Nah. He's got the right stuff. Whoa whoaInteresting read. Somehow I think it's more likely that Avery is 100% innocent than Whalberg actually wrote that entire piece by himself.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nah. He's got the right stuff. Whoa whoaInteresting read. Somehow I think it's more likely that Avery is 100% innocent than Whalberg actually wrote that entire piece by himself.
A fairly well written article, but Mark Wahlberg's brother is as guilty of assumptions as the next man... he misinterpreted the defense lawyer in his critical 9th point:
"Avery’s lawyers seem very admirable and incredibly competent, but if you build a case on the premise that “the police framed an innocent man,” and subsequently tell the jury “I do not believe the police frame innocent people,” haven’t you essentially told the jury your client is not innocent?"
He does this by taking the statement out of context (a trait that can be seen in both the prosecutors, documentary makers, and Netflix watchers alike). The lawyer's point, which is continued in his statement is that he believe that the police thought that avery was guilty and proceeded as such. I think this is fairly obvious in the way they didn't consider or even seriously question her ex-boyfriend or male roommate (who were both able to hack into her phone records). The lawyers full quote was:
“I do not believe the police frame innocent people, they frame people that they think are guilty.”
To me, unlike Mr. Wahlberg, this was pretty straight forward, as the prosecution was asserting that the defense was insinuating that the police murdered and moved the body to frame Steven... the statement basically says the police over stepped their bounds by becoming the judge and jury, and trying to add damning evidence to the case, instead of presenting the evidence that existed. Whether this was true I will never know.
As others have said, it wouldn't surprise me if Avery did it. But the police really blundered this investigation and may have caused a reasonable doubt.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Something all too many seem to forget, because of the one sided nature of this 'series'This is the most important part of this whole story
https://medium.com/@dianaalvear/her...-making-of-a-murderer-f95becb4c628#.tpm1iadwe
This is the most important part of this whole story
https://medium.com/@dianaalvear/her...-making-of-a-murderer-f95becb4c628#.tpm1iadwe
Something all too many seem to forget, because of the one sided nature of this 'series'
To be fair. Probable cause was created by Avery. The prosecution created the potential for reasonable doubt. Which the jury did not find.I agree completely, which makes law enforcement handling of the case all the more difficult. I am not one of those "free Steven Avery" guys. He is the absolute most likely to have committed the crime. Just convict him ethically, morally and without creating probable cause. The probable cause in this case was created entirely by law enforcement behavior.
This case wouldn't be front a center in the public conscience if not for the way police and the DA handed it.
editedTo be fair. Probable cause was created by Avery. The prosecution (and law enforcement) created the potential for reasonable doubt. Which the jury did not find.
To be fair. Probable cause was created by Avery. The prosecution created the potential for reasonable doubt. Which the jury did not find.
Admittedly, my mind often takes the "road less traveled", meaning I tend to think about things nobody else would. After watching the entire series, I couldn't help but think how absolutely insane Avery's "girlfriend" must be to seek out someone with his history for a "relationship". And when I say "his history", throw out anything from the original case in 1985, it is still pretty disturbing! I mean, it isn't like he could have met her at random, he was in prison. She had to seek him out!
She seemed like an odd bird. Although maybe that is because she is quite a bit older and just lost her husband... although a convicted murderer is one hell of a reboundI also thought this aspect weird.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree completely, which makes law enforcement handling of the case all the more difficult. I am not one of those "free Steven Avery" guys. He is the absolute most likely to have committed the crime. Just convict him ethically, morally and without creating {probable cause} reasonable doubt. The {probable cause} reasonable doubt in this case was created entirely by law enforcement behavior.
This case wouldn't be front a center in the public conscience if not for the way police and the DA handed it.
Here's the problem.
The standard to convict is incredibly difficult. No matter how small the doubt, as long as it is reasonable, is enough to prevent a guilty verdict. It's an incredibly high standard, because we want to be as certain as possible when we are putting someone in prison (or, in some states, condemning someone to death).
Steven Avery is a pretty unsavory person, and by his own admission he's done a lot of criminal (and scummy) things. With that said, if you cannot be certain that he committed murder, you cannot commit.
Based on what I've seen in the documentary and online on this case, I'm not sure there's enough evidence to convict regardless of what appears to be police and prosecutional tampering.
Here's the problem.
The standard to convict is incredibly difficult. No matter how small the doubt, as long as it is reasonable, is enough to prevent a guilty verdict. It's an incredibly high standard, because we want to be as certain as possible when we are putting someone in prison (or, in some states, condemning someone to death).
Steven Avery is a pretty unsavory person, and by his own admission he's done a lot of criminal (and scummy) things. With that said, if you cannot be certain that he committed murder, you cannot commit.
Based on what I've seen in the documentary and online on this case, I'm not sure there's enough evidence to convict regardless of what appears to be police and prosecutional tampering.
Here's the problem.
The standard to convict is incredibly difficult. No matter how small the doubt, as long as it is reasonable, is enough to prevent a guilty verdict. It's an incredibly high standard, because we want to be as certain as possible when we are putting someone in prison (or, in some states, condemning someone to death).
Steven Avery is a pretty unsavory person, and by his own admission he's done a lot of criminal (and scummy) things. With that said, if you cannot be certain that he committed murder, you cannot commit.
Based on what I've seen in the documentary and online on this case, I'm not sure there's enough evidence to convict regardless of what appears to be police and prosecutional tampering.
Which begs the question, what was going through the jury's mind at deliberations? Maybe that's answered in the TV Series (I am done calling this a documentary, because it's not), I don't have Netflix.
I am not going to weigh in on guilt or innocence. I am not privy to evidence files, trial transcripts and testimony. Neither is anyone viewing this thread. We are privy to what filmmakers want us to see. I am simply appalled at the actions of law enforcement and prosecutors in the case. Those actions leave little doubt as to their mindset leading up to the arrest and ultimate conviction of Steven Avery.
I completely agree with your view on the standard to convict but cannot agree in the slightest with your statement "Based on what I've seen in the documentary and online on this case, I'm not sure there's enough evidence to convict". There can be no question whether enough evidence exists to convict. He was convicted!
Now if you want to argue the legitimacy of the evidence used to convict raises considerable reasonable doubt based solely on the actions of law enforcement and the DA's office, I couldn't agree more. In my opinion, the evidence is sufficient for a guilty verdict based solely on the fact a guilty verdict was reached. The legitimacy of that verdict based on methods used to collect evidence in the case raises several red flags.
This story is pretty bad timing. Wisconsin County Sheriff's offices need to get their sh!t together.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wiscon...f-convicted-killer-b99647249z1-364446091.html
PS. I do not disagree with this hiring. I just found the timing of this story to be unfortunate.
We're on the same pagei really love all the people saying this guy can't do IT stuff. It's not like he's a deputy. Clearly they do not believe in rehabilitation even after 20+ years of being a member of society.