Netflix Thread

[Emp]

Then legally, he's not guilty. As a lawyer, I watched half of that documentary with my jaw on the ground. The 85 conviction was bad enough...but the way that case was handled in 2005 was incomprehensible. Executing an 8 day search warrant and barring them from their property the entire time? That's an appearance of impropriety in and of itself. What those police did to that 16 year old kid was beyond repugnant. I could have never found Avery guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...but the real tragedy (obviously also the death of a young woman) is how Branden was treated. The force feeding of his "confession" was deplorable. His original attorney was just as culpable in the whole thing. Just hard to wrap my head around the fact that this occurred less than 10 years ago.

Never did crim law, but agree. Hoy shit, the nephew s new attorney just conceded his guilt publicly. Smiling in the courthouse as the cameras role. Way over his head. Haven't got to the trial yet.

Messy, like Serial, but more involving with all the video.

Props to the producers, to stick with a case that long is a documentary marathon.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Never did crim law, but agree. Hoy shit, the nephew s new attorney just conceded his guilt publicly. Smiling in the courthouse as the cameras role. Way over his head. Haven't got to the trial yet.

Messy, like Serial, but more involving with all the video.

Props to the producers, to stick with a case that long is a documentary marathon.

I can understand Adnan being found guilty...but the police corruption in MAM was off the charts. That county sheriff's department should have never EVER been involved in the investigation. Let alone the local deputy who found the key in the house after 7 days of searching and it was never found. And the Calumet deputy admitted that he wasn't keeping an eye on the deputies during the search. After Calumet County sheriff said the local sheriff's would not be involved with searching the property. One of the things least discussed? What the hell were those two juries doing? Good Lord. After watching the "confession" video of Branden, if I was the judge, I would have put a stop to those proceedings. Disgusting.

The other odd thing is that in the Avery trial, the first jury vote was 7 not guilty. It's crazy to think 7 people changed their mind and sent a guy to prison for life.

[RoseyMuskie]

Then legally, he's not guilty. As a lawyer, I watched half of that documentary with my jaw on the ground. The 85 conviction was bad enough...but the way that case was handled in 2005 was incomprehensible. Executing an 8 day search warrant and barring them from their property the entire time? That's an appearance of impropriety in and of itself. What those police did to that 16 year old kid was beyond repugnant. I could have never found Avery guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...but the real tragedy (obviously also the death of a young woman) is how Branden was treated. The force feeding of his "confession" was deplorable. His original attorney was just as culpable in the whole thing. Just hard to wrap my head around the fact that this occurred less than 10 years ago.

Thanks for the clarification regarding guilty. What I was trying to convey is that I believe Avery committed the crime.

There are a lot of good articles out there discussing the items that were omitted. If you can recall the attractive, female reporter with the glasses - she's actually now a reporter for WKRC - she indicated on her Twitter that some glaring evidence wasn't discussed.

The whole conflict of interest aspect did blow me out of the water.

I think a lot of it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The series was so incredibly biased, but I can understand why, it wouldn't be nearly as entertaining if the other side of the story was more heavily focused.

It was a tough pill to swallow, but it became somewhat more palatable once you start digging into everything that was left out.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Thanks for the clarification regarding guilty. What I was trying to convey is that I believe Avery committed the crime.

There are a lot of good articles out there discussing the items that were omitted. If you can recall the attractive, female reporter with the glasses - she's actually now a reporter for WKRC - she indicated on her Twitter that some glaring evidence wasn't discussed.

The whole conflict of interest aspect did blow me out of the water.

I think a lot of it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The series was so incredibly biased, but I can understand why, it wouldn't be nearly as entertaining if the other side of the story was more heavily focused.

It was a tough pill to swallow, but it became somewhat more palatable once you start digging into everything that was left out.

Nothing I've read has come close to overcoming the inherent flaws in the investigation in this case. You can be as condescending as you wish, the entire investigation was a legal abomination.

[RoseyMuskie]

Nothing I've read has come close to overcoming the inherent flaws in the investigation in this case. You can be as condescending as you wish, the entire investigation was a legal abomination.

Wasn't trying to be condescending. And I think you're right to an extent. But I also think it's tough to make statements such as that without completely knowing the entire case, and watching a biased documentary.

And I agree with one of your points before - I believe the grave injustice occurred on the B. Dassey side.

Have any thoughts on who committed the murder?

[paulxu]

I know this is about Netflix but what are people's thoughts on Amazon Prime? We signed up over Christmas to get the free shipping but if anyone has it are there shows/movies worth watching? I did a little checking out and it doesn't seem like there's a ton of selection.

Bosch if you are a fan of the Michael Connelly books.

[LadyMuskie]

I know this is about Netflix but what are people's thoughts on Amazon Prime? We signed up over Christmas to get the free shipping but if anyone has it are there shows/movies worth watching? I did a little checking out and it doesn't seem like there's a ton of selection.

Transparent, The Man in the High Castle, Bosch, and Patriot (which I'd just a pilot) are really good. I actually prefer Amazon's original content to Netflix's in some cases.

[94GRAD]

Transparent, The Man in the High Castle, Bosch, and Patriot (which I'd just a pilot) are really good. I actually prefer Amazon's original content to Netflix's in some cases.

I did not like TMITHC. The acting was terrible and I hated the ending.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Then legally, he's not guilty. As a lawyer, I watched half of that documentary with my jaw on the ground. The 85 conviction was bad enough...but the way that case was handled in 2005 was incomprehensible. Executing an 8 day search warrant and barring them from their property the entire time? That's an appearance of impropriety in and of itself. What those police did to that 16 year old kid was beyond repugnant. I could have never found Avery guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...but the real tragedy (obviously also the death of a young woman) is how Branden was treated. The force feeding of his "confession" was deplorable. His original attorney was just as culpable in the whole thing. Just hard to wrap my head around the fact that this occurred less than 10 years ago.

Just finished a few minutes ago. I agree with everything you wrote here. Wow, just wow, especially the Dassey conviction on only his "confession" and no physical evidence. Why does it seem the system is set up to get a conviction and not to get it right beyond a reasonable doubt? How is Dassey's first court appointed lawyer allowed to keep practicing law? Why did the judge rule he needed a new attorney because of the mistakes/neglect of that attorney yet allow the results of that neglect to be used? Dassey's only consistent statements/story throughout all that time is when he tells that he went home after school and did not go over to Avery's until the bonfire.

[D-West & PO-Z]

The other odd thing is that in the Avery trial, the first jury vote was 7 not guilty. It's crazy to think 7 people changed their mind and sent a guy to prison for life.

Yes, how do 7 go from not guilty to guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

Another question, why do we leave the fate of a person's future up to 12 "peers"? Why do people (presumably) uneducated people, with regards to the law, decide someone's guilt or innocence? Why isnt it a panel of judges? Too expensive? Not enough judges? It is so confusing to me. This isnt these people's jobs, by the end of it they just want to leave and go home back to normal life. That is a lot of responsibility that seems like fatigue plays a big art in hurrying a decision. Crazy.