When the documentary stated that the early tally was 7 innocent, 2 undecided, and 3 guilty (or whatever it was), was that after all evidence had been presented and the jury was just seeing where they stood? I don't recall. I remember them saying that a juror had to be dismissed/excused, and that's when this fact was brought up.
Just finished this the other night. It's crazy...so freaking crazy. It really doesn't matter if you think he's guilty or not it just shows how ****ed the system can be
For anyone that enjoyed this you might like the documentary about the "Central Park Five" it draws some parallels with this show as far as coerced confessions are concerned.
I was really drawn in the first two or so episodes, but the more I watched the more I started to think he probably committed the crime, but there's reasonable doubt, to deciding this guy is so so guilty & this whole 'documentary' isn't as good as it seemed. A better story is that of someone actually being framed for a murder he clearly didn't commit after suing the state. I guess that's what the series is trying to suggest, but I don't buy it. I do feel bad for Steven Avery & his family. Especially how poorly the state handled his first case & how much he had to pay for it. & I no longer believe in even the remote possibility that the police officers planted anything. They seem to be the real victims this time around. Also, this documentary must be awful for that poor girl's family. Maybe something will change my mind in the next episodes, but I no longer think the series is so great. He has great lawyers though. I'd want those guys representing me!
Just curious why do you think this. Do you think the cops had nothing to do with Avery's blood evidence that was obviously tampered with? I don't know if Steve Avery did it, but it does not feel like he got a fair trial at all, and should at least get a new trial far away from either of those podunk counties. Also feel terrible for that Brenden kid he was used by everybody(maybe even Steve Avery himself if he did do it), but his confession should have been thrown out and he def should get a new trial
I have only heard about the show and what some folks had to say about it, but what lawyers are you talking about? The ones that represented him during the trial or some new lawyers? Or is this sarcasm?
He's talking about the defense lawyers that represented him during the trial. They are legit badasses.
I don't want to spoil it for you since you haven't seen it yet but they put up some great arguments that I don't see how I would be able to vote guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if I was a juror. The initial count was 7 innocent, 3 guilty, and 2 undecided. How they ended up with a guilty verdict is anyone's guess.
yes that's right. That was the split after everything was presented but before deliberation among the jurors themselves.
Watched this really fast a true binge -- need to watch a couple of episodes again, but I think... Spoiler The police new he was a rapist/ insane and put him in jail illegally for the first crime just to get him off the streets... the second one that's a faking a moon landing level conspiracy.
Amen to this. Before watching Central Park Five I've always had the mentality that if someone confesses to a crime, they are 99% GUILTY. I mean who would ever confess to killing someone when they are in fact innocent! But as that documentary and incident reveals, its apparently more common than one would think. 5 innocent teenagers are coerced to confessed to killing and raping a women, when in fact they did no such thing. Did the detectives questioning beat the false confessions out of them? Nope, in fact they merely used the same pressure and coercion applied to the teenager in this documentary. Its eery how similar the confession videos in that film is to this one. I don't know if Steven and his nephew are innocent or guilty ( though I probably lean towards guilty for Steven if forced to guess) but I do firmly believe that there was an abundance of reasonable doubt due to at best sheer incompetence and at worst a major conspiracy involving planting of evidence and criminal police conduct.
Like everyone else this I thought this was a riveting documentary. The courtroom scene, investigations and arguments were amazing as were the deep examination of the different individuals and personalities in the case. I however disagree with those who think this is too difficult to watch or infuriating to finish... instead of anger, I'm left feeling upset but more so melancholy sadden and resigned... because in the end, I'm ultimately left wondering are they guilty and if not, who killed that poor girl. IMO Central park 5 was much more infuriating and difficult to stomach.
If I had to weigh it, I'm saying 90% not guilty - whether it was the cops or someone they put up to it, Avery's brothers, or someone else (the number that kept calling her?), I don't know. I'm not going to pretend to understand any rationale behind the legal system, but this trial should have been held somewhere far, far away from that county. There was entirely too much potential for bias with the jurors and the judge, even in a neighboring county. The dismissed juror stated that there were 3 very strong, stubborn jurors which he thinks swayed the entire vote and I think that's a result of the location. I think with any trial like this there is also a fear that you are letting a killer walk, no matter what the evidence says. Ultimately the blood in the Rav4 was the smoking gun in this one (as well as the questionable lab tests that concluded it was not taken from the sample in the previous case). The decision to admit that test as credible did him in IMO.
