News that makes you say WTF! (42 Viewers)

[Seven]

10 hours? Sorry, but...

It's bad enough that I have to see things like this in my newsfeed:

‘Making a Murderer’ Prosecutor Emails Us 9 Reasons Steven Avery Is Guilty
http://www.thewrap.com/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-ken-kratz-steven-avery-9-reasons-guilty/

The Court of Public Opinion is the most b.s. court around. It's wholly the wrong forum for this discussion.

Well.. I disagree. It's one of the reasons you have a jury in the first place. And 10 hours may be overkill, but you do need that to get at least some feeling for the case. And Ken Kratz alone really makes it worth your time.

But mostly I'm glad that stuff like this gets attention. It's not ideal and a documentary is never totally objective, but the mistakes that were made are not acceptable.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[swag]

Well.. I disagree. It's one of the reasons you have a jury in the first place. And 10 hours may be overkill, but you do need that to get at least some feeling for the case. And Ken Kratz alone really makes it worth your time.

But mostly I'm glad that stuff like this gets attention. It's not ideal and a documentary is never totally objective, but the mistakes that were made are not acceptable.

The jury exists because of the idea that the biases of judges and officials cannot be trusted for the common man. But the jury system only works if it's under the direct guidance of a system that both knows the procedure of law but also ensures due process to that procedure. The prosecutor or defendant should not be left to explain their case over emails after the fact. That's an indicator of how that measure of judgement is a failure.

The documentary leads viewers to believe they know enough about the case, they have a fair and accurate representation of the information from both prosecution and defense, and that they can make a fair judgement, which is a complete lie. There are concepts such as "jury instructions", counsel objections, cross examination, the validity and legal relevance of evidence in a trial, etc., that are completely left out of this process -- leaving people with a completely fake sense of what makes a fair trial.

I've been on enough juries to know.

 

[Seven]

The jury exists because of the idea that the biases of judges and officials cannot be trusted for the common man. But the jury system only works if it's under the direct guidance of a system that both knows the procedure of law but also ensures due process to that procedure. The prosecutor or defendant should not be left to explain their case over emails after the fact. That's an indicator of how that measure of judgement is a failure.

The documentary leads viewers to believe they know enough about the case, they have a fair and accurate representation of the information from both prosecution and defense, and that they can make a fair judgement, which is a complete lie. There are concepts such as "jury instructions", counsel objections, cross examination, the validity and legal relevance of evidence in a trial, etc., that are completely left out of this process -- leaving people with a completely fake sense of what makes a fair trial.

I've been on enough juries to know.

I get your objections. But I do know about this stuff and I still liked it. And I also know that I know very little about the case. But the mistakes are so awful and so basic that they raise enormous questions. No, you can't make a decision on Avery's guilt based on that documentary. But you can see that both the prosecutor and the police made (borderline criminal) mistakes.

 

[swag]

I get your objections. But I do know about this stuff and I still liked it. And I also know that I know very little about the case. But the mistakes are so awful and so basic that they raise enormous questions. No, you can't make a decision on Avery's guilt based on that documentary. But you can see that both the prosecutor and the police made (borderline criminal) mistakes.

I bolded the important part. It's great that you enjoyed it. That is, after all, the #1 job of entertainment. But fair trials are not about being enjoyed, which is more to my point. That said, there are 200,000 signatures on a Change.org petition from people who think their 10 hours of documentary viewing makes them a qualified substitute juror to the trial. That's the sad part.

 

[Seven]

I bolded the important part. It's great that you enjoyed it. That is, after all, the #1 job of entertainment. But fair trials are not about being enjoyed, which is more to my point. That said, there are 200,000 signatures on a Change.org petition from people who think their 10 hours of documentary viewing makes them a qualified substitute juror to the trial. That's the sad part.

Yeah, they're wrong about that. And I'm glad you took your jury duty seriously. Nevertheless the documentary does provide enough evidence of mistakes both of the police and the prosecutor.

And being outraged by those mistakes is not the same as thinking you're a juror.

 

[KB824]

Dafuq is it with Netflix subscribers wanting to replace our due process judicial system with binge-watching entertainment as the standard of justice?

Over 200,000 people have signed petitions to free Steven Avery of the Netflix show “Making a Murderer”
http://qz.com/585709/over-200000-pe...-avery-of-the-netflix-show-making-a-murderer/

I live in a nation of morons.

You know I have Netflix, and I really like it. I love the documentaries they have.

But I had no idea this program even existed

 

[Enron]

Theres an even crazier one about canadian justice

 

[swag]

It's like the American one, but with rounder bacon.

 

[DAiDEViL]

Christmas is a time for bearing gifts...

Man drowns himself in Austrian lake using concrete block with wife's head inside
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...austrian-lake-concrete-block-wife-head-inside

can‘t make this up @Ocelot

...never mind...they are german @lgorTudor

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/kriminalitaet/mord-und-selbstmord-tote-im-traunsee-waren-ehepaar-aus-hessen-13999232.html

 

[lgorTudor]

can't make this up @Ocelot

...never mind...they are german @lgorTudor

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/kriminalitaet/mord-und-selbstmord-tote-im-traunsee-waren-ehepaar-aus-hessen-13999232.html

And they are aus der Nähe von Frankfurt am Main

 

[swag]

Man tells his wife she wants some head. Who would have thought it would have been encased in concrete?

 

[king Ale]

The jury exists because of the idea that the biases of judges and officials cannot be trusted for the common man. But the jury system only works if it's under the direct guidance of a system that both knows the procedure of law but also ensures due process to that procedure. The prosecutor or defendant should not be left to explain their case over emails after the fact. That's an indicator of how that measure of judgement is a failure.

The documentary leads viewers to believe they know enough about the case, they have a fair and accurate representation of the information from both prosecution and defense, and that they can make a fair judgement, which is a complete lie. There are concepts such as "jury instructions", counsel objections, cross examination, the validity and legal relevance of evidence in a trial, etc., that are completely left out of this process -- leaving people with a completely fake sense of what makes a fair trial.

I've been on enough juries to know.

- - - Updated - - -



http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.695633

 

[Ocelot]

The jury exists because of the idea that the biases of judges and officials cannot be trusted for the common man. But the jury system only works if it's under the direct guidance of a system that both knows the procedure of law but also ensures due process to that procedure. The prosecutor or defendant should not be left to explain their case over emails after the fact. That's an indicator of how that measure of judgement is a failure.

The documentary leads viewers to believe they know enough about the case, they have a fair and accurate representation of the information from both prosecution and defense, and that they can make a fair judgement, which is a complete lie. There are concepts such as "jury instructions", counsel objections, cross examination, the validity and legal relevance of evidence in a trial, etc., that are completely left out of this process -- leaving people with a completely fake sense of what makes a fair trial.

I've been on enough juries to know.

I agree, but on the other hand these documentaries do serve a very valuable role in making such faulty trial procedures public. What needs to happen of course is not primarily the overturning of this specific case, but rather a general discussion about how such mistakes in conducting trials (which in all probability aren't confined to just this case alone) can be avoided in the future.

And without this program, most people probably wouldn't even be aware that these issues exist.

 

[Seven]

- - - Updated - - -



http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.695633

The jury exists because of the idea that the biases of judges and officials cannot be trusted for the common man. But the jury system only works if it's under the direct guidance of a system that both knows the procedure of law but also ensures due process to that procedure. The prosecutor or defendant should not be left to explain their case over emails after the fact. That's an indicator of how that measure of judgement is a failure.

The documentary leads viewers to believe they know enough about the case, they have a fair and accurate representation of the information from both prosecution and defense, and that they can make a fair judgement, which is a complete lie. There are concepts such as "jury instructions", counsel objections, cross examination, the validity and legal relevance of evidence in a trial, etc., that are completely left out of this process -- leaving people with a completely fake sense of what makes a fair trial.

I've been on enough juries to know.

You know, after reading your comment again, I can't believe how jaded and cynical you folks are. You haven't seen the actual thing, yet you assume that the trial must have been fair. It happened in a court of law after all, right? And I get that you've been on juries. Awesome. But apparently you don't realise how malleable the system really is. The questions that are raised by the documentary are fundamental. And to ignore them without any consideration whatsoever is morally reprehensible.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree, but on the other hand these documentaries do serve a very valuable role in making such faulty trial procedures public. What needs to happen of course is not primarily the overturning of this specific case, but rather a general discussion about how such mistakes in conducting trials (which in all probability aren't confined to just this case alone) can be avoided in the future.

And without this program, most people probably wouldn't even be aware that these issues exist.

Yes, this is the obvious conclusion. But Greg doesn't reach it, because the system consists of checks and balances and allows for better justice than a documentary. So you can just ignore the documentary altogether and you don't ever have to fix the system.

 

[Ocelot]

Yes, this is the obvious conclusion. But Greg doesn't reach it, because the system consists of checks and balances and allows for better justice than a documentary. So you can just ignore the documentary altogether and you don't ever have to fix the system.

What I think Greg is primarily taking offense of, and understandably so, is that people demand to have a guy convicted freed on account of a TV-documentary. And that's certainly questionable.

I think the documentary should basically be treated as a piece of investigative journalism.

 

[Seven]

What I think Greg is primarily taking offense of, and understandably so, is that people demand to have a guy convicted freed on account of a TV-documentary. And that's certainly questionable.

I think the documentary should basically be treated as a piece of investigative journalism.

Of course the guy shouldn't be freed just because of Making A Murderer.

But the big problem is that the errors that were made are so heavy that it becomes hard to actually have a case against him. I understand that we know very little about the case. In fact as a lawyer the first thing you learn will always be to try and get all the facts. So I won't say that Avery should be freed. But I will say that it strikes me as odd that:

- Brendan Dassey's very own public defender allowed him to be interrogated without his attorney present (Dassey who by the way seems like a special needs kid);
- Law enforcement officers put words in Dassey's mouth and are basically acting like a perfect example of how to get a false confession;
- Kachinsky is replaced as Dassey's public defender because of his glaring professional mistakes, yet Dassey's confession is still allowed to be used in court.

If you then look at Dassey's case in particular (this kid is also still in jail but people seem to forget), you have to wonder if the system didn't just decide to fuck him over, because it sure looks like it did.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and since people will say the documentary is onesided: I read Dassey's confession transcript. If anything the documentary is kind to the officers involved.

 

[Ocelot]

Of course the guy shouldn't be freed just because of Making A Murderer.

But the big problem is that the errors that were made are so heavy that it becomes hard to actually have a case against him. I understand that we know very little about the case. In fact as a lawyer the first thing you learn will always be to try and get all the facts. So I won't say that Avery should be freed. But I will say that it strikes me as odd that:

- Brendan Dassey's very own public defender allowed him to be interrogated without his attorney present (Dassey who by the way seems like a special needs kid);
- Law enforcement officers put words in Dassey's mouth and are basically acting like a perfect example of how to get a false confession;
- Kachinsky is replaced as Dassey's public defender because of his glaring professional mistakes, yet Dassey's confession is still allowed to be used in court.

If you then look at Dassey's case in particular (this kid is also still in jail but people seem to forget), you have to wonder if the system didn't just decide to fuck him over, because it sure looks like it did.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and since people will say the documentary is onesided: I read Dassey's confession transcript. If anything the documentary is kind to the officers involved.

Oh, I fully agree.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

It's weird that you should say it like that, when it's pretty damn clear that Steven Avery's rights were not respected. I can only assume you haven't watched the documentary, because the standard of the American legal system seems incredibly low. I understand that it's Wisconsin and not New York, but to be frank that shouldn't matter.

Combine this sort of stuff with atrocities such as the Texas felony murder rule or the random imprisonment of alleged terrorists and at times your legal system looks like something from the Dark Ages.

Replacing it with binge-watching entertainment is not such a bad idea to be fair.

this, really, i am against public opinion jury but gross miscarriages of justice get a pass and this is one of them, it has nothing to do with whether he did or not, though if he did the sheriff party is just as guilty imo, hence the title of the thing, i only saw the first 2 episodes, but for me there was enough evidence for mistrial and to sentence the sheriff office fuckers to life behind bars. i posted about another crazy case on facebook http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/oakland-raiders-anthony-wayne-smith-guilty-murder-chargers-110515

 

[Seven]

this, really, i am against public opinion jury but gross miscarriages of justice get a pass and this is one of them, it has nothing to do with whether he did or not, though if he did the sheriff party is just as guilty imo, hence the title of the thing, i only saw the first 2 episodes, but for me there was enough evidence for mistrial and to sentence the sheriff office fuckers to life behind bars. i posted about another crazy case on facebook http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/oakland-raiders-anthony-wayne-smith-guilty-murder-chargers-110515

Exactly. Perhaps even in a fair trial one would reach the conclusion that Avery is guilty. But the thing is, he didn't get one. And that should be a worry for everyone.

Also, it's mindboggling that people in this very thread will defend the system above all else, when we know that that very system actually did put an innocent man in jail for 18 years.

 

[Enron]

Exactly. Perhaps even in a fair trial one would reach the conclusion that Avery is guilty. But the thing is, he didn't get one. And that should be a worry for everyone.

Also, it's mindboggling that people in this very thread will defend the system above all else, when we know that that very system actually did put an innocent man in jail for 18 years.

Probably the cause for the murder that ended him up in prison for life. He wasn't a murderer when he went in, but he was when he came out.