So i'd heard alot about this from various friends and social media and what not. Decided to watch it.
What the fuck is going on? The whole ten hours my jaw was just wide open.
TIM ANSWER FOR YOUR HOME STATE.
It is currently: Apr 27, '24, 6:50 am |
PorkChop wrote:I'm on the second episode. I'm not quite wetting myself in anticipation of the third one, but it's a good watch.
Everlong wrote:PorkChop wrote:I'm on the second episode. I'm not quite wetting myself in anticipation of the third one, but it's a good watch.
I think it's either the third or fourth episode where I started getting really pissed off with everything So don't worry, it's coming.
PorkChop wrote:Everlong wrote:PorkChop wrote:I'm on the second episode. I'm not quite wetting myself in anticipation of the third one, but it's a good watch.
I think it's either the third or fourth episode where I started getting really pissed off with everything So don't worry, it's coming.
Yeah, I've just watched episodes 3 and 4 and now I'm mad as fuck.
DBSoT wrote:I watched the whole thing a couple weeks ago and I still am not sure whether Steven Avery did it or not. As bad as the investigation was botched, it is hard to say he is innocent when there really is no other suspect. If I was a juror, I would have a hard time not convicting him. Brendan Dassey is a tougher case, becuase the kid is clearly mentally challenged and was unsure how to answer the cops questioning.
I guess I didn't explain my point well enough. I would lean more towards conviction then anything else. All the evidence placed in front of the jury says that Avery is guilty. The only real argument that Avery's lawyers could make was that the cops screwed up the investigation. There isn't enough evidence to prove the cops framed Avery and there isn't evidence of anyone else being involved. If all the evidence points to one person and there is nothing else to go on, then if I was a juror, I would convict. It is a tough call, but I would need some evidence that points away from Steven Avery.Everlong wrote:DBSoT wrote:I watched the whole thing a couple weeks ago and I still am not sure whether Steven Avery did it or not. As bad as the investigation was botched, it is hard to say he is innocent when there really is no other suspect. If I was a juror, I would have a hard time not convicting him. Brendan Dassey is a tougher case, becuase the kid is clearly mentally challenged and was unsure how to answer the cops questioning.
Yeah my takeaway is that whether Avery did it or not, the investigation and prosecution was so utterly fucked up that he never should have been jailed for it. There's more than enough reasonable doubt for him to have stayed free, and I'd rather have a potentially guilty person walk free than a potentially innocent person behind bars.
DBSoT wrote:I guess I didn't explain my point well enough. I would lean more towards conviction then anything else. All the evidence placed in front of the jury says that Avery is guilty. The only real argument that Avery's lawyers could make was that the cops screwed up the investigation. There isn't enough evidence to prove the cops framed Avery and there isn't evidence of anyone else being involved. If all the evidence points to one person and there is nothing else to go on, then if I was a juror, I would convict. It is a tough call, but I would need some evidence that points away from Steven Avery.Everlong wrote:DBSoT wrote:I watched the whole thing a couple weeks ago and I still am not sure whether Steven Avery did it or not. As bad as the investigation was botched, it is hard to say he is innocent when there really is no other suspect. If I was a juror, I would have a hard time not convicting him. Brendan Dassey is a tougher case, becuase the kid is clearly mentally challenged and was unsure how to answer the cops questioning.
Yeah my takeaway is that whether Avery did it or not, the investigation and prosecution was so utterly fucked up that he never should have been jailed for it. There's more than enough reasonable doubt for him to have stayed free, and I'd rather have a potentially guilty person walk free than a potentially innocent person behind bars.
DBSoT wrote:The only real argument that Avery's lawyers could make was that the cops screwed up the investigation. There isn't enough evidence to prove the cops framed Avery and there isn't evidence of anyone else being involved. If all the evidence points to one person and there is nothing else to go on, then if I was a juror, I would convict. It is a tough call, but I would need some evidence that points away from Steven Avery.
Everlong wrote:If it's a "tough call," then you never, ever convict. That's recklessly negligent and is how innocent people wind up in jail.
PorkChop wrote:Everlong wrote:If it's a "tough call," then you never, ever convict. That's recklessly negligent and is how innocent people wind up in jail.
When I did jury service, absolutely nobody understood this. We had a couple of people vote guilty because although they weren't sure based on the evidence (or rather, lack of evidence) "he looks like the kind of person to do it" and therefore voted guilty. It was a thoroughly depressing experience.
17 posts
• Page 1 of 1
|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests