It sounds like you are saying that a conviction should be predicated on having at least one unquestionable, unassailable, "slam dunk" piece of evidence (above and beyond an eye witness, obviously) such as catching the perp with the victim's body. As far as the case(s) in question, I don't know of a piece of evidence that meets that criteria. As far as our justice system goes, I strongly disagree that it be structured that way.
I'm not saying that. I am saying a piece of evidence should stand as some sort of information on it's own. Yet so many pieces in this case do not. The blood drop, the car going unfound when being searched for specifically there for days, the bleach yet still dirty scene with existing old animal dna but no victim dna, the poor treatment of evidence collection regarding the burn barrel, the extremely unethical nature of the Dassey "confession," etc. And there is the hard, unassailable tenny-standard fact that the same exact LE and judicial system was completely wrong on this guy before. Which negates the claim of tenny that the conviction constitutes proof in itself.
Just saw the first episode, and agree that it is good so far. Thanks for the heads up. Spoiler: Steven Avery is the lead suspect.
oh damn, now i gotta watch. This is actually what I fear the situation actually is: Avery is a killer, but his convictions have been based on planted evidence. He actually was beating the system, so some cheated to make sure he didn't get away with it. But in doing so, it of course undermines the legitimacy of the system that is being circumvented.
I'm voting not guilty, and if I'm the only one then it'll be a mistrial and they'll do it all again.* Which isn't ideal, but better than a conviction. A jury trial is nothing other than a determination of whether a guy broke the rules. What it requires, in my humble estimation, is that all associated with the prosectiion of said guy play by the rules themselves. I have no moral qualms letting a guy who probably murdered somebody off in that scenario. Indeed, such a scenario is really an accepted occurrence in our criminal justice, said William Blackstone. *Though I'm actually not sure if all jurisdictions handle hung juries the same way.** **And yes that sounds like a great porno*** ***Indeed, I've seen it. Heather Hunter is a legend.
Yes, it's a 2 part addition with like 10 episodes. Part 2 is great. https://www.thedailybeast.com/makin...he-murder-theory-that-could-free-steven-avery
Don't want to spoil anything but she lays out 2 new suspects too. Also evidence that police and DA withheld evidence that would have implicated one of them big time.
She dropped some serious cash on this. I'm guessing she has the rights to the civil suit if she gets him off.
Brendans brother Bobby has a real morbid infatuation with dead girls, per his computer that the police seized from their house. Maybe the Dasseys in general are a sick bunch, but the information on that computer should have been shown to Averys attorneys.
The test they did with the DNA on the key was alarming. The state definitely framed Avery. I don't even care whether he's guilty.
This is what I have been saying since the first season. Whether he did it or not, the state definitely fabricated some of the evidence. But what I had wrong was that the police planted the blood. Looks like that was the killer. If the police aren't doing their jobs and indeed are helping to frame someone, an innocent person would have no chance.
How far along are you? You might be farther than me. I'm in the middle of episode 6. Also, after watching the first season I thought they framed him, but was about 75% sure they framed a guilty man. Now, I'm not sure he did it. He could have done it. I can't completely rule that out, but I'm starting to lean more towards the side of maybe he didn't do it. But even if he did, he should get off...imho. I know many would disagree with that.
