I think they went all out on punishment and charges for Brendan for not cooperating in the Avery prosecution. It's really messed up.
In a really ****ed up way, Brendan's first Public Defender may have been his best one. A certain Clayton Williams comment about the weather in Texas comes to mind.
quote:this thread is never going to die because each time someone in the texags universe finishes the doc, instead of reading through this thread, they're going to come post their amazing insight and go round and round with guitarsoup over arguments already made 100 times prior.
Anyone who watches this documentary and concludes with complete certainty that Avery is 100% guilty or 100% innocent is missing the point.
The point of this documentary is that the Justice system is designed to produce Convictions rather than Justice. The law enforcement had zero interest in investigating the crime to determine the identity of the murderer. From the second it happened, they had a laser-like focus on putting Avery in jail.
quote:What evidence did Dassey provide in the interview that was corroborated by physical evidence and the cops didn't already know?
From my understanding, everything Dassey said was either known by the cops (ie forced confession) or was not corroborated by physical evidence (ie made up)
What does it matter if the evidence was already known by the cops? That doesn't mean it is a forced confession. When Brendan came forward, Avery had already been arrested, so clearly the police felt they had enough evidence to convict. Brendan's testimony just corroborated some things they already believed to be true. For example, take this portion of the interview:
At this point, the police have already found the her purse, phone, etc. Brendan gives a very detailed description of the location in the barrel of these items. The police give him multiple chances to take back this part of the testimony, but he doesn't. These details are not know to the public at this time, so the only way Brendan could know this is if he saw it. I think Dassey originally came forward believe he could just implicate his uncle, and keep himself from going to jail. He was unaware of how much information the police already had, so he tries to keep his part of things out. After he gets caught in a lie, he then admits to the truth.
BTW, the fact that her cell phone, purse, and camera were found in the barrel on the Avery property is never mentioned in the documentary. Probably because they had no way to explain them away.
quote:this thread is never going to die because each time someone in the texags universe finishes the doc, instead of reading through this thread, they're going to come post their amazing insight and go round and round with guitarsoup over arguments already made 100 times prior.
Anyone who watches this documentary and concludes with complete certainty that Avery is 100% guilty or 100% innocent is missing the point.
The point of this documentary is that the Justice system is designed to produce Convictions rather than Justice. The law enforcement had zero interest in investigating the crime to determine the identity of the murderer. From the second it happened, they had a laser-like focus on putting Avery in jail.
i agree, but what does that have to do with me pointing out redundant arguments?
quote:I think they went all out on punishment and charges for Brendan for not cooperating in the Avery prosecution. It's really messed up.
I think you are exactly right. Had he testified against Avery, Brendan likely would have gotten a light sentence. Possibly he would have able to claim he was force into helping Avery because Avery threatened him (he mentions this in one of his confessions). However, I think the Avery family felt like they could beat this and convinced Brendan to change his story. In the end, that ended up screwing him.
quote:this thread is never going to die because each time someone in the texags universe finishes the doc, instead of reading through this thread, they're going to come post their amazing insight and go round and round with guitarsoup over arguments already made 100 times prior.
Anyone who watches this documentary and concludes with complete certainty that Avery is 100% guilty or 100% innocent is missing the point.
The point of this documentary is that the Justice system is designed to produce Convictions rather than Justice. The law enforcement had zero interest in investigating the crime to determine the identity of the murderer. From the second it happened, they had a laser-like focus on putting Avery in jail.
I don't think that's true. The film makers followed the story for a decade. I think they became friends with the family and wanted to paint him in a good light and possibly get him off. Possibly they just decided they wasted 10 years of their life following a guilty man and wanted to get something out of it. The film makers started following the Avery family before he was convicted, so they had no idea if he was being framed or was guilty.
I agree that the our Justice system is designed for convictions, and there are plenty of good examples of this; however, this is not a good example. If you look at the actual evidence (not just what was presented in the documentary), you will see that it is extremely likely Avery committed the crime. The manipulation of the film makers undercuts their argument. The problem is that most people believe the film is an honest representation of all the facts. It's clearly not. You really only hear the defense's arguments, which of course, makes everyone believe the defense.
quote:this thread is never going to die because each time someone in the texags universe finishes the doc, instead of reading through this thread, they're going to come post their amazing insight and go round and round with guitarsoup over arguments already made 100 times prior.
Anyone who watches this documentary and concludes with complete certainty that Avery is 100% guilty or 100% innocent is missing the point.
The point of this documentary is that the Justice system is designed to produce Convictions rather than Justice. The law enforcement had zero interest in investigating the crime to determine the identity of the murderer. From the second it happened, they had a laser-like focus on putting Avery in jail.
I don't think that's true. The film makers followed the story for a decade. I think they became friends with the family and wanted to paint him in a good light and possibly get him off. Possibly they just decided they wasted 10 years of their life following a guilty man and wanted to get something out of it. The film makers started following the Avery family before he was convicted, so they had no idea if he was being framed or was guilty.
I agree that the our Justice system is designed for convictions, and there are plenty of good examples of this; however, this is not a good example. If you look at the actual evidence (not just what was presented in the documentary), you will see that it is extremely likely Avery committed the crime. The manipulation of the film makers undercuts their argument. The problem is that most people believe the film is an honest representation of all the facts. It's clearly not. You really only hear the defense's arguments, which of course, makes everyone believe the defense.
Teresa's ex-boyfriend, the only person known to have access to her voicemail, was not interviewed by the police as a suspect. Instead, he was deputized to search Avery's property.
That is not filmmaker bias. That is law enforcement determined to get the conviction they want, regardless of facts.
quote:this thread is never going to die because each time someone in the texags universe finishes the doc, instead of reading through this thread, they're going to come post their amazing insight and go round and round with guitarsoup over arguments already made 100 times prior.
Anyone who watches this documentary and concludes with complete certainty that Avery is 100% guilty or 100% innocent is missing the point.
The point of this documentary is that the Justice system is designed to produce Convictions rather than Justice. The law enforcement had zero interest in investigating the crime to determine the identity of the murderer. From the second it happened, they had a laser-like focus on putting Avery in jail.
I don't think that's true. The film makers followed the story for a decade. I think they became friends with the family and wanted to paint him in a good light and possibly get him off. Possibly they just decided they wasted 10 years of their life following a guilty man and wanted to get something out of it. The film makers started following the Avery family before he was convicted, so they had no idea if he was being framed or was guilty.
I agree that the our Justice system is designed for convictions, and there are plenty of good examples of this; however, this is not a good example. If you look at the actual evidence (not just what was presented in the documentary), you will see that it is extremely likely Avery committed the crime. The manipulation of the film makers undercuts their argument. The problem is that most people believe the film is an honest representation of all the facts. It's clearly not. You really only hear the defense's arguments, which of course, makes everyone believe the defense.
But not beyond a reasonable doubt...
And there in lies the problem and why so many people are upset. Yes, it's probably Steve committed the crime and based on the evidence presented, he is the "most likely" person who did it.
But an overwhelming number of people believe there are still some holes and questions that need to be answered to say Steve is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is why so many people are upset about this.
And remember the documentary Maker's reached out to the family of Theresa, the detectives, Kratz and they all refused. They asked for and received a list of all the evidence Kratz wanted included in the documentary and that included the entire list.
If Brendan's original PD had encouraged him to cooperate with the police or take a plea IN EXCHANGE FOR A DEAL then yes, that might have been reasonable counsel. Instead the PD served his client up to the police to be interviewed without counsel or his parent, and used his own investigator to assist the prosecution's interrogation. That's beyond ineffective assist of counsel - that's borderline disbarrable malpractice
They didn't need Brendan's cooperation for Avery's trial- they knew his "confessions" weren't going to withstand cross-examination. So he got no consideration in his own sentencing.
quote: But an overwhelming number of people believe there are still some holes and questions that need to be answered to say Steve is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is why so many people are upset about this.
22 of 22 people who saw all the evidence believe Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey committed the crime. The documentary fails to remind people that it wasn't just Avery's jury who believe the evidence. It was also Dassey's. The people who are upset are upset because they saw a documentary which chose only small pieces of information from the trial, and also brought about mention of information which was not strong enough to bring to trial. People are basing their information on 10 hours of video which covered three cases. That is roughly one day of the trial. The Avery and Dassey cases were each six weeks long. Don't you think that maybe during that time there might have been some other evidence and testimony presented that caused all the jurors to come to the same conclusion?
There is zero physical evidence that implicated Brendan Dassey in any thing. None. Nada. Even Kratz does not argue otherwise. In fact, the physical evidence contradicts Dassey's confession in multiple ways.
I've seen enough interviews with people in those counties to not trust their judgement at all.
One juror that was dismissed after the case closed in the Avery case said he does not believe the state proved it's case. Another said they voted guilty because they were afraid of their personal safety and the safety of their family.
quote:One juror that was dismissed after the case closed in the Avery case said he does not believe the state proved it's case. Another said they voted guilty because they were afraid of their personal safety and the safety of their family.
It's worth noting.
True. At worst 21 of 23 jurors found the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. It still proves the point that the overwhelming # of people who have seen all the evidence believe both Dassey and Avery to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I find it an interesting statement on our society that more people are likely to believe a 10 hour documentary (in which the film makers and interviews are not under any sort of requirement to tell the truth) than a six week trial where everyone is sworn to testify under oath.
quote:I find it an interesting statement on our society that more people are likely to believe a 10 hour documentary (in which the film makers and interviews are not under any sort of requirement to tell the truth) than a six week trial where everyone is sworn to testify under oath.
well, people love having things tied up in a bow for them. People love thinking they are smarter than they are. And people hate acknowledging that certain things filmmakers do, such as ending episodes on cliffhangers and using musical score, or the portrayal/lack of portrayal of people or situations completely shape how you view them.
Perfect example is the brother of Teresa. People on this thread even, but all over the internet, just rampantly speculating, from things as silly as "doesn't look like he even cares" to "evil" to "probably took part in it" all because the filmmakers decided to ONLY show his press conference interviews in the way they did. Yes, the brother did not allow the filmmakers around his family so they didn't get inside access, but the way in which they portrayed the brother was cold, and it made you look at him that way. Hell it worked on me, but I can also acknowledge the documentary brilliantly used every effective tactic in the book to shape opinions.
And I also agree with the person who said the larger theme of this doc is not the Avery/Halbach/Dassey case, but to question the entire criminal justice system all together.
I love the hypocrisy of someone who says, "The brother just looks guilty!" while ignoring obvious DNA evidence. Those are the exact same people who would have convicted Avery back in 1985.
quote:One juror that was dismissed after the case closed in the Avery case said he does not believe the state proved it's case. Another said they voted guilty because they were afraid of their personal safety and the safety of their family.
It's worth noting.
True. At worst 21 of 23 jurors found the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. It still proves the point that the overwhelming # of people who have seen all the evidence believe both Dassey and Avery to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I find it an interesting statement on our society that more people are likely to believe a 10 hour documentary (in which the film makers and interviews are not under any sort of requirement to tell the truth) than a six week trial where everyone is sworn to testify under oath.
No, at best 21 of 23 people found that. Considering that seven jurors initially voted not guilty and at least one has said they felt their safety was threatened if they didn't convict, it is likely that at least one more juror thought the same way.
Kratz used all his strikes on educated people to have the dumbest, most impressionable jurors possible.
Many people, my self included have done a lot of reading on this in addition to the documentary.
You've got to be a Trump voter if you think there was no police tampering in this or reasonable doubt. Hint hint, you don't vote guilty if there is a reasonable doubt in your mind. Christ, people are so ****ing stupid.
Finished watching the series last night. Kratz's excitement in describing Avery's sweat drenched body during the press conference suddenly made sense during the sexting scandal reveal.
Just finished. Our justice system is broken. The DA and judge were pathetic. The detectives acted criminally with brendens confession and his lawyer should be disbarred.
Even if avery did kill her, there is enough there for reasonable doubt. People and juries forget the huge bar set for the prosecution.
