I have a few thoughts-- 1. Even if there is state's evidence Kratz says the series left out, how can the the evidence or arguments provided by the defense not at least create reasonable doubt? There are too many questions that are unexplained for me to believe someone could receive a guilty verdict. 2. But the media influences the perception of the defendant so when they run sensationalized stories the way they do, it can lead people to assume he is guilty before the trial has even started. Which in turns leads to a guilty verdict in a case where reasonable doubt should have been easy to create. 3. For the folks who believe he did it but the cops planted evidence to get the conviction, are you ok with that? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you--Steve may have killed her. But is it okay that someone is pretty sure someone did something so they plant evidence to get them convicted?
I think someone in the family did it. It's just crazy how from the beginning, only Steve was targeted. The BIL had a history of sexual assualt as well.
I am sure the 49 other states are just as bad, but this is NOT the justice system our forefathers wanted. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly. There is just no way that someone can convict him without reasonable doubt with the story that the prosecution presented. No freaking way. Their story made zero sense.
You mean with the story the filmmakers put out there? It's a shame that the other side isn't told yet either. I want to hear it all and make a decision. I'm searching and searching for more about the trial. I'll post if I find anything. I wish the series covered the trial more. I want to hear and see more of the testimony and not just what they want you to see.
Is anyone else going to start answering the phone with "yeah" for now on? For some reason this really caught my attention, the conversations between the nephew and his mother went no where...
No. The story that the AD put out there. You know...the one where he held a press conference and gave details about the exact way she was raped, had her throat slashed on the bed, then shot in the head in the garage. That story.
There are a couple of difficulties with respect to the justice system. One is with the concept of "reasonable doubt." The police and prosecution do not adhere to this standard. Once they have come to believe that someone is guilty, they will exert every possible effort to convict, even if it means overlooking or minimizing possible evidence or testimony that might create "reasonable doubt." Another unfortunate fact is that the public, in general. has great difficulty accepting a jury verdict. The public can't seem to understand and appreciate the concept of "reasonable doubt." I know many people were enraged that Casey Whatshername was found not guilty down in Florida. But the concept of "reasonable doubt" is based on the belief that it is better to allow a guilty person to go free than convict someone who is actually innocent. Juries do make mistakes. But it's fairly easy, after the fact, to create a drama from selected information designed to show the jury was wrong. I am an attorney, by the way, whose practice is limited to criminal defense.
How about actually watching the show before you can make any type of judgement? And if there is all this evidence that the show did not include, why hasn't it came out? There has been some circumstantial evidence and a few things about Avery himself that have come out, but no direct evidence.
Sota does not need to watch the show or hear evidence, he made his mind up already Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well you stated on the first page that you haven't But if you have, would you like to tell the class your thoughts surrounding the case and use facts to back those thoughts up?
Why watch the show? If there is any new evidence, it can be heard by an appeals court. An appeals court will not review a verdict de novo, but they will hear allegations of error by the trial court or new evidence not brought before the trial court.
They tried to bring it to an appeals court, but the same judge that proceeded over the original conviction turned down the appeal. They are trying to bring it to a federal appeals court now.
I'm pretty sure a judge can't hear his own case on appeal. That would negate the purpose of the appellate system.
Posted on gov Walker's Facebook page ... http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=70129
