4 ms·

The article equates prosecutorial misconduct to force a guilty sentence with editorial choices in a documentary. Because both show "bias". In the one case it's

by gizmo 11y ago

The article equates prosecutorial misconduct to force a guilty sentence with editorial choices in a documentary. Because both show "bias". In the one case it's utterly illegal and it undermines the moral validity of the justice system and in the other case we're talking about a simple exercise of free speech, but apparently this distinction isn't meaningful in the eyes of the author. The quote in question: "The point of being scrupulous about your means is to help insure accurate ends, whether you are trying to convict a man or exonerate him. Ricciardi and Demos instead stack the deck to support their case for Avery, and, as a result, wind up mirroring the entity that they are trying to discredit." This equivocation is morally repugnant. The article also gets their facts wrong. They claim: "Investigators subsequently found DNA from Avery’s perspiration on the hood latch—evidence that would be nearly impossible to plant.". This is a fabrication. There is no distinction between blood DNA, sweat DNA, skin DNA. DNA was found under the hood latch, but no blood was seen. Hence a logical conjecture is that the source is perspiration, but it could have been any other source. As for it being hard to plant, that's laughable. Simply swipe a t-shirt or dirty sock on any surface and it will leave DNA behind. None of Avery's finger prints were found on the car, and finger prints ARE hard to plant. In contrast to DNA, which IS trivial to plant if you have access to somebody's apartment. The charge that the documentary is bad because doesn't display a clear timeline of the events doesn't make sense, because it's the responsibility of the prosecution to explain what happened, and they didn't have a single narrative that was consistent with all the evidence. Which is why the prosecution's story of what happened was completely different in Avery's and Dassy's trials. Juries don't believe police officers would ever lie during testimony. They believe the police are the good guys who just want to catch the bad guys. The public has to let go of this naive view of the world, and look at all evidence presented during a trial with healthy skepticism. The 'Making a Murderer' documentary teaches people to be skeptical about claims by the police, which is a great public service. The article closes by reiterating the terrible equivocation they made earlier. That exposing prosecutorial misconduct is somehow only permissible in a completely unopinionated format. The New Yorker should be ashamed for publishing this trash.

tptacek 11y ago
You're fixated on the notion that DNA recovered from epithelial cells is the same as DNA recovered from blood. That's true, but the claim being made can simply be: "DNA was recovered, and testing did not indicate the presence of blood". You might not be able to distinguish "blood DNA" from "skin DNA", but forensic testing can identify the presence or absence of blood. Meanwhile, the reason the "skin DNA" evidence is so compelling is that the source of DNA the sheriff's department is alleged to have tampered with is blood. It's not clear how they could use that blood to place DNA under the hood of the car without it testing positive for blood.
- gizmo 11y ago
  I'm not sure what you're getting at. There was no blood under the hood, so obviously there was a difference source for that DNA. The key to the car was found in Avery's room in clear sight (after it had been searched 7 times already). The key was scrubbed clean, and only Avery's DNA was present, but not blood. No fingerprints. At any point a piece of his clothing could have been used (or a toothbrush) to rub some DNA on it. Same for the car hood. Trivial to plant when you have access to somebody's DNA. At any point during the search somebody could have picked up one of his socks, walked to the car, rubbed it wherever and walked away. I'm not saying it definitely happened this way, just that it would have been easy to do for anybody with access. While the article goes to lengths to claim that the documentary leaves out important evidence, but arguments they use to support that claim don't hold water. Their primary argument about the hood latch DNA contains a factual error and the assertion about planting the evidence being 'nearly impossible' is absurd. And that is apparently the best argument they have about the documentary being biased...
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > The key was scrubbed clean There's a possibility that it was her spare key, not her main key. https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3z8pwn/summary_of_discussion_on_the_rav4_key/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3z8pwn/sum...
- 1024core 11y ago
  > It's not clear how they could use that blood to place DNA under the hood of the car without it testing positive for blood. They had full control of his entire property for more than 8 days. They had access to his bedroom for that entire time. It would be trivial to just grab a used sock and swipe it on the latch.
masmullin 11y ago
> The article equates prosecutorial misconduct to force a guilty sentence with editorial choices in a documentary. Because both show "bias". In the one case it's utterly illegal and it undermines the moral validity of the justice system and in the other case we're talking about a simple exercise of free speech, but apparently this distinction isn't meaningful in the eyes of the author. This is the most important critique point. I'm glad you noticed it and mentioned it.
thieving_magpie 11y ago
>The article equates prosecutorial misconduct to force a guilty sentence with editorial choices in a documentary. I don't think the article is actually equating the two offenses. despite the quote you highlight. The point I took away is showing how easy it is to create a narrative. The show isn't a neutral piece, you can't get past the title without seeing that. I understand your point that the authorities have a much higher responsibility to be truthful and honorable in their duties. I just won't attack the entire article because they care to mention that a lot was left out. It's always important to think about anything you consume in this way.
- gizmo 11y ago
  Of course the show isn't a neutral piece, because there is no such thing as true neutrality. Editorial choices have to be made and those choices will in part reflect the opinions of the producers. That's always the case. I don't think the documentary is biased in the sense that it deliberately distorts the truth to fit a preconceived narrative, and the article doesn't certainly doesn't make a strong case contrariwise. I didn't totally hate the article. For instance I liked the points they made and the statistics they gave about the structural nature of forced confessions, false testimonies by police officers and the like. But they chose to emphasize the horrors of the narrative instead, even though the article itself -- by making that editoral choice -- is doing the exact same thing they condemn the documentary for. They highlight one thing at the expense of another thing, thereby creating a "biased" narrative. It's either sheer hypocrisy or the entire argument is asinine.
  - thieving_magpie 11y ago
    I don't think they're "condemning" the documentary. They're just pointing out realities. >It's either sheer hypocrisy or the entire argument is asinine. A bold declaration. Everything doesn't boil down to right and wrong. There is nuance in the world and there is nuance in the article.
kbenson 11y ago
> Juries don't believe police officers would ever lie during testimony. > The public has to let go of this naive view of the world I think your words, reordered in this manner, are just as true. It's just as naive to believe that juries will trust a police officer just because of their profession without any consideration to further supplied evidence as it is to believe that police officers are infallible. We're talking about people here, with all the complexities, history and motivations that come along with that. Let's not degrade this discussion by stereotyping the groups involved.
- wfo 11y ago
  Jurors are selected specifically out of the general population to be deferential to authority and law enforcement because of the way selection works.

by gizmo 11y ago

tptacek 11y ago

You're fixated on the notion that DNA recovered from epithelial cells is the same as DNA recovered from blood. That's true, but the claim being made can simply be: "DNA was recovered, and testing did not indicate the presence of blood". You might not be able to distinguish "blood DNA" from "skin DNA", but forensic testing can identify the presence or absence of blood. Meanwhile, the reason the "skin DNA" evidence is so compelling is that the source of DNA the sheriff's department is alleged to have tampered with is blood. It's not clear how they could use that blood to place DNA under the hood of the car without it testing positive for blood.

gizmo 11y ago
I'm not sure what you're getting at. There was no blood under the hood, so obviously there was a difference source for that DNA. The key to the car was found in Avery's room in clear sight (after it had been searched 7 times already). The key was scrubbed clean, and only Avery's DNA was present, but not blood. No fingerprints. At any point a piece of his clothing could have been used (or a toothbrush) to rub some DNA on it. Same for the car hood. Trivial to plant when you have access to somebody's DNA. At any point during the search somebody could have picked up one of his socks, walked to the car, rubbed it wherever and walked away. I'm not saying it definitely happened this way, just that it would have been easy to do for anybody with access. While the article goes to lengths to claim that the documentary leaves out important evidence, but arguments they use to support that claim don't hold water. Their primary argument about the hood latch DNA contains a factual error and the assertion about planting the evidence being 'nearly impossible' is absurd. And that is apparently the best argument they have about the documentary being biased...
- DanBC 11y ago
  > The key was scrubbed clean There's a possibility that it was her spare key, not her main key. https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3z8pwn/summary_of_discussion_on_the_rav4_key/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3z8pwn/sum...
1024core 11y ago
> It's not clear how they could use that blood to place DNA under the hood of the car without it testing positive for blood. They had full control of his entire property for more than 8 days. They had access to his bedroom for that entire time. It would be trivial to just grab a used sock and swipe it on the latch.

masmullin 11y ago

> The article equates prosecutorial misconduct to force a guilty sentence with editorial choices in a documentary. Because both show "bias". In the one case it's utterly illegal and it undermines the moral validity of the justice system and in the other case we're talking about a simple exercise of free speech, but apparently this distinction isn't meaningful in the eyes of the author. This is the most important critique point. I'm glad you noticed it and mentioned it.

thieving_magpie 11y ago

>The article equates prosecutorial misconduct to force a guilty sentence with editorial choices in a documentary. I don't think the article is actually equating the two offenses. despite the quote you highlight. The point I took away is showing how easy it is to create a narrative. The show isn't a neutral piece, you can't get past the title without seeing that. I understand your point that the authorities have a much higher responsibility to be truthful and honorable in their duties. I just won't attack the entire article because they care to mention that a lot was left out. It's always important to think about anything you consume in this way.

gizmo 11y ago
Of course the show isn't a neutral piece, because there is no such thing as true neutrality. Editorial choices have to be made and those choices will in part reflect the opinions of the producers. That's always the case. I don't think the documentary is biased in the sense that it deliberately distorts the truth to fit a preconceived narrative, and the article doesn't certainly doesn't make a strong case contrariwise. I didn't totally hate the article. For instance I liked the points they made and the statistics they gave about the structural nature of forced confessions, false testimonies by police officers and the like. But they chose to emphasize the horrors of the narrative instead, even though the article itself -- by making that editoral choice -- is doing the exact same thing they condemn the documentary for. They highlight one thing at the expense of another thing, thereby creating a "biased" narrative. It's either sheer hypocrisy or the entire argument is asinine.
- thieving_magpie 11y ago
  I don't think they're "condemning" the documentary. They're just pointing out realities. >It's either sheer hypocrisy or the entire argument is asinine. A bold declaration. Everything doesn't boil down to right and wrong. There is nuance in the world and there is nuance in the article.

kbenson 11y ago

> Juries don't believe police officers would ever lie during testimony. > The public has to let go of this naive view of the world I think your words, reordered in this manner, are just as true. It's just as naive to believe that juries will trust a police officer just because of their profession without any consideration to further supplied evidence as it is to believe that police officers are infallible. We're talking about people here, with all the complexities, history and motivations that come along with that. Let's not degrade this discussion by stereotyping the groups involved.

wfo 11y ago
Jurors are selected specifically out of the general population to be deferential to authority and law enforcement because of the way selection works.