Netflix: Making a Murderer

[frankotank]

Originally Posted by frankotank

the key having no other dna on it other than averys...wow.
I think he could be guilty.... he could be. he could have done it. but...from what I've seen, if I was on the jury I'd have to say I have reasonable doubt, so I'd have to vote not guilty. how in the **** any of those jurors could sit there and honestly say they have no doubt is just beyond me! they didn't know of Avery's previous involvement with the victim....so what...there was enough evidence to provide doubt.

Originally Posted by Pestilence

Never been on a jury before?

what's your point?

Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction.

that is the jurors duty.
so I'll say again.....reworded...how in the **** any of those jurors could sit there and honestly say they have NO reasonable doubt is just beyond me!

as a matter of fact it was discussed that initially it was pretty much split down the middle and that a couple of folks were total turds in their lack of participation and lack of entertaining any other concept other than GUILTY. too bad none of the folks that DID have reasonable doubt folded and went with the crowd. seems to me they failed in their duty. if you have a reasonable doubt...then you must vote not guilty. amiright?

hell the cops from the first wrongful conviction....their absolute and TOTAL participation would have been enough of a reasonable doubt for me. not to mention the lack of blood in either supposed murder scene.
honestly....I think he probably did it. but as a juror....I'm pretty sure I'd have doubt.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by frankotank

what's your point?

Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction.

that is the jurors duty.
so I'll say again.....reworded...how in the **** any of those jurors could sit there and honestly say they have NO reasonable doubt is just beyond me!

as a matter of fact it was discussed that initially it was pretty much split down the middle and that a couple of folks were total turds in their lack of participation and lack of entertaining any other concept other than GUILTY. too bad none of the folks that DID have reasonable doubt folded and went with the crowd. seems to me they failed in their duty. if you have a reasonable doubt...then you must vote not guilty. amiright?

hell the cops from the first wrongful conviction....their absolute and TOTAL participation would have been enough of a reasonable doubt for me. not to mention the lack of blood in either supposed murder scene.
honestly....I think he probably did it. but as a juror....I'm pretty sure I'd have doubt.

Wasn't even split down the middle. According to the juror that was medically dismissed, when they initially started deliberations there were 7 that thought not guilty, 3 guilty, and 2 undecided. But the 3 that thought he was guilty were adamant, and possibly had their minds made up before the trial.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by frankotank

what's your point?

Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction.

that is the jurors duty.
so I'll say again.....reworded...how in the **** any of those jurors could sit there and honestly say they have NO reasonable doubt is just beyond me!

as a matter of fact it was discussed that initially it was pretty much split down the middle and that a couple of folks were total turds in their lack of participation and lack of entertaining any other concept other than GUILTY. too bad none of the folks that DID have reasonable doubt folded and went with the crowd. seems to me they failed in their duty. if you have a reasonable doubt...then you must vote not guilty. amiright?

hell the cops from the first wrongful conviction....their absolute and TOTAL participation would have been enough of a reasonable doubt for me. not to mention the lack of blood in either supposed murder scene.
honestly....I think he probably did it. but as a juror....I'm pretty sure I'd have doubt.

There was defntely reasonable doubt. No blood at the scene. 4 months later they find the evidence? Give me a break. He may be guilty but the cops totally ****ed this up. Just how did he kill her like they say he did without the blood being everywhere?

[Swanman]

I see that Kathleen Zellner has picked up Avery's case. She specializes in exonerations and has like 13 so far. Brendan's case was picked up by Northwestern so he is in good hands as well.

[SAGA45]

Originally Posted by Swanman

I see that Kathleen Zellner has picked up Avery's case. She specializes in exonerations and has like 13 so far. Brendan's case was picked up by Northwestern so he is in good hands as well.

YES!!!

I noticed the listing on Netflix as "Season 1"....so perhaps they will follow the exoneration proceedings as well. I want him out before either of his parents pass.

[Swanman]

Originally Posted by SAGA45

YES!!!

I noticed the listing on Netflix as "Season 1"....so perhaps they will follow the exoneration proceedings as well. I want him out before either of his parents pass.

This case is so damn much like the West Memphis Three that it's scary. If it continues to follow that path, there will be at least a few more hours of shows to follow the post-conviction stuff. The West Memphis Three HBO specials (called "Paradise Lost") are interesting in that part 1 just followed the trial and really didn't say anything about guilt/innocence. Part 2, 10 years later, introduced some questions and concerns that people had about the trial. Part 3, almost 10 years after that, basically just said, "holy shit, get those guys the **** out of prison!".