They mentioned it. And besides, the most damning evidence towards the type of person Avery was the letters he wrote to his first wife in prison. Those were awful and the show did not gloss over those. I feel like a lot of people thought the show was all about Avery's innocence. I don't think it was about Avery at all. It was about how flawed our justice system can be.
They mentioned it? Yeah that the cat died, big difference in soaking a cat in gas and lighting it, vs saying he kinda thru it thru the flames and it caught on fire. If they will gloss over some facts why can't you believe that there was an effort to manipulate the perception thru what they chose to present vs what they didn't.
Well for one, if they were out to make Avery look like a saint, I don't think they would have even mentioned it, and they definitely would not have shown his letters to his first wife. Did anyone watch the entire show and come away thinking Avery was a stand up citizen? I didn't. People keep dwelling on the cat thing, when the letters to his first wife and the fact that he ran his sister (or cousin) off the road and threatened her with a gun are far worse things and more of an indictment on him as a person IMO. And the show did not gloss over either of those. And the cat is also 100% irrelevant when it comes to this case.
Sure it is but not sure if you have read up on serial killers, many start out at a young age torturing and killing animals to me it was very telling.
That is fine. I've never argued that Avery wasn't a horrible human being or that he wasn't capable of murder.
Please get real Hooker. Judge Y is going to order Judge X to hold a new trial? It can happen that a judge will order a new trial. The judge hears all the evidence that the jury hears and he/she may feel that the jury's guilty verdict was wrong. New evidence may have come to light since the trial concluded. There are many reasons why a judge could order a new trial. In this country, we relay on a jury trial. We don't turn it over to "The Court of Public Opinion."
Yes and "activist" judges really piss me off. ( I mean used to piss me off, I am kinder and gentler now I am just perturbed}
Hooker, judges do not have the authority to order another judge on the same level to do something. An appeals court can order a lower level judge to hold a new trial. Depending on how the appeals court decision is worded, the prosecution may decide not to retry the case. The prosecution can appeal a sentence if they feel it was too lenient. The defendant can appeal a sentence if he feels it was too harsh. Of course, the prosecution cannot appeal a not guilty verdict.
Ok. My only contention was that the same judge that ruled over the initial case was allowed to make the ruling if a new trial is warranted. That is my only contention. Why couldn't another judge rule that? It seems as that would help rule out any bias, no?
I'm having a lot of difficulty understanding why you can't see why it would not be reasonable or practical for a judge to be giving orders to another judge at the the same level. If you are not satisfied with the verdict or sentence, you can appeal to a higher court. In Michigan, if you are convicted at trial, you have an automatic right to appeal. This is true in most states as far as I know. If you plead guilty and feel there was some flaw in the proceedings, you can ask for leave to appeal, but the appeals court can refuse to hear your appeal.
And I'm having a hard time understanding why it would not be reasonable? Either way, they are going to a higher court right now, federal courts. We shall see what happens, I guess.
I think he was guilty, but I also think the trial and investigation was so screwed up I couldn't have ruled guilty without reasonable doubt as a juror.
Didn't mention that her brother was actually her step brother and that her mother married her brother in-law after her husband passed away. Or the fact that the Jury was made up a couple people who were related to police officers.
This story is crazy. Either Avery is the smartest idiot alive or he was framed. People knew he had an appointment with her, you don't make multiple calls to a person you plan on murdering and tell people she's coming over...do you? He was able to clean up a carpeted bedroom where a throat slitting rape occurred? able to clean a garage where she was transferred to? and shot? Then leaves blood in the car he stashes in his acreage of cars? Not taking advantage of his car crusher but instead placing some branches and ply wood on it to serve as camo? Come on, so much of this story is head turning. Where the motive? He was a free man after 18 years professing his innocence...Manitowoc police were about to pay out the *** for wrongfully convicting him and also let him serve 10 extra years knowing they had a guy in jail who admitted he was the original rapist for the crime Avery was jailed for 8 years prior. Manitowoc cops worked on his murder case when they should have had nothing to do with it given he was suing them and Manitowoc cops found all the hard evidence. Anyone convinced one way or another is a fool, just my opinion. Sad really, plenty of reasonable doubt vs a slimy as all get out prosecutor...
Weird watched a story online about Avery's girlfriend where she said some not so flattering things about Steve's behavior, funny she believes he did it.
very interesting story, I liked the documentary but it is clearly biased. Still makes for a good watch and think through.
