4 ms·

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 offi

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.
- felixgallo 11y ago
  With all due respect, horseshit. It doesn't matter how much extra information was presented to the jury; the other cops stated in testimony that the key and the bullet were not present in those locations on many prior police searches. The stories the Manitowoc police tried to offer in order to explain their conflict were fantastical and clearly made up. And these weren't cut-up out of context snippets; these statements were all full questions and complete answers at trial.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    This shows a severe lack of imagination with regard to this. You heard testimony about the bullet, but there's not guarantee you heard all the testimony. There could have been followup testimony about how some previously unopened item, was opened or was jostled. Whether or not it would change your opinion is not the point, the point is if there was testimony to that effect, it wasn't presented, and at this time I don't trust the documentary enough to think they would present it if it was present. That leaves me unsure of how much to trust what I did hear, since it was out of context at best, and in a constructed or fictional context at worst. If your only source of information is the documentary, then I consider your information and opinions as likely to misinformed as informed, just as I would consider that of myself at this point.
    - felixgallo 11y ago
      apparently you haven't even seen the documentary. Please go watch it before you start blathering on and on to absolute strangers about their severe lack of imagination, kiddo.
      - kbenson 11y ago
        I've watched 6 of the 10 episodes, as stated elsewhere. I'll happily recant if one of the people on the stand says "Yes, I planted this evidence" in the remaining episodes. Otherwise, there's plenty of opportunity for a one-sided representation given > Please go watch it before you start blathering on and on to absolute strangers about their severe lack of imagination, kiddo. Lack of imagination with regard to this. But hey, why bother to be civil when it's so much easier to look for suspected disrespect so you can respond in kind.
    - lobster_johnson 11y ago
      For those interested in going deeper, all the trial transcripts, as well as a lot of caas efiles, are available online now: http://www.stevenaverycase.org http://www.stevenaverycase.org.

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.

felixgallo 11y ago
With all due respect, horseshit. It doesn't matter how much extra information was presented to the jury; the other cops stated in testimony that the key and the bullet were not present in those locations on many prior police searches. The stories the Manitowoc police tried to offer in order to explain their conflict were fantastical and clearly made up. And these weren't cut-up out of context snippets; these statements were all full questions and complete answers at trial.
- kbenson 11y ago
  This shows a severe lack of imagination with regard to this. You heard testimony about the bullet, but there's not guarantee you heard all the testimony. There could have been followup testimony about how some previously unopened item, was opened or was jostled. Whether or not it would change your opinion is not the point, the point is if there was testimony to that effect, it wasn't presented, and at this time I don't trust the documentary enough to think they would present it if it was present. That leaves me unsure of how much to trust what I did hear, since it was out of context at best, and in a constructed or fictional context at worst. If your only source of information is the documentary, then I consider your information and opinions as likely to misinformed as informed, just as I would consider that of myself at this point.
  - felixgallo 11y ago
    apparently you haven't even seen the documentary. Please go watch it before you start blathering on and on to absolute strangers about their severe lack of imagination, kiddo.
    - kbenson 11y ago
      I've watched 6 of the 10 episodes, as stated elsewhere. I'll happily recant if one of the people on the stand says "Yes, I planted this evidence" in the remaining episodes. Otherwise, there's plenty of opportunity for a one-sided representation given > Please go watch it before you start blathering on and on to absolute strangers about their severe lack of imagination, kiddo. Lack of imagination with regard to this. But hey, why bother to be civil when it's so much easier to look for suspected disrespect so you can respond in kind.
  - lobster_johnson 11y ago
    For those interested in going deeper, all the trial transcripts, as well as a lot of caas efiles, are available online now: http://www.stevenaverycase.org http://www.stevenaverycase.org.