|
Post by Hands11 on Jan 20, 2016 9:07:10 GMT -6
With the way they present the documentary yes, but I didn't set in the whole trial. What most only know about it is the 10 hours of selected facts or slanted evidence that was used too create doubt in viewers minds. If you go solely off the documentary then without a doubt there is reasonable doubt but that would be like having a trial and not letting one side argue their case. Very true! Good point.
|
|
|
Post by fbcoach78 on Jan 20, 2016 9:08:17 GMT -6
Watched the first episode, don't think I'll watch any further. Didn't really catch my attention like most others.
|
|
|
Post by Lebowski on Jan 20, 2016 9:08:30 GMT -6
Good Point.
Anytime there is any reasonable doubt. Then it should be not guilty.
This is almost similar to the Case of State of Oklahoma v. Gene Leroy Hart.
|
|
|
Post by skinny51 on Jan 20, 2016 9:08:44 GMT -6
I feel for the dude on the 18 years though and having to settle for a lot less on his punitive damages from the state than what he should of received.
|
|
|
Post by Lebowski on Jan 20, 2016 9:09:21 GMT -6
Good Point.
Anytime there is any reasonable doubt. Then it should be not guilty.
This is almost similar to the Case of State of Oklahoma v. Gene Leroy Hart.
|
|
|
Post by Hands11 on Jan 20, 2016 9:09:31 GMT -6
Watched the first episode, don't think I'll watch any further. Didn't really catch my attention like most others. KEEP GOING! YOU GOT TO!!
|
|
|
Post by skinny51 on Jan 20, 2016 9:09:50 GMT -6
I am saying evidentially the prosecution presented their case well enough to show there wasn't reasonable doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Lebowski on Jan 20, 2016 9:10:13 GMT -6
2nd Episode is where it hooks you.
|
|
|
Post by fbs on Jan 20, 2016 9:50:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by fbs on Jan 20, 2016 9:50:58 GMT -6
this tells you everything you need to know.
|
|
|
Post by fbs on Jan 20, 2016 10:10:47 GMT -6
by the way... if you look up things that were left out of making a murderer, you'll see pretty clearly why he was found guilty.
|
|
|
Post by Okie on Jan 20, 2016 10:28:59 GMT -6
by the way... if you look up things that were left out of making a murderer, you'll see pretty clearly why he was found guilty. I don't know about that...not too much was left out. I think the brother in law and older nephew did it. Theres no doubt someone at that property did it...I'm not sure it was him.
|
|
|
Post by Hands11 on Jan 20, 2016 10:29:48 GMT -6
stud doesn't know whether or not he did it...stud just knows there was reasonable doubt and that alone should set him free. 7 jurors felt he was innocent and 3 said guilty with 2 undecided....stud doesn't know how those 7 can sleep with themselves knowing they put a man behind bars for the rest of his life not knowing whether he was guilty or innocent....whether he did it or not, this whole investigation was botched and the police planted evidence! manitiwoc sheriff's dept. is as corrupt as the weatherford, ok police dept....BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Okie on Jan 20, 2016 10:30:48 GMT -6
stud doesn't know whether or not he did it...stud just knows there was reasonable doubt and that alone should set him free. 7 jurors felt he was innocent and 3 said guilty with 2 undecided....stud doesn't know how those 7 can sleep with themselves knowing they put a man behind bars for the rest of his life not knowing whether he was guilty or innocent....whether he did it or not, this whole investigation was botched and the police planted evidence! manitiwoc sheriff's dept. is as corrupt as the weatherford, ok police dept.... Whoa....gotta little ax to grind here. I think there may be a crime story from your college days you need to tell us about.
|
|
|
Post by xdipster on Jan 20, 2016 11:13:17 GMT -6
stud doesn't know whether or not he did it...stud just knows there was reasonable doubt and that alone should set him free. 7 jurors felt he was innocent and 3 said guilty with 2 undecided....stud doesn't know how those 7 can sleep with themselves knowing they put a man behind bars for the rest of his life not knowing whether he was guilty or innocent....whether he did it or not, this whole investigation was botched and the police planted evidence! manitiwoc sheriff's dept. is as corrupt as the weatherford, ok police dept.... What is really sad is that it was the campus gestapo that reeled you in to begin with. They just housed you at the WPD jail. You are lucky mama was there to save your scrawny booty, or your farts would sound like the howling wind.
|
|
|
Post by fbs on Jan 20, 2016 11:21:38 GMT -6
by the way... if you look up things that were left out of making a murderer, you'll see pretty clearly why he was found guilty. I don't know about that...not too much was left out. I think the brother in law and older nephew did it. Theres no doubt someone at that property did it...I'm not sure it was him. I saw seven things that were left out of the documentary. those seven things, if heard by a jury, which they all were, were pretty daming all things considered. this dude was an absolute psychopath. I was unsure about it when I saw the doc, and I was thinking that, as a juror, if they got the same exact presentation of the information that we got as viewers there is no way they would have found him guilty. having read what was left out though, it took that uncertainty away and reinforced why I was uncomfortable with the guy to begin with. It's really obvious that netflix and the filmmakers were attempting to create this controversy based on his presumed innocence. How can we, the viewer, have an educated opinion on this if we haven't been told the whole story?
|
|
|
Post by Okie on Jan 20, 2016 11:34:28 GMT -6
I don't know about that...not too much was left out. I think the brother in law and older nephew did it. Theres no doubt someone at that property did it...I'm not sure it was him. I saw seven things that were left out of the documentary. those seven things, if heard by a jury, which they all were, were pretty daming all things considered. this dude was an absolute psychopath. I was unsure about it when I saw the doc, and I was thinking that, as a juror, if they got the same exact presentation of the information that we got as viewers there is no way they would have found him guilty. having read what was left out though, it took that uncertainty away and reinforced why I was uncomfortable with the guy to begin with. It's really obvious that netflix and the filmmakers were attempting to create this controversy based on his presumed innocence. How can we, the viewer, have an educated opinion on this if we haven't been told the whole story? totally agree with everything you are saying....I have read all of that stuff as well. I'm not saying he's a choir boy or that he is innocent. I'm just saying that there is reasonable doubt. A lot of it is circumstantial in my opinion....not much points directly at him.
|
|
|
Post by kennywayne9 on Jan 20, 2016 11:48:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by fbs on Jan 20, 2016 11:49:55 GMT -6
well... you're right to a point, but the fact that her bones were in a burn pile on his property, her belongings were in a burn barrel next to his house, and the fact that he tricked her into coming out there, plus the sweat dna under her hood all point to something not necessarily circumstantial. my point is that if this were someone who did not live in a sort of compound it would be pretty cut and dry... it would also be pretty cut and dry if people were only focused on this crime instead of the fact that he was wrongfully imprisoned before.
|
|
|
Post by fbs on Jan 20, 2016 11:50:21 GMT -6
this is what I read. pretty daming if you ask me.
|
|