, but there are indications that what some people believe to be important parts of the prosecution and defense were left out. Without access to, at a minimum, all the information the jury saw, it's impossible to say what conclusion you would come to. Now, my own opinion is that from the evidence I've seen so far, which the vast majority but not all was received from the documentary, that the trial should have ended in a mistrial at a minimum, or a not guilty due to reasonable doubt. That said, at this point I lean slightly towards thinking he did it. That doesn't matter though, because I don't know all the evidence, nor even all the evidence that was presented in the trial. That's the whole point.

rayiner 11y ago

I think Avery's prosecution was corrupt enough to be worth vacating on police misconduct alone.[1] However, implicit in your comment is the premise that process is more important than outcome. While I fully agree with that (as a lawyer), I think ordinary peoples' view of the justice system is a bit different. Watch the beginning of the 1983 Michael Douglas movie, "Star Chamber." The first scenes show two men getting away with the rape and murder of a young boy, because the damning piece of evidence (a bloody shoe), was found in their van pursuant to a search in violation of the 4th amendment. The audience is supposed to be outraged by this failure of justice. Surely you've heard the consternation about criminals "getting off on a technicality." A lot of people view procedural protections as just that: technicalities. It's people with that mindset reacting so negatively to this documentary. To them, Avery's actual guilt or innocence is the important thing. The process is just technicalities. The same mindset makes it easy to justify police misconduct, and I imagine it was strongly at work with Avery's jury. Once you admit the evidence excluded in the documentary, such as Avery's prior conduct, it becomes quite reasonable to conclude that Avery is actually guilty. At the same time, with the "planted blood" theory seemingly debunked by the FBI test, the only blatantly obvious police misconduct you're left with is the planted key. If you view outcome as being more important than process, it's very easy to think of finding Avery innocent based on the planted key as simply letting him off on a "technicality." [1] Not to mention the pervasive logical and legal fallacies in Ken Kratz's statements, which left me yelling at the TV.

solutionyogi 11y ago
Did you see the documentary? The FBI test and related testimony was bullshit. This is only the second time an EDTA test was done so we have to worry about the accuracy of it and more importantly, logic says: 1. If EDTA is found in the blood, blood definitely came from vial. 2. If EDTA is not found in the blood, no conclusion can be made. It is possible that test is not capable of testing for EDTA.
- rayiner 11y ago
  I binge-watched the whole thing over a weekend. I don't think your logic follows at all. If the test isn't reliable, it may well falsely indicate EDTA is present, even if the blood didn't come from the vial. Leaving aside the FBI test, the "hole in the vial" theory has some holes in it, namely that a nurse was apparently ready to testify that the hole was how she filled the vial, and doing so that way was not uncommon: http://www.businessinsider.com/steven-avery-blood-vial-test-tube-2016-1 http://www.businessinsider.com/steven-avery-blood-vial-test-....