Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Member |
Did a search and did not see this discussed. Watched several episodes. (To the start of the nephew's trial) Documentary style with actual footage of court proceedings etc... Follows the saga of Steven Avery in Wisconsin from back in the 1980's. Kind of a wild story up to the point I've seen it. Anyone familiar with the case? Feel like I have to be missing something here. | ||
|
| Leatherneck |
I watched it shortly after it came out. Then I did some reading and unsurprisingly it appears as though the filmmakers left a few things out in order to make him seem more innocent. There is a season 2 where the filmmakers try to respond to some of the criticisms but I never finished that season. I’d recommend watching the entire documentary then spending some time reading the criticisms before you pass judgment. The dude absolutely got screwed the first time around and there was definitely some shady shit going on with that county’s justice system. That doesn’t mean he’s innocent but I can see why people are suspicious. “Everybody wants a Sig in the sheets but a Glock on the streets.” -bionic218 04-02-2014 | |||
|
| Member |
Yeah, I don't doubt that the filmmakers put their slant on things. But as you said, facts show he was screwed by a corrupt county system in round one. Then the second crime happens. Same county says that they are turning the investigation over to another county because the $32 million lawsuit is under way. Except they don't. Appears to me they are the only one's to find key evidence. For example her car key found in his bedroom and the bullet found in the garage after the other county had searched those locations multiple times. Even with additional evidence that may have been left out by the filmmakers I can't see how a jury got past reasonable doubt. | |||
|
| Leatherneck |
I really don’t remember all the evidence or anything as it’s been a few years, I just recall his guilty verdict seeming not so outlandish after I spent some time reading other facts. “Everybody wants a Sig in the sheets but a Glock on the streets.” -bionic218 04-02-2014 | |||
|
Member |
So much has been left out by the producers of this offering, that I'd be hard pressed to call it a "documentary". It's a work of fiction based on actual incidents. I participated in a panel discussion regarding this program and included was the principal defense attorney that represented Steven Avery. He admitted that the producers failed to fairly present several key aspects of the defense claims that were totally revealed to be false (ie: that blood samples were used to "plant evidence"), but it's belief that if changes (to the justice system) he supports occur as a result of misrepresentations like this, it's worth it. In other words: The ends justifies the means.  The mischaracterization of Avery's cousin's questioning is a perfect example. I watched the documentary at least three times, homing in on these snippets (about then minutes total) and at first thought the minor was improperly questioned (fed answers the investigators wanted to hear: "contamination issues"). Watching the 3+ hours of interrogations (he had more than one), proved otherwise. The subject provided details that not only were later confirmed by other evidence, he led the police to recover pertinent evidence they hadn't been previously aware of. If anything, this production should be viewed as a cautionary tale on how easily details can be "cherry-picked" to manipulate an audience, in a way that no defense attorney could get away with in a court of law. This is way we should never expect real justice in the "court of public opinion." "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken." | |||
|
| Member |
Thank you for your input. Your explanation of the cherry picked details makes sense. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024