Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #4

[JudyBolton]

The jury heard both sides, they certainly heard the defense allegations of something strange going on with evidence. Ultimately they are charged with determining what is the truth based on what's been presented to them. They're not required to believe either side, but they are required to listen to everything presented, both sides, and make their determination in deliberation with the other jurors. It's not a perfect system, but so far no one has come up with a better one.

Originally only 3 jurors voted guilty - remember? Then (according to the juror who is speaking out) they refused to deliberate. If you add that two were related to officials - they wouldn't deliberate - the other jurors felt intimidated - they had that very odd verdict - (which the one juror stated was a compromise and they thought it would allow him to appeal). When you consider ALL of these factors the jurors' verdict is not as iron clad as some want to believe.

Then when you begin to add in the other bizarre things that went on..... I think they need a new trial - a new judge and ***a new jurisdiction***

 

[Madeleine74]

If jurors were intimidated or bullied in their deliberations they should have alerted the judge. That kind of behavior can and does get a juror tossed.

No doubt after announcing the guilty verdict each juror was polled for their verdict, "Juror #1 is that your true and correct verdict?" and on down the line. The defense usually asks for that allocution when the verdict is guilty to make sure each juror's individual vote is true. It also gives the juror a chance to say something if they don't agree. Once the verdict is accepted by the judge and the jury has been polled, it can be difficult to overturn unless wrongdoing by one or more members of the jury can be found through an investigation.

 

[TheDuchess]

In the Dateline interview Zellner said that there was new evidence and immediately started talking about how much forensic testing has advanced and how they are going to retest all of the evidence.

Sounds like she's jumping the gun to me. How can you say there's new evidence before the testing has been done? JMO

I don't think KZ is one to jump the gun.

 

[RANCH]

If jurors were intimidated or bullied in their deliberations they should have alerted the judge. That kind of behavior can and does get a juror tossed.

No doubt after announcing the guilty verdict each juror was polled for their verdict, "Juror #1 is that your true and correct verdict?" and on down the line. The defense usually asks for that allocution when the verdict is guilty to make sure each juror's individual vote is true. It also gives the juror a chance to say something if they don't agree. Once the verdict is accepted by the judge and the jury has been polled, it can be difficult to overturn unless wrongdoing by one or more members of the jury can be found through an investigation.

After the trial is over it's too late for a juror to say that there was a problem during deliberation.

We can't have a judicial system where a juror can alter a verdict after the trial is over. JMO

 

[TheDuchess]

If jurors were intimidated or bullied in their deliberations they should have alerted the judge. That kind of behavior can and does get a juror tossed.

No doubt after announcing the guilty verdict each juror was polled for their verdict, "Juror #1 is that your true and correct verdict?" and on down the line. The defense usually asks for that allocution when the verdict is guilty to make sure each juror's individual vote is true. It also gives the juror a chance to say something if they don't agree. Once the verdict is accepted by the judge and the jury has been polled, it can be difficult to overturn unless wrongdoing by one or more members of the jury can be found through an investigation.

While I agree this may be done, when people are in fear for their lives, or truly intimidated, that may not make any difference. Add to that the fact that most every one of them still felt he was a "bad guy" anyway...

 

[RANCH]

I don't think KZ is one to jump the gun.

Why is that?

 

[missy1974]

Originally only 3 jurors voted guilty - remember? Then (according to the juror who is speaking out) they refused to deliberate. If you add that two were related to officials - they wouldn't deliberate - the other jurors felt intimidated - they had that very odd verdict - (which the one juror stated was a compromise and they thought it would allow him to appeal). When you consider ALL of these factors the jurors' verdict is not as iron clad as some want to believe.

Then when you begin to add in the other bizarre things that went on..... I think they need a new trial - a new judge and ***a new jurisdiction***

Let's not forget.... they are the one's that had to go back and live in the community when the camera's went away. No one could have predicted this docu-series or the reaction it has caused. I think with all the attention, if anyone had any information, juror or not, they would and should feel just a little bit safer. IMO

 

[RANCH]

While I agree this may be done, when people are in fear for their lives, or truly intimidated, that may not make any difference. Add to that the fact that most every one of them still felt he was a "bad guy" anyway...

BBM

Have any of the jurors said that they felt they would be killed if they voted not guilty?

Has there been anything to suggest that the state or anyone in LE threatened to kill any member of the jury who didn't vote for a guilty verdict?

 

[angelainwi]

Interesting in light of the Zipperer talk

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur...y_with_links_to_back_up_gene_kusche_may_have/

 

[Madeleine74]

While I agree this may be done, when people are in fear for their lives, or truly intimidated, that may not make any difference. Add to that the fact that most every one of them still felt he was a "bad guy" anyway...

If any of these jurors were in fear for their lives (like from another juror) or bullied/intimidated, it was their responsibility to report it to the judge or a bailiff for themselves or for another juror if they witnessed this bullying/intimidation or threatening behavior. At a minimum the judge will put the slap down and warn jurors they can be held in contempt if they are not following the rules, and it can also mean legal trouble for person or persons who are threatening a juror, including jail time. Judges take juror safety and security very seriously, as do the judge's bailiffs.

 

[Whickswi]

I am not sure what PROOF or evidence people want of a possible set-up. Do you want an actual photo of blood or key being planted? Because that, of course, is ridiculous. If they did frame him, they sure weren't going to film themselves doing it. Just the fact that ALL of their "evidence" has been highly questionable kinda suggests that something fishy was going on at the very least. By the same standard, I, for one, want to see the PROOF that TH remains were even found there on the Avery property in the first place.

As a post-note, I cannot wait to see what Zellner has discovered, because she is already declaring she has that new evidence. :worms:

Thank you very much. Couldn't of said it better myself.

 

[Madeleine74]

Everyone gets to decide their own definition of proof, but hearing, "such and such could have happened, therefore it did happen" doesn't work without some corroboration.

For example, if Avery blood from the SUV was tested and showed a level of EDTA that exceeded any level that might be naturally occurring in a human, then that would be corroboration (and proof). Or... if Avery was nowhere near his home or anywhere near the salvage yard between, for instance, October 31 - November 1, and blood was found in TH's SUV, that would be corroborating proof since Avery could not have deposited that blood as he wasn't physically there (ie. no 'opportunity').

 

[dexter75]

A jury didn't feel there was enough evidence to convict Casey Anthony, either.

They don't always get it right, IMO

Our system was created by humans, we are not perfect.

Obviously the jury didn't feel that there was reasonable doubt of Avery's guilt after hearing from both the state and the defense.

I agree with that determination until some solid evidence proves a LE conspiracy to frame SA. JMO

 

[Oakland CA]

BBM

Have any of the jurors said that they felt they would be killed if they voted not guilty?

Has there been anything to suggest that the state or anyone in LE threatened to kill any member of the jury who didn't vote for a guilty verdict?

Who was the lowlife Manitowoc cop that said something to the effect of...

"Why would we go to all the trouble to frame Steven Avery, when we could just kill him"?

I don't think it's a stretch for any jury member to fear that could apply to any resident of the area, including themself.

 

[dexter75]

Alerted the judge? hdear:

Small town. Possible... no, scratch that, KNOWN TO BE corrupt LE (1985)
No further comment

If jurors were intimidated or bullied in their deliberations they should have alerted the judge. That kind of behavior can and does get a juror tossed.

No doubt after announcing the guilty verdict each juror was polled for their verdict, "Juror #1 is that your true and correct verdict?" and on down the line. The defense usually asks for that allocution when the verdict is guilty to make sure each juror's individual vote is true. It also gives the juror a chance to say something if they don't agree. Once the verdict is accepted by the judge and the jury has been polled, it can be difficult to overturn unless wrongdoing by one or more members of the jury can be found through an investigation.

 

[RANCH]

A jury didn't feel there was enough evidence to convict Casey Anthony, either.

They don't always get it right, IMO

Our system was created by humans, we are not perfect.

The Avery jury found the defendant guilty. The Anthony jury found the defendant not guilty so I don't get the "either" part of your post.

I do agree that juries don't always get it right.

 

[ElleElle]

Here is the blood vile. (from Keith M.'s ID show last night)

A couple things i've noticed:
1. That is alot of blood.
2. I see the smearing on the side and that does not appear normal.

 

[RANCH]

Who was the lowlife Manitowoc cop that said something to the effect of...

"Why would we go to all the trouble to frame Steven Avery, when we could just kill him"?

I don't think it's a stretch for any jury member to fear that could apply to any resident of the area, including themself.

Well, that juror sure should have voiced that fear to the court then wouldn't they? JMO

 

[MysticJynx]

Who was the lowlife Manitowoc cop that said something to the effect of...

"Why would we go to all the trouble to frame Steven Avery, when we could just kill him"?

I don't think it's a stretch for any jury member to fear that could apply to any resident of the area, including themself.

That was Man. Co. Sheriff KP.

 

[RANCH]

Here is the blood vile. (from Keith M.'s ID show last night)

A couple things i've noticed:
1. That is alot of blood.
2. I see the smearing on the side and that does not appear normal.

I didn't watch that show but the Dateline show had an expert who said that the blood that's visible on the side of the stopper is normal. JMO