[Jones]

(01-10-2016 03:59 PM)Brodiaga Wrote:  

I watched the whole thing...well, the last few episodes I just played as background while reading RVF and other things on my laptop.

I should say that this is the most boring documentary I have ever watched in my life. If you watched the award winning film "The Art of Killing" about Indonesian anti-communist murderers and thought that was boring, this one takes it to a whole new level.

I understand that Avery and the young kid got fucked over, but for guys who are considering watching it and don't have any connection to that community or interest in watching hours of court footage, let me summarize the takeaways:

-Don't talk to the police
-If you are accused of a crime, make sure you hire the best lawyer you can afford

That's it. I just saved you a few hours of your time.

I will say that it could have been 2 or 3 episodes shorter than what it was, but maybe it just didn't interest you. Blaster's points did a good job in response to this, less I need to say any more.

[YoungAngel1]

The whole thing was pretty drawn out. Way too many episodes, but I did enjoy a lot of it. Not really sure what to believe

[CleanSlate]

Not sure what to believe, but I think Brendan should have gotten a mistrial because of the way he was questioned. And because of this mistrial, they should have taken a closer look at Avery's trial and maybe acquitted him.

[porscheguy]

The real tragedy is that once the juror was dismissed, Avery was given a choice to allow the alternate juror to fill in, or to have it declared a mistrial and start over. He opted for the alternate. I would think that under such circumstances, if your defense fund could hold out, you'd go for the mistrial and start over. And that's because a retrial isn't going to be a 100% verbatim repeat of the first trial. OTOH, when held without bail, and being treated like a prisoner, I would imagine most people would be strongly inclined to allow the alternate and get a verdict, especially when you're innocent and believe that your counsel provided solid reasonable doubt. They'd do this, just so they could get the nightmare ordeal over with, and back to living their life.

[Vicious]

As a non-US citizen the most troubling part I feel about these events are the extent of power a sheriffs department can have in the judicial system.

I always thought of them as "the help" for the Police and a branch that would have to step aside the second shit got down. Being publicly elected their actual training in law enforcement is minuscule and with the ability to deputize others there's a real risk you've created a state-sanctioned mob.

[RagnarLothbrok]

(01-09-2016 12:15 AM)CleanSlate Wrote:  

Didn't read the thread/spoilers, but

It is nothing short of incredible how much people, especially in positions of authority, LIE under oath on the witness stand. So obvious they're lying that I want to throw the TV out the window.

I always had your body language datasheet in mind when I watched the show. It was really interesting to see how the things they said didn't match with their body language.

[Blaster]

(01-11-2016 04:48 PM)Jones Wrote:  

I will say that it could have been 2 or 3 episodes shorter than what it was, but maybe it just didn't interest you.

Yeah this I agree with. But again they're obviously going for a pretty wide audience, if you want to get a heavier doses of facts without the drama and family interviews and stuff a lot is available online.

[alecks]

(01-11-2016 04:53 PM)YoungAngel1 Wrote:  

The whole thing was pretty drawn out. Way too many episodes, but I did enjoy a lot of it. Not really sure what to believe

So your tellin me you watched 10 episodes of this and your "not really sure what to believe"?





Excuse me

[Black_Eagle_Six]

I watched the whole thing. If the info as presented did not have gaping holes, I can't really see how the two juries could have unanimously convicted both suspects on the basis of testimony and evidence (or lack thereof). There definitely appears to be parts of the case that are still hidden by the authorities and the community.

[Sam Malone]

That one reporter, though...



WBWEP (would bang with extreme prejudice)

[BambiNotForLong]

^ I thought the same thing

[YoungAngel1]

(01-13-2016 03:55 AM)alecks Wrote:  

(01-11-2016 04:53 PM)YoungAngel1 Wrote:  

The whole thing was pretty drawn out. Way too many episodes, but I did enjoy a lot of it. Not really sure what to believe

So your tellin me you watched 10 episodes of this and your "not really sure what to believe"?





Excuse me

Damn straight. Way too many holes.

[Dr. Howard]

(01-14-2016 05:18 PM)BambiNotForLong Wrote:  

^ I thought the same thing

Don't get your hopes up, that was filed 10 years ago. She's now past the wall with sagging jowels, assumably single from her bio at the current news station she works for.

[AnonymousBosch]

(01-02-2016 06:17 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

Documentaries used to be unbiased but I recall watching the director's commentary of "Waiting For Superman" and the director said he did have a point to make, so he wasn't unbiased.

It's 2015. There's been 7 years of Obama's graduates programmed to be good little Agents of Change by believing that objectivity is a 'silly' concept. Like morality, they believe truth is now subjective.

Did you ever see the documentary "Searching For Sugar Man"? An 'Obscure Musician' releases two albums and vanishes, somehow his influence is credited with ending Apartheid in South Africa (*eyeroll*), then he's tracked down in obscurity years later to find out his albums weren't flops after all and he has a huge fanbase.

Somehow they 'forgot' to mention 10 years after the album releases he was popular enough in Australia that my parents went to one of his concerts here when I was a kid.

Which reality makes for a more saleable, triumphant narrative that will shift both copies of the documentaries and units of the related albums?

Get used to this.

[alecks]

(01-14-2016 05:46 PM)YoungAngel1 Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 03:55 AM)alecks Wrote:  

(01-11-2016 04:53 PM)YoungAngel1 Wrote:  

The whole thing was pretty drawn out. Way too many episodes, but I did enjoy a lot of it. Not really sure what to believe

So your tellin me you watched 10 episodes of this and your "not really sure what to believe"?





Excuse me

Damn straight. Way too many holes.

i retract my statement. apologies. i reckon it was bobbey/scott

[Vicious]

To me I don't see the point as really being wether Avery is guilty or not. He might very well be, I do not know.

The issue is the travesty the trial and the prosecution is making of the country's judicial system.

[Dr. Howard]

(01-16-2016 10:40 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

To me I don't see the point as really being wether Avery is guilty or not. He might very well be, I do not know.

The issue is the travesty the trial and the prosecution is making of the country's judicial system.

Thats a good point. The handling of the case was so retarded that it casts doubt, even if he really was guilty.

The coercion of the kid was so underhanded that a senator here in Tennessee is trying to get a law passed that a kid cannot be questioned without a guardian or attorney present. They can't waive their own rights, which I think is valid for minors. They can't vote or sign their own permission slips but they can waive their Miranda rights?

[etwsake]

Man, everyone's going on and on about how awesome this series is. I guess I'm in the minority...I made it about 20 minutes in and turned it off. It was plodding. It didn't hook me. If a 10 hour television show can't hook me in the first 20 minutes, I'm not going to just force myself through it cause people on twitter said it was good. It's up to the filmmakers to grab the audience's attention, and in my opinion, they failed. So I didn't bother.

What I did see though really reminded me of the Paradise Lost series of docs from HBO that chronicled the West Memphis Three...a case that's still being debated over 20 years later.

[Dusty]

(01-14-2016 06:45 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 05:18 PM)BambiNotForLong Wrote:  

^ I thought the same thing

Don't get your hopes up, that was filed 10 years ago. She's now past the wall with sagging jowels, assumably single from her bio at the current news station she works for.

Current pic:

[Hotwheels]

(01-16-2016 01:50 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 06:45 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 05:18 PM)BambiNotForLong Wrote:  

^ I thought the same thing

Don't get your hopes up, that was filed 10 years ago. She's now past the wall with sagging jowels, assumably single from her bio at the current news station she works for.

Current pic:

Big hoops=she likes the D

[Dusty]

Interesting side observation about this series...

How little fashion has changed in 10 years. Most of this footage was from what, 2006 or 2007? About a decade ago. But you can't tell really.

If in 1976, you saw footage of something from 1966, there would be a huge noticeable difference. Clothe style, hair style, even the type of film used. Same if in 1986 you looked at footage of 1976. Or in 1996 you looked at footage of 1986.

The same phenomenon is noticeable in music.

Shit stopped changing quickly since the late 1990s.

[El Chinito loco]

(01-17-2016 06:26 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

Interesting side observation about this series...

How little fashion has changed in 10 years. Most of this footage was from what, 2006 or 2007? About a decade ago. But you can't tell really.

If in 1976, you saw footage of something from 1966, there would be a huge noticeable difference. Clothe style, hair style, even the type of film used. Same if in 1986 you looked at footage of 1976. Or in 1996 you looked at footage of 1986.

The same phenomenon is noticeable in music.

Shit stopped changing quickly since the late 1990s.

I'm old enough to notice this too. There's definitely cultural stagnation at play here. The internet probably has a lot to do with this. Essentially everything is in a time capsule these days.

You can recall any past event or video instantly and it seems really fresh because of modern cameras and film. Culture really did seem to freeze since the mid 90's and it does coincide with the rise of the internet in every household.

Maybe the cultural stagnation is also due to everyone following similar norms now too. Ideas are becoming standardized and so are aspects of pop culture. True originality and off the wall creativity is being squashed down in favor of internet popularity and peer approval. This is why everything seems so bland and uncreative these days in culture.

[Aurini]

(01-12-2016 07:35 PM)RagnarLothbrok Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 12:15 AM)CleanSlate Wrote:  

Didn't read the thread/spoilers, but

It is nothing short of incredible how much people, especially in positions of authority, LIE under oath on the witness stand. So obvious they're lying that I want to throw the TV out the window.

I always had your body language datasheet in mind when I watched the show. It was really interesting to see how the things they said didn't match with their body language.

Here's the link to the Datasheet.

[Latinopan]

(01-16-2016 02:05 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 01:50 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 06:45 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 05:18 PM)BambiNotForLong Wrote:  

^ I thought the same thing

Don't get your hopes up, that was filed 10 years ago. She's now past the wall with sagging jowels, assumably single from her bio at the current news station she works for.

Current pic:

Big hoops=she likes the D

This is how she looks now

Quote:

Big hoops=she likes the D

And here is one of the few where you can see her whole body



She was an attractive reporter and she is still single, she sure was banging top tier men back then, now she has lots of pictures with dogs on her facebook, not cats but is a start.

Conclusion:

alpha widow

[Onto]

(01-06-2016 04:20 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

This is hot

That really is telling. Shakespeare said, "The truth must out". In other words, everyone needs to tell the truth about themselves.

That guy couldn't help but proudly show everyone how he "framed" Avery.

I just finished watching the series and it's pretty obvious there was a lot of reasonable doubt. It's also obvious that while his lawyers did have some decent detective skills they lacked backbone and came off as weak.

There was not mention of motive. What was Avery's motive? Just felt like raping an killing a woman? He has no prior history of violence towards women, except for the cat which is a significant black mark. Is he going to risk a 36 million dollar payout for that?

There are of course more than 36 million reasons for the County to frame Avery and possibly kill the girl to do so. The insurance companies were not going to pay out the lawsuit so the county would have to and it sounded like they didn't have the money.

That means they would have to either raise everyone's property taxes to cover the legal cost or declare bankruptcy. If they declare bankruptcy what happen's to every civil servant's job? More importantly what happens to their pension?

Not only future pension's of current employees, but current pension payments for the already retired.

That's a lot of county employee's financial livelihood's at risk.