MovieChat Forums > Making a Murderer (2015) Discussion > The defense

The defense

posted 8 years ago by likepineapple2
56 replies | jump to latest

Accusing police corruption without solid evidence. If they had focused more on finding the true killer, or proving that victim left the Avery property alive, it might have been easier for the jurors to digest. Problem is, the judge forbids the defense to name a third party as possible suspect, so the defense really can't do much in that respect. The defense did some to poke holes in the prosecutors' story, but not highly convincing. Thing is, the prosecutors didn't have a complete story of how the alleged crime happened, where it happened, or what it happened with. There is no talk of murder weapon at all. Which gun did the accused use? Which knife did the accused use? No murder weapon, no fingerprint in the car, no fingerprint on the car key, no blood or other DNA of the victim anywhere indoors on the Avery property. I want to believe that the convicted is guilty, but how on earth could the victim be stabbed and shot dead and leave no trace at all at the crime scene

[–] paranoja 8 years ago

Ya, Avery was unlucky to have a rambling person for defense?

[–] theresnh 8 years ago

There is also a presumption of innocence. And the state was required to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I think it was evident that they did not prove that, as well that jurors were already biased. Whether he did it or not, the evidence was lacking. Talk about chain of custody...it was barely mentioned, but the fact that the blood vial was double breached, and then, that a needle was inserted in the top, demonstrates tampering. The test that the FBI officer came up with was not validated. Regardless, that was clear evidence that someone had tampered with evidence.

And the prosector's statement post-conviction "we knew what kind of man we were dealing with"....how? This man was convicted and spent almost 20 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. The fact the prosecutor stated this shows the bias that pervaded this trial.

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

Go do some research, your ignorance is astounding. Almost everything you said was wrong.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

Well, he/she is not wrong about the presumption of innocence.

[–] theresnh 8 years ago

Please explain. You say almost everything I said was wrong? Please explain.

My point wasn't to say this man was innocent, it was that the evidence was questionable. Tampering with evidence is grounds for a mistrial. Unvalidated scientific theories are grounds for a mistrial. Issues with chain of custody are grounds for a mistrial. The fabric of our society rests on our judicial system, and if that system is broken, then we all suffer.

What I find "astounding" is the blatant assertion of ignorance. I was seeking an insightful conversation but I am shut down because "if I did my research," then I would know SA was guilty. What does the research you did show? Are you saying there is no presumption of innocence? That issues relating to the validity of the evidence are inconsequential?

[–] doggie_rodriguez 7 years ago

Can't help but notice this went untouched.

*BUMP* 

[–] 0Tolerence 7 years ago

what is rather odd, in general i guess, is how a story of murder gets published and published before and during the trial with the name of the guy on trial before it has even been proven he is guilty. This already creates the perception in the minds of the people, and possibly the jury, that he's guilty without ever having seen any evidence at all!
It's a part of this system that is completely unfair to the person(s) that are on trial for it. Media exposure should be banned until the sentence has been passed and it's been confirmed who did it.

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

There is also a presumption of innocence. And the state was required to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I think it was evident that they did not prove that, as well that jurors were already biased. Whether he did it or not, the evidence was lacking. Talk about chain of custody...it was barely mentioned, but the fact that the blood vial was double breached, and then, that a needle was inserted in the top, demonstrates tampering. The test that the FBI officer came up with was not validated. Regardless, that was clear evidence that someone had tampered with evidence.

And the prosector's statement post-conviction "we knew what kind of man we were dealing with"....how? This man was convicted and spent almost 20 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit. The fact the prosecutor stated this shows the bias that pervaded this trial.

I'm going to use this quote as an example of how people are brainwashed by MaM if you don't mind. You have done no research, and are completely manipulated by the mockumentary. There are 1000's of you out there, and we honestly are sick of responding to you.

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

To be fair he may have come fresh from watching the show. It does however show how misleading MAM is as no one here would share most of these beliefs even if they are on the innocent side.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

There are 1000's of you out there, and we honestly are sick of responding to you.

Then don't. There's no law that says you have to.

[–] misterbfd 8 years ago

I'm going to use this quote as an example of how people are brainwashed by MaM if you don't mind.

All people have to do is a little research on their own. They can even read the entire transcript of the trial. After doing that, the misrepresentations and omissions made by the so-called documentary become rather obvious.

People seem to like being led around by the nose and being told what to think rather than do the research and think for themselves, I guess.

-----

Shooting has started on my latest movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5531336/

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

People seem to like being led around by the nose and being told what to think rather than do the research and think for themselves, I guess.

Are you saying that anyone that disagrees with you hasn't done their research?

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

Are you saying that anyone that disagrees with you hasn't done their research?

It's obvious who has and who hasn't. When people are coming out saying the Manitowoc Sheriff Department were being sued for $38 million dollars, we know that person has read nothing. I've come across this on Reddit, YouTube, IMDB, Yahoo, Disqus, Facebook, and every little comment section that links to either Disqus or Facebook.
It has nothing to do with disagreeing!

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago

Why are you on so many message boards?

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

I have yahoo as my home page and a story pops up nearly daily about SA. So I get on to see what the articles about and read the comments. Most are comment sections powered by disqus or facebook. YouTube has all the video content like Dasseys confession, Colborn's phone call, and many people from Reddit's truther section doing videos on their sleuthing.
Here is where I was originally posting because that is just what I do when I want to discuss a film, show, documentary, etc. Reddit is where the motherload of sleuthers are so it makes sense to post there.
I don't really comment on the disques or facebook anymore, just saying I have in the past while information was being released. I learned my lesson not to post because I'd have to keep schooling people on the facts, and link them over to the files.
If you want to talk about a tainted jury pool, imagine Steven Avery getting a jury for of these idiots that only have watched the mockumentary. That's scary!!! That is probably what is going to happen, and we'll be back here in about 5 years discussing his newest frame, or suicide "fowl play". Even if he really kills someone again when he gets out or himself, people are not going to believe it. Steven Avery is untouchable and he knows it.
Let's just say for the sake of argument he really didn't kill Teresa. He spent more time in prison now than he has outside, due to crimes he didn't commit. He'll sue again of course, and could commit any crime in the world he wants. No one is going to believe he did it. This is why there is an ambiguous title such as MaM. Putting someone in prison with rapist and murderers, will make them a rapist and murderer. Put them in prison twice, there is no doubt he'll do when he gets out...whether he did it the second time or not. He's untouchable!!

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

Why are you on so many message boards?

And how does he have time for anything else in his life?

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

I'm rich, retired, and don't sleep. Plus I've already done pretty much everything I've ever wanted to do in life. I still want to train in Japan and climb Mt. Everest...but that's about it. I'm happy and content!
And this comes from someone that replies on nearly every one of my post...what's that say about you mme? LMAO

[–] Moonlighty 8 years ago

Does anyone think this guy is rich and retired? Or just unemployed and just using the wifi at the local library? Which sounds more likely?

-
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that I'll be over here looking through your stuff.

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago



[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

Yeah, because the library has the Adobe Master Suite I paid almost 2k for to make my video LMAO! I am unemployed...because I'm retired! But does anyone really care what you think?

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

Does anyone think this guy is rich and retired? Or just unemployed and just using the wifi at the local library? Which sounds more likely?

He strikes me as the type that gets his DVDs from the library.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

A bigger question is how'd he get rich? He says he's ex-military. I wasn't aware they paid that well.

So, how, Uno? Inherited wealth? War profiteering? Conquered nations? How?

😉

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

LOL...no! You people are starting to be real a holes, let me tell you. You're critizing me for being on here all the time, yet you are all here just as much if not more. But I'll still be honest with you; military retirement pay, va compensation, SSDI, and I own a trailer park. And before we even go there, yes I'm probably considered a slumlord.

Also, how am I using the library on Sundays, and after hours?? You people didn't think this one through again. Doesn't surprise me though!

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago

Slumlord millionaire?

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

millionaire?? LMAO...you have to be a millionaire to be rich now? I mean, that is a goal but I'm not there yet. Let me tell you something someone told me when I was around your age (20 something I assume).
There are 2 types of rich: Those that appear rich, and those that are debt free. The doctor that buys a $250,000 house down the road, a corvette for his wife, BMW for his little girl, Jaguar for his boy, and drives a Jag himself is not rich. He only appears rich. If he has his leg blown off in an accident, he won't be able to make his mortgage or car payments...and will end up losing everything over a few years...depending on his insurance of course.
His neighbor, living in the same size house, owns every thing and owes the bank nothing. He can get his legs blown off and not have to worry about a paycheck...ever.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

Also, how am I using the library on Sundays, and after hours?? You people didn't think this one through again. Doesn't surprise me though!

Doggie was kidding....I think. But you invite this kind of response, you know, by your own posts.

Anyway, glad to know you are well fixed. Living in a "trailer", despite what some think, doesn't have to mean slum, just somewhat more affordable housing. Many mobile home parks are well run, neat, clean, and lawful; hope yours is one of them.

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

Most of my post are thought provoking, logical explanations using deductive reasoning. Saying someone is using a library computer when it's late at night or on a Sunday (psst, like right now), is not using your brain. This is why so many of you still believe Avery is innocent. You cannot use deductive reasoning to exclude him as a suspect. You just eliminate him with no reason, other than to play a fantasy live version of Clue. But when you open the envelope after the first round, you continue to see there are no cards in it. That is because you take the "Steven Avery" card out of the deck for no reason.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

Uno waxes philosophical on a Sunday morning!

[–] theresnh 8 years ago

Umm...there are libraries open on Sundays. My local one is open 12-5.

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

Also, how am I using the library on Sundays, and after hours?? You people didn't think this one through again. Doesn't surprise me though!

I don't recall saying what day he gets his DVDs from the library.

Is this really the kind of "critical thinking" I've been missing by having this guy on ignore?

Doggie was kidding....I think.

No, I wasn't. He reminds me of the type of person that would pirate a movie and then complain about the quality.

Waits for response about "Pirate movies on a Sunday? You can't pirate movies on a Sundays. You didn't think this one through at all."

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago

You can't pirate movies on a Sundays. You didn't think this one through at all



[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

My mistake, doggie. 

I was trying to spare Uno/Xeno's feelings....though heaven knows why. He doesn't spare others.

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

No need to spare his feelings. He's a big boy. A big angry boy. 

I like how he responded to me as if I could see him. I hope he feels better now.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

He's a big boy. A big angry boy.

Angry, anyway. He may have little man syndrome, for all we know.

[–] kspkap 8 years ago

He may have little man syndrome, for all we know.

Could it be a Napoleon Complex?

🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

I love the cheer leading going on here, that you guys always say you never do. I dont really care if people are insulting on the internet, but to see a squad of people go after one is pretty pathetic. Especially as none of you have ever dared to disclose any personal details of your own private lives; whereas Uno and Bfd both did, and were highly criticised and ridiculed for doing so. So easy to do when you are anonymous.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

How are we "cheer leading"?

All we said was that he was angry. And if you don't get that from his posts, I think you aren't paying attention.

Doggie said he was a big angry boy and I simply said we don't know if he is big or if his anger is little man syndrome, since psychologists thinks such a thing exists, as does the Napoleon Complex....which is really the same thing.

In fairness, Uno has no basis for complaining about anything anyone has said to or about him. He has called other posters liars, among other things. The most I've implied about him is that he may be short. And that's not an insult. I know lots of very nice short people.

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

And whats that got to do with you? Let Doggie fight his own batttles you yours. There were at least five messages in a row dumping on uni with the impression that you all were rubbing your hands with glee to see someone attack him. I don't care that he was being insulted to be frank, he can fight his own battles, but to see this ganging up, which happens regularly with you guys just seem weak.

Anyway I'm not looking to get into a big thing over it, just letting you know from the outside looking in it looks kinda sad.

[–] kspkap 8 years ago

You really don't know what Uno was like before you came on board. He was running a close second to cv, but with very foul language. Many of his posts were removed by the administrators. He has calmed down considerably, but those of us who were targeted do have residual feelings which are difficult to shake. He still has a shade of Mr. Hyde creeping out at times.

🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago

Oh c'mon with the moral outrage. People give each other sh!t, its a normal part of human interaction (where i'm from anyway). Uno gets it, he doesn't pussy foot around not saying things incase he offends someone. You got to be able to take as good as you give in life. If unos feelings are hurt im sure he'll let us know.

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

I agree about the cheerleading, but it goes on on both sides. I'm not down with this "it's the internet, so its okay to be an a$$hole!" excuse anyway. Everyone knows that with the rare exception of bots, there's an actual person behind every scene name.

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

Ok if that is true then I understand.

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

If that is aimed at me then you've got me wrong. I dont mind the insults, especially if they are witty and not ott (i.e. death threats or acts of violence). It was the five on one thing that was going on that I didnt like.

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Uno has never been as bad as CV, but I agree with Ksp that he has, at times, been pretty bad.

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

Waits for response about "Pirate movies on a Sunday? You can't pirate movies on a Sundays. You didn't think this one through at all."

There's another well thought out response. If I pirate movies, why would I need to get DVD's from the library??

I don't believe I've ever tried to insult who you were once, but I can sure try if you want!

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

Well, let's be factual. I don't reply to "nearly every one" of your posts. I've let any number of them go by, without effort.

But I'm also rich, retired, don't sleep, and have done everything.

So we have that in common.



[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

Oh, well why criticize me for responding LMAO?? You and the other 2 aholes are here just as much!

[–] har07045962 8 years ago

Just wondering, where can you read the entire trial transcript?

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

It's at www.StevenAveryCase.org

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

www.StevenAveryCase.org

I have to 1-up you cat for not linking it LOL

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

She has problems with her ipad don't you know.

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

oh yeah

[–] 0Tolerence 8 years ago

Yes they are so obvious you can't even name them. I think the omissions of fact presented by the state is rather obvious and it's rather strange any jury would pass a guilty because there's reasonable doubt. That and we have a group of law enforcement with a motive to frame him.

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Okay, I'll bite. What facts do you feel the state left out?

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

They did prove it bard as there's a standard criteria for what's considered sufficient enough evidence to convict you. Lots in US prisons convicted on far less evidence than Steven Avery, Scott Peterson being one, off the top of my head.
Vial thing was debunked long ago and doesn't bear consideration.

No, Avery spent 12 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit but six of those years were serving concurrently with crimes he did commit.

As for your OP, yeah the judge disallowed the defence to point their fingers at people they thought could have done it, without the evidence to support it. No evidence existed to even charge anyone else and a defence hypothesis with nothing to support it doesn't trump the actual evidence that was submitted to the court. So I think the judge was fully justified in disallowing this.
Besides, both defence and prosecution requests/arguments are accepted and rejected by courts all the time, it's part of the trial process. It wouldn't amount to an objectively unfair trial though.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] wewannawii 8 years ago

Problem is, the judge forbids the defense to name a third party as possible suspect, so the defense really can't do much in that respect.

Case law (Denny) not the judge prohibits the defense from accusing a third party unless there is a "legitimate tendency to believe" that person actually committed the crime.

It is essentially the defense equivalent of the "probable cause to believe" standard the prosecution must meet before charging a defendant.