fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3304 ]

[ SECRET POST #3304 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3304 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Law & Order SVU]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Leonardo DiCaprio]

__________________________________________________

04.

(Penny Dreadful: Caliban/John Clare)

__________________________________________________

05.

[Star Wars]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Kumail Nanjiani, The X-Files]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Shin Megami Tensei X Fire Emblem]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Love Live!]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Severus Snape and the Marauders]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Sherlock Holmes]

__________________________________________________

11.

[Making a Murderer, Dean Strang and Jerry Buting]

__________________________________________________

12.

[Colony]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 027 secrets from Secret Submission Post #472.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

But the guy probably did it. If you look at all the evidence (the film makers cut a lot), he looks very guilty.

That's a common misconception being put about by the then-DA, yes. But it's hard to believe that the murder happened the way the prosecution claimed it did. A woman gets her throat cut, but there's no blood evidence in the (very messy) bedroom at all? She gets shot in the head multiple times in the garage, but the only evidence is a bullet that only appears after multiple searches? Where's the brain splatter, shards of skull, etc.? Where's the additional blood that would undoubtedly be all over the floor and everything else in the garage?

Avery might be guilty. I think there was plenty of room for reasonable doubt, however, and there's no question the investigation was botched. I'm surprised by how many peopl watch the documentary and think that the main point is about Avery's guilt or innocence. It's not. It's about the flaws in our justice system.

Everyone seems to get caught up in the "did he or didn't he", and I guess that's not surprising, but the real story is the fact that law enforcement botched the case - and calling it "botched" is actually being generous.

Agreed with you that it is impossible for him to have killed her in the house or garage and have NO blood splatter and no physical evidence. The confession from the nephew was awful, and I've read that the Reid Technique for interrogations is not allowed in many other countries due to the number of false confessions you get when using it.

I think the guy may have done it, and he may not. I think it's more likely that another family member did it, as others have postulated. But I think the cops were so convinced that this was their man, that they planted evidence to make the charges stick and get a conviction. And THAT is the huge problem that the documentary is highlighting.

I think that if Avery did it, there's virtually no way he killed her inside the house the way the cops are saying. They're claiming two different rooms where she was physically attacked, but there's no blood or DNA evidence that she'd ever set foot inside the bedroom or garage. What I think is that she was killed someplace else, and the body transported in her car (hence the blood/hair evidence inside her car) and her body burned on Avery property.

I think the cops found the car and the burn site, then decided to "help" along the investigation to nail a man they truly believed was guilty. I think they had such tunnel vision when it came to Avery that they didn't bother to conduct a proper investigation. How do you not even ASK for the alibis of her family members and roommate? But at the same time, you interrogate a teenager for hours until he manages to kinda sorta spit back a false confession... and not a very good one, at that. That's some bad police work right there.

It's clear that Avery's reputation isn't spotless and I'm not saying he's a good guy. But the cops can't just decide NOT to do their jobs and make certain they're putting the right man in jail. Not after what happened in Avery's previous unlawful incarceration. And this isn't even getting into what happened at the trial, good lord.

I honestly don't know. He may have and he may have not. But the behavior of the prosecutors was abhorrent, the investigation was botched and he never should have been convicted. His guilt or innocence is not the point.

Have you ever heard of the case around the murder of Stephanie Crowe?

Basically they decided that her brother Micheal did it, based on his interests and the fact that he reacted in a certain way to it. Then they did all sorts of illegal shit trying to manipulate him into confessing. At some point it stopped being about finding the truth and more about trying to confirm their first assumption.

That's what this case kinda reminds me off.

No I hadn't heard of that one. But I've heard of similar cases. It happens. Because prosecutors have decided that rather than being about the job, their job is about winning. No. The defense attorney's job is to represent their client. Your job is to represent the state, and the state's interest is in the truth. Maybe that's a conviction, maybe it isn't.

Ugh. I have so many thoughts on prosecutors in general and the whole culture. I wanted to be one for a long time until I realized I could never be a part of that and wasn't the type of person who could buck the system in the way that a good prosecutor should. It is a job. Someone has to do it. Some people do belong in prison. But the way it is done a lot of the time today is just so awful.

So agreed on your first paragraph in particular. I've heard about that sort of railroading happening a LOT in cases involving children being killed or serial killers roaming about. Obviously, I understand people being scared to know there's a killer like that in their town, and I also understand that law enforcement is under lots of pressure in those situations to catch the killer. And sometimes, depending on the situation, prosecutors don't always have a lot of obvious evidence to work with to build a case, too.

But unfortunately, a lot of people forget that solving a case often takes a LOT of time. It isn't like the crime dramas, where everything's solved in a day or so. And it's especially important in these situations that law enforcement catches the right person, or prosecutors have a strong enough case to prove this is indeed the person who's guilty.

Because if they don't, then an innocent person has been accused/convicted of a heinous crime and the person who IS actually responsible for the crime is still out there and continuing to kill people. Doesn't exactly scream "winning" to me.

When you learn about the system, you start to realize how fucked up it is. For starters, so many cases, even ones prosecutors would never be able to prove in court, end up settled. Because prosecutors scare defendants, even ones who may be innocent, with higher than necessary charges and threats and then offer settlements. So you have people settling cases where they aren't even guilty.

Really, there are so many problems with the system as it is set up now. And that is even more true in more Conservative states and/or states where judges are elected. In many southern states Judges consider themselves colleagues with prosecutors and favor them. And judges who are elected feel the need to be "tough on crime." So prosecutors have it easier from the get-go often.

That doesn't surprise me, sadly. They, and police officers, definitely know how to intimidate people. And ugh, yes, the "tough on crime" people. They definitely don't help matters, either.

I also can't stand the prosecutors who create such flamboyant, dramatic presentations of their cases in the courtroom. I've seen a few of those on some true crime stories, too, and they drive me nuts. They practically act out the crime the way they imagine it happened, they make intense accusations towards the defendant, pointing at them, they get up in the jury's faces, etc. It's like, hi, you're not auditioning for a role on a TV series, you're here to prove a case. Quit making it all about you.

To say nothing of the emotional manipulation some people have pulled out, too.

I would argue that it's not just the personal decision of the prosecutors, but the structure of career, political, financial, etc incentives that we've built around our legal system

like, the behavior is the logical outcome of the system. it's almost inevitable that it would function like this.

Oh, I completely agree with that. Although, the problem is that prosecution is different. Some of those setups are fine in other areas of the law. We want attorneys to want to win most of the time. Defense attorneys should represent their clients to the best of their ability. The problem is that the system has forgotten that there should be differences and sets up the incentives the same for prosecutors. They advance in their career based on the number of cases they win. That's not the way it should work for prosecutors.

I haven't seen this particular documentary (I really want to, but I don't have Netflix), so I can't comment on how this case was handled. But I've seen a lot of similar situations when watching other true crime stories. Even if I do believe the accused could've committed the crime in question, if they're found not guilty/there's a hung jury/etc., people will get so angry, and all I can think is, "Yeah, well, that's what you get when you fuck up an investigation and don't do your jobs properly." This isn't the sort of job where people can afford to make much, if any, mistakes.

For what it's worth, the first episode is free on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34M2zdLc-2U

Seeing only one part might make it worse but at least you'd be able to tell if it's something you'd be interested in.

Oh, cool, thanks for the info! I'll definitely check it out.

Yep.

The American criminal justice system is fundamentally broken. Because of shit like this.

It really is messed up in a lot of ways, yeah. One of many reasons why I'm against the death penalty.

Yup. I'm against the death penalty for moral reasons. But even if I wasn't I would still be against it as practiced in this country. And I actually know people who believe in the idea of the death penalty but thing it should be banned until the system gets sorted out.

Yeah, I can understand the victim's family having a, "I want to kill them/see them dead" reaction to the criminal who took their loved one away. They're angry, they're grieving, they're hurt, it's a logical reaction (though, having said that, I've also seen stories where victims' loved ones have shown remarkable levels of forgiveness, too, so...).

And there are some crimes that are so especially abhorrent that I will find myself sometimes thinking, "Yeah, not exactly weeping over that creep being gone."

But that's a personal, visceral reaction, and that shouldn't be our criteria for deciding who should or shouldn't be put to death. I'm very uncomfortable with society as a whole/the government having that sort of attitude, and deciding who gets to live and die. Add in the amount of innocent people that have found themselves on death row, and the cost involved, and so on, and...yeah. It's not a good solution to the issue at all.

It's absolutely the tip of the iceberg but yeah

Yeah, that was my takeaway too. Even if he did it (and we don't know), that entire trial was so horribly put together that he shouldn't have been convicted.

If anything, the cops and the prosecution fucked up any chance to properly find out what REALLY happened with their overzealous and transgressive behavior.

Does he look guilty beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3304 ]

no subject

no subject

+1

Re: +1

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject