Making A Murderer (Netflix)

[Shane Wahl]

http://www.thefrisky.com/2016-01-25/making-a-murderer-biased-journalism-necessary-outrage/?utm_campaign=autotweet&utm_medium=ref&utm_source=sc-tw

[TheLeviathan]

 

http://www.thefrisky.com/2016-01-25/making-a-murderer-biased-journalism-necessary-outrage/?utm_campaign=autotweet&utm_medium=ref&utm_source=sc-tw

 

Sure, it's not important if the journalist is unbiased if your takeaway is "there was major misconduct in this trial, we should try it more fairly".

 

If your takeaway is "he's innocent....let me grab my torch and pitchfork and arrest my pet conspiracy theory guy as the real criminal" - then, yes, it is EXTREMELY important to recognize this was a biased portrayal.  

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

But it's not all of the presentation. How can anyone objectively say the jury failed in terms of reasonable doubt if we don't hear all of it.

 

Because the moment a the state allowed people with a clear conflict of interest be involved in the investigation (all while lying about it to the public) that threshold was approached if not met right there.  

 

The fact that these same people didn't follow best practices for collecting the evidence (so that no one could paint a reasonable picture as to what happened) and that just about all of the state's main evidence was found by these same individuals under odd circumstances or contaminated in some way, you have not only met, but completely exceeded the standard required for reasonable doubt.  It is not a high standard. It was never meant to be.

 

Best practices exist for a reason, and that reason is to prevent putting innocent people away or prevent guilty people from using this type of defense. 

 

Here's another way to look at it.  If you threw out everything that was contaminated about the state's case, what is left?  From a physical evidence standpoint, very little.  The documentary didn't mention Avery's sweat found on the hood of the vehicle (and there could have been a very reasonable explanation for that as well), but there really wasn't much physical evidence at all linking Avery to this case if you threw out everything that was questionable. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Sure, it's not important if the journalist is unbiased if your takeaway is "there was major misconduct in this trial, we should try it more fairly".

 

If your takeaway is "he's innocent....let me grab my torch and pitchfork and arrest my pet conspiracy theory guy as the real criminal" - then, yes, it is EXTREMELY important to recognize this was a biased portrayal.  

 

Levi,

 

It doesn't matter if he's innocent or not.  What matters is reasonable doubt.  I think you're putting words in people's mouth when you frame it this way.

 

And yes, to an extent, the pitch forks still need to come out, whether Avery is truly innocent or guilty.  This happened for reasons that were inexcusable, and one of the big reasons why it happened is b/c the system as a whole does a poor job in holding people accountable.  In most corporate jobs, a guy like Lenk would have fired on the spot if he had been caught getting involved with something where had a clear conflict of interest, and quite possibly sued as well.  Most of the people who screwed up the investigation would have found themselves unemployed if they performed their corporate duties to the level of negligence that was applied in this case, and that's in an environment where the principle goal tends to simply be monetary.

 

In the justice system, real people are jailed and freed.  Real people's lives get turned upside down, and that's stuff that isn't easy to get back, and the people that royally screwed up have to face no accountability for their actions.  That's wrong on so many levels, especially when an innocent man ends up in jail or a guilty one goes free.

[TheLeviathan]

Pitchforks should come out for a retrial, not a declaration of innocence. None of us know his innocence or guilt with any certainty, what we know is that this trial was a farce.

 

So what we need is a retrial. If the crucial distinction between that and total innocence is lost on you or anyone else, then your concept of justice is as out of whack as any shady character in this documentary.

[nicksaviking]

 

Because the moment a the state allowed people with a clear conflict of interest be involved in the investigation (all while lying about it to the public) that threshold was approached if not met right there.  

 

The fact that these same people didn't follow best practices for collecting the evidence (so that no one could paint a reasonable picture as to what happened) and that just about all of the state's main evidence was found by these same individuals under odd circumstances or contaminated in some way, you have not only met, but completely exceeded the standard required for reasonable doubt.  It is not a high standard. It was never meant to be.

 

Best practices exist for a reason, and that reason is to prevent putting innocent people away or prevent guilty people from using this type of defense. 

 

Here's another way to look at it.  If you threw out everything that was contaminated about the state's case, what is left?  From a physical evidence standpoint, very little.  The documentary didn't mention Avery's sweat found on the hood of the vehicle (and there could have been a very reasonable explanation for that as well), but there really wasn't much physical evidence at all linking Avery to this case if you threw out everything that was questionable. 

 

I agree, the prosecution acted unethically, and there was likely evidence that other states or other judges would have thrown out, but those things aren't something the jury is able to weigh. They don't get to decide what evidence gets thrown out, they don't decide if the prosecutors should be indicted, the jury is told they can consider "X" and only "X". The prosecution could have taken missteps all over the place, but if the judge allowed them and the jury could only consider the facts as presented which may have been stronger than presented in the documentary, than how can we say that reasonable doubt wasn't met?

 

Reasonable doubt lies solely with the jury, it can't be laid on them if other areas of the proceedings went astray.

[Shane Wahl]

Yes, the point is that there should be a re-trial.

 

I do hope I never am at the mercy of a jury, for the record.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I agree, the prosecution acted unethically, and there was likely evidence that other states or other judges would have thrown out, but those things aren't something the jury is able to weigh. They don't get to decide what evidence gets thrown out, they don't decide if the prosecutors should be indicted, the jury is told they can consider "X" and only "X". The prosecution could have taken missteps all over the place, but if the judge allowed them and the jury could only consider the facts as presented which may have been stronger than presented in the documentary, than how can we say that reasonable doubt wasn't met?

 

Reasonable doubt lies solely with the jury, it can't be laid on them if other areas of the proceedings went astray.

 

Reasonable doubt lies apparently with a jury unable to define it.  The other areas of the proceedings going astray is precisely why reasonable doubt exists.  The prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Avery did it because of all the mistakes made in the investigation... and yeah, juries can throw out data.  They can look at that case minus said flawed data.  The problem is that there's absolutely nothing left after that. 

 

Hence my point.  Reasonable doubt exists... and my concern is pretty much what Shane said here.  I wouldn't want to be tried by a jury because they are unable to understand this very concept. 

[nicksaviking]

 

Reasonable doubt lies apparently with a jury unable to define it.  The other areas of the proceedings going astray is precisely why reasonable doubt exists.  The prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Avery did it because of all the mistakes made in the investigation... and yeah, juries can throw out data.  They can look at that case minus said flawed data.  The problem is that there's absolutely nothing left after that. 

 

Hence my point.  Reasonable doubt exists... and my concern is pretty much what Shane said here.  I wouldn't want to be tried by a jury because they are unable to understand this very concept. 

 

But again, we didn't see the prosecution's full argument, they may have done a much better job of explaining any or all of the questionable evidence. They might have presented damning evidence the filmmakers did not show.

 

I would guess they didn't, but we don't know. I can accept the claims of misconduct much easier than the claim that we can definitively say there was reasonable doubt. Like it or not, the jury got to see much, much more than we did.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Reasonable doubt lies apparently with a jury unable to define it.  The other areas of the proceedings going astray is precisely why reasonable doubt exists.  The prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Avery did it because of all the mistakes made in the investigation... and yeah, juries can throw out data.  They can look at that case minus said flawed data.  The problem is that there's absolutely nothing left after that. 

 

Hence my point.  Reasonable doubt exists... and my concern is pretty much what Shane said here.  I wouldn't want to be tried by a jury because they are unable to understand this very concept. 

 

I don't think "reasonable" means what you think it means.  You can have doubts and still find someone guilty.

 

I think there is plenty to have a retrial, but the point made by the defense attorneys is super critical - no defense attorney wants to go to bat with a "they set us up" defense because vast conspiracies are, almost by definition, unreasonable suggestions.  

[Shane Wahl]

The defense also made it clear that no "vast conspiracy" was needed to pull this off. Only 1-2 cops.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I wouldn't want to be tried by a jury

FIFY.

 

Juries are screwed up and the court doesn't help them enough.

 

Jurors are often stupid as ****, to put it bluntly. We're not drawing from the creme de la creme when it comes to a jury pool. On top of not being the brightest bulbs in the nation, they're underpaid and jerked out of their lives for weeks at a time. Maybe they don't even care about the trial and spend the entire time thinking about grocery lists, which leads to a few problems...

 

- Jurors are not allowed to rewatch segments of the trial. They can look over evidence but cannot rewatch the presentation even though this is, last time I checked, the 21st century.

 

- Jurors can take notes but are given instructions that if their notes conflict with their memory, they are to rely on their memory and not their notes.

 

It's completely ****ing nonsensical, especially in a case that is weeks long. If you want to argue the jury system is something that badly needs an overhaul, you'll get no arguments from me.

[Shane Wahl]

Well, well, well:

http://uproxx.com/tv/making-a-murderer-cell-phone-tower-records-new-evidence/

[nicksaviking]

Why would her cellphone pinging mean she was still alive? Couldn't it still have been pining when who ever killed her transported her body to the quarry?

[TheLeviathan]

If this is the smoking gun she's been pimping for months she's going to look like a total fool in the court room.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Why would her cellphone pinging mean she was still alive? Couldn't it still have been pining when who ever killed her transported her body to the quarry?

The quarry, I believe, is still on the Avery property, though it may be some distance (not 12 miles) from the salvage yard. Here's a map, but there's no scale to show how far apart the two sites are.  The evidence is said to document her route, and show that she left the property the same way she came in.  

 

This by itself does not prove Avery's innocence.  This isn't a smoking gun per se, but another piece of evidence creating reasonable doubt.  

 

Now, the prosecution's narrative needs to explain those 12 miles.  So Avery would have to have followed her somehow, abducted her, return to the property with her and the Rav4 (and his own vehicle), go to the quarry, and back to the bon fire, killing her at some point and disposing of her body at the multiple sites, all within the time frame where Avery was unaccounted for (I think before 5pm, and after what ever time she showed up to the salvage yard).  

 

All that said, this evidence will probably not result in a new trial (even if it was a smoking gun) because it was discoverable to the defense at the time of the trial; and unless it was hidden through prosecution misconduct, I don't see how Avery's team will be able to overcome that fact.  (They might be able to argue a technological deficiency at the time of trial or that the courts weren't willing to recognize ping data as evidence at the time of trial, but the article suggests that argument won't hold the day.)

[nicksaviking]

 

Now, the prosecution's narrative needs to explain those 12 miles.  So Avery would have to have followed her somehow, abducted her, return to the property with her and the Rav4 (and his own vehicle), go to the quarry, and back to the bon fire, killing her at some point and disposing of her body at the multiple sites, all within the time frame where Avery was unaccounted for (I think before 5pm, and after what ever time she showed up to the salvage yard).  

 

 

But again, we don't know that she, or her car left, even if this is reliable evidence. This is just the cellphone which the person who would have killed her could have put into his or her pocket before deciding to burn it later.

 

If I'm the prosecutor, I simply say Avery killed her, took her cell phone, did whatever it was that was done 12 miles away (and probably much less since I'd guess you don't have to actually be standing under the tower to get a ping) and came back home to burn all the evidence, including the cell phone.

[PseudoSABR]

 

But again, we don't know that she, or her car left, even if this is reliable evidence. This is just the cellphone which the person who would have killed her could have put into his or her pocket before deciding to burn it later.

 

If I'm the prosecutor, I simply say Avery killed her, took her cell phone, did whatever it was that was done 12 miles away (and probably much less since I'd guess you don't have to actually be standing under the tower to get a ping) and came back home to burn all the evidence, including the cell phone.

There's nothing simple about that explanation.  So Avery leaves the compound with her cellphone after he murders her? And he leaves her body and the Rav 4 on the property somewhere, during this twelve mile escapade? And then he returns to burn the body, go to quarry, have a bon fire etc.?  And why did he leave with her cellphone and where did he go and why did he go there?   Sure, the prosecution could say that, but I don't find it particularly believable, and I'm sure once the events are all laid out chronologically and geographically, that narrative would be pretty specious.  You can't deny that it would further problematize the prosecution's theory of what had happened.  This is just another way to poke holes in their version of the truth, and combined with all the other problematic facts for the prosecution, the evidence could rise to the level of creating reasonable doubt.

 

That said, a jury could still 'buy' that story, or rather they believe Avery is guilty despite the story and timing making much sense.  And if we're going with that, here's to justice, then.  

[biggentleben]

 

But again, we don't know that she, or her car left, even if this is reliable evidence. This is just the cellphone which the person who would have killed her could have put into his or her pocket before deciding to burn it later.

 

If I'm the prosecutor, I simply say Avery killed her, took her cell phone, did whatever it was that was done 12 miles away (and probably much less since I'd guess you don't have to actually be standing under the tower to get a ping) and came back home to burn all the evidence, including the cell phone.

 

Though if you could put a time stamp on the call from the officer that called in her plates along with the cell phone records...

[PseudoSABR]

 

Though if you could put a time stamp on the call from the officer that called in her plates along with the cell phone records...

I thought of that as well, as that fact implies the county police found the vehicle somewhere other than the Avery property; the cellphone data could corroborate that implication to some degree.

[TheLeviathan]

The use of pinging a cellphone isn't an exact science, it's not particularly strong evidence of anything.  It might be helpful to some more concrete evidence, but beyond that it's trivial at best.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The use of pinging a cellphone isn't an exact science, it's not particularly strong evidence of anything.

ESPECIALLY in 2006 in a rural area. Seriously, guys, phones back then could randomly hit a tower miles away because there *were* no other towers to hit. A phone can just barely whisper to a tower well outside the distance once can actually establish a phone call. It's still a "ping". A connection was established. The phone said "I'm here, I exist".

 

I'm not discounting the evidence nor am I putting much stock in it, just pointing out that in a vacuum, pinging a tower means *very* little. From a purely technical standpoint, a phone can ping a tower from 100+ miles depending on terrain and laws surrounding signal strength.

 

Yeah, I just said "100+ miles".

[Brock Beauchamp]

And that article uses the word "triangulation".

 

Phone companies don't track and sync triangulation data. They don't keep every bit of useless data "just because". AFAIK, there's no way to "triangulate" ten year old phone movement (in the capacity required to triangulate) because it makes no sense for anyone to keep that data.

 

People need to stop watching CSI, man.

[PseudoSABR]

I imagine they have enough data to deduce the 12 mile conclusion, and according the article, this kind of data has been used in cases before.  It shouldn't matter how far away a cellular tower is, as the distance would be determined through multiple pings to the same tower.  If it pinged enough towers over enough time, there could be enough data to indicate a location and a path of travel.  

 

I get cynicism abotu this type of evidence, but it could mean what it is purported to mean.

[PseudoSABR]

 

And that article uses the word "triangulation".

Phone companies don't track and sync triangulation data. They don't keep every bit of useless data "just because". AFAIK, there's no way to "triangulate" ten year old phone movement (in the capacity required to triangulate) because it makes no sense for anyone to keep that data.

People need to stop watching CSI, man.

You don't need the cell companies to triangulate; all they'd need is the ping data from more than three cellular towers over a period of time, and from that data they could 'triangulate' a location.  

 

Though that being said, they tried this method to locate that plane that went missing that one time, I don't think they found it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

You don't need the cell companies to triangulate; all they'd need is the ping data from more than three cellular towers over a period of time, and from that data they could 'triangulate' a location.

 

Though that being said, they tried this method to locate that plan that went missing that one time, I don't think they found it.

Um, no. A triangulation requires data from no less than three sources at the identical moment or it's gibberish and prone to wild inaccuracies.

 

The identical moment.

 

Oh, and exact response time needs to be recorded or it's, again, gibberish. A phone can ping 16 towers but without response time, you just draw a big circle on a map and say "this person is generally somewhere around here"... And "here" is a 100+ square mile area.

 

This is pretty simple math, really.

 

And how on earth can something be triangulated in 2006 without the cell company getting involved?

[TheLeviathan]

I kind of hope this is the smoking gun she's been blustering about.  I would get a good, solid laugh at all the people that are just droning their way into support of this without thinking for a damn second about whether it actually has merit or not.  

 

This, in and of itself, is pretty damn useless.  And to be attacking the former defense as idiots for not using it makes me think this is the smoking gun.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Oh, and exact response time needs to be recorded or it's, again, gibberish. A phone can ping 16 towers but without response time, you just draw a big circle on a map and say "this person is generally somewhere around here"... And "here" is a 100+ square mile area.

And if Avery's property falls outside the hypothetical 100 square mile area, it has evidentiary value. (The evidence is not where precisely she is, but rather where the data indicates she could not be.)

 

It seems like you're suggesting there's  some technological impasse that prevents the possibility of the ping data being meaningful -- that's not the case.  The requisite data might actually exist.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

And if Avery's property falls outside the hypothetical 100 square mile area, it has evidentiary value. (The evidence is not where precisely she is, but rather where the data indicates she could not be.)

 

It seems like you're suggesting there's some technological impasse that prevents the possibility of the ping data being meaningful -- that's not the case. The requisite data might actually exist.

I'm not suggesting there is a technological impasse that prevents the data from being meaningful, I'm saying it's higgghhly unlikely it has any meaning. In a world where a phone can ping a tower from 50+ miles under common real-world situations, simple ping data tells us virtually nothing.

 

And using the word "triangulation" in that article is wrong. That's not opinion, that's basic mathematics. You can't triangulate the past without real-time tracking data logs (literally multiple sources syncing pings and response times down to milliseconds)... And I think we can all apply enough common sense to admit that doesn't exist today, much less 2006.

[Brock Beauchamp]

And honestly, I no longer give a damn about this case.

 

But , as many of you know by now, I hate lazy/incorrect technical analysis.