So - DH and I just finished episode 7 of the docu-series. I'm addicted.
I'm going to try to be vague - but there may be some spoilers so stop reading if you arent thru episode 7.
If you were a juror - and an FBI agent says "I found no traces of that chemical and therefore conclude that the blood could not have come from the vile" do you take that as an ABSOLUTE? Do you 100% think that means the blood could not have come from the vile? No reasonable doubt?
42 votes
grapefruit / 4545 posts
I am withholding my opinion just to see what other say...but this was a HUGE topic of debate in my house last night!!!
grapefruit / 4545 posts
@lawbee11: DH and I had such a heated debate about this. I dont want to share my thoughts yet until I have seen more votes.... 
pomegranate / 3604 posts
In this instance, no. The way they drummed up that 'test' is crazy fishy.
grapefruit / 4545 posts
So - I say no as well.
DH was arguing that he thought the average person would be extremely heavily swayed by an FBI expert saying "it did not come from the test tube" - to the point that he thinks they lost their case based on that testimony along (but probably earned a nice appeal option).
I was arguing...I know he said "the blood did not come from the test tube" but what I HEARD was "my testing did not identify the EDTA chemical" which are two totally different statements.
He then started arguing that since my work (previous jobs) has been to understand things like absence of a chemical is not certain proof....it means (as the other expert said) that either 1) it was not there or 2) the test simply did not detect it.
It became an hour long debate over whether an average juror - with out my sampling/testing/negative confirmation experience - would process that or whether they would be blinded by the "Expert FBI agent saying so...".
blogger / pear / 1509 posts
I thought the testimony of the analytical chemist was far more convincing than the FBI employee.
grapefruit / 4545 posts
@Mrs. Turtle: 100% agree. The FBI agent lost me completely when he said all 6 spots could not have come from the test tube when he only tested 3. What the What?!!?! How can you assert an opinion over something you did not test?!?!! All confidence in him died at that point.
blogger / pear / 1509 posts
@Mrs D: Yeah, exactly. I loved what the actual scientist said afterwards. "I'm an analytical chemist. We aren't in the business of guessing the outcome of tests" or something like that. So perfect.
kiwi / 603 posts
No because as a juror you have to evaluate all the evidence. So this one statement shouldn't preclude reasonable doubt even if you truly believe the statement is true.
honeydew / 7230 posts
In the context of MaM, no. However, prior to seeing this documentary I might have been more likely to believe the FBI agent. I think the testimony of the other chemist made a lot of sense and seems legit to me.
pomegranate / 3392 posts
I wish the defense could have broken the science down a bit better for the jury (if that's even possible?) to make it clear that a test not picking it up is NOT the same as there not being any in the vial.
Plus, now that one juror has come out and mentioned that most of them were leaning toward not guilty but felt personally threatened into voting guilty (in addition to what the dismissed juror said in the movie), I think the deck was stacked against the defense no matter what 
pomelo / 5678 posts
Watching that doc, it is unclear to me how this person could be found guilty. I have to believe that the people of MC were heavily influenced by media at the time. It should have at least been held in a different county.
honeydew / 7303 posts
I definitely think we are getting a better picture of what actually went on than the jury was able to. I think media swayed them heavily and that SA never had his presumption of innocence. From what they have showed of media coverage, I probably would've assumed he was guilty too. It's sad.
coconut / 8861 posts
@Greentea: It was held in the county over in Calumet. Problem is that the prosecution presented their case to the media long before the trial started. Dassey and Avery never stood a chance. The trials should have been held in Green Bay or Madison. It was so unnerving to see Colburn escort Avery and Dassey from the courthouse a number of times.
GOLD / wonderful olive / 19030 posts
If I knew (and I'm not sure how much they knew) that the vial had a needle hole in it + the box was clearly tampered with and I had seen the pictures of the taped up box with the broken seal, I would not for a second believe that the blood was not planted.
coconut / 8861 posts
@sera_87: Whoops, forgot that. Either way, many counties over might have had an impact on the trial.
coffee bean / 39 posts
I thought the absence of EDTA in the blood samples was damning, but it was the whole picture presented that made me believe Avery is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
pomelo / 5678 posts
@cascademom: But they were at the Manitowoc court house (Budweiser signs in the background) and I thought something was mentioned along the lines of you have been found guilty by your peers of Manitowoc county.
persimmon / 1385 posts
@sera_87: @cascademom: @Greentea: I think the Avery trial was held at the Calumet County court house with a Manitowoc jury? That's what I remember anyway, which probably isn't saying much lol.
I think before watching the documentary I would have been much more inclined to believe the FBI testimony regarding the test, as I am generally a trusting person and if an "expert" testifies to something I tend to believe them. Now that I've watched this, I am/will be highly skeptical of "expert" testimony.
pomelo / 5678 posts
@BadgerMom: maybe the Dassey was in Manitowoc then... I remember his mom running out of the courthouse upset (on the doc) and she was definitely in Manitowoc.
persimmon / 1385 posts
@Greentea: Yes! I think the Dassey trail was in Manitowoc County Courthouse with a Manitowoc jury.
And I totally agree with you, the prosecution buttoned up their case with their press conferences long before the trial. I don't even know if having it in Madison or Milwaukee would have helped, I think the news coverage already proved to the entire state of WI that these two were guilty.
pear / 1998 posts
@Mrs D: My husband and I had the same discussion!
I was on a jury that had an expert witness testify about substances in the blood (It was a DUI-type case). We were not allowed to take notes and the prosecutor was terrible and did more to confuse the witness and jury, but regardless, SO MUCH has to do with the pool of jurors.
You are allowed to bring your own experiences into the deliberation room, so if you were on the jury, you could explain that absence of a chemical is not certain proof and might be able to convince the other juror to dismiss that piece of evidence. On the other hand, you could have someone that would absolutely trust the FBI agent and that person may be more convincing than you. In the case of the jury I was on, they let a doctor be part of the jury and most everyone agreed with his opinion on the witness testimony.
If I was on the jury and they only presented the FBI agent, I would probably believe him and think that the blood was not planted.
But because the defense presented the expert chemist and I am familiar with the concept that absence of a chemical in a test can't prove it isn't there, I think I would have been more unsure and would likely dismissed that piece of evidence against Avery.
If it was presented that the vial's box seal was tampered with and there was a needle hole in the top, I would absolutely dismiss that piece of evidence from consideration.
pear / 1998 posts
@BadgerMom: I'm in Wisconsin too, but I move here in '09 so I wasn't aware of the trial while it was happening. It is SO INTERESTING to talk to people who remember the trial in the news and have now watched MAM. So many different opinions!
coconut / 8861 posts
@BadgerMom: The coverage really did them both in. I still remember those news reports. The reports made it sound so certain that they were guilty no matter what. Now seeing the documentary with the uphill battle the defense faced, I look at it differently. The crime lab technician bothered me too where she contaminated a sample and also had orders to have the evidence look one way not the truth. Add that on top of Len Kachnicsky basically working for the prosecution by trying to lead Brendon into a guilty plea. I hated that the judges ruled against them with this obvious evidence. I just can't get over that.
pomelo / 5678 posts
@TemperanceBrennan: I just don't understand, based on the doc, how anyone could possibly find him guilty. However, I am not sure where else to look for information. I mean, is there additional evidence from prosecution? I do remember seeing a dateline on the story long ago, and they clearly framed the story as having no reasonable doubt that he was guilty.
persimmon / 1385 posts
@Greentea: I've read a lot of the articles and Reddit. The only extra evidence that was not presented in the documentary is even more circumstantial than the evidence they presented. After watching/reading everything I could, I think there is a good chance Avery did it, but I can't go any further than that and that's obviously not certain enough to send someone away for life.
coconut / 8861 posts
@Greentea: From living there and in the Midwest during the Teresa Halbach murder and subsequent trials, the press conferences were so jarring and polarizing to the state as a whole. The documentarians had one bar scene where they talked with people about their thoughts. That was how everyone felt around that time. It was like, well there's DNA evidence proving he did it, so it must be true." Kratz worked towards the sympathies of the public a lot. They really painted the Averies as awful people. Sure, they don't have the best criminal background, but Steven didn't rape in 1985. The unfortunate murder and investigation got Manitowoc off of the bad police rap by saying "look, he did this time, we're not bad, we're not wrong." It was so hard to question the DNA evidence at the time. I remember not questioning it and other pieces of evidence. Looking at it now, it's insane they were convicted. It could be a "Thin Blue Line" case if Avery is freed but did it. We don't know. I feel the same way about Adnan Syed too. I'm really not sure if he did or didn't do it, but the trials were so poorly run, it makes it look like they did.
pomegranate / 3045 posts
@Greentea: they actually found DNA evidence of Avery's (sweat DNA, not blood) under the hood of Halbach's car.
Most of the evidence, transcripts, etc are online; they are fascinating!
pomegranate / 3392 posts
One of the most frustrating things to me is that the prosecution laid out one version of the crime to the media, and a whole different one in the trial. Like, they planted the seeds in people's minds and then backed off because they couldn't prove them in court. Like she was tied up, tortured, raped, stabbed repeatedly over several hours in that cluttered room and there wasn't a drop of blood found anywhere? Avery was actively bleeding all over her car but nowhere in the house or the garage? She was shot in the garage but no hint of blood? Is this the Twilight Zone?
Kratz himself told the reporter who was going to write about his sexting allegations (I'm paraphrasing) "once you put it out there, you can never make people un-hear it, you're as good as guilty."
| Today | Monthly Record | |
|---|---|---|
| Topics | 0 | 1 |
| Posts | 1 | 3 |
Ask for Help
Make a Suggestion
Frequently Asked Questions
Bee Levels
Acronyms
Most Viewed Posts
Hellobee Gold
Hellobee Recipes
Hellobee Features
Hellobee Contests
Baby-led Weaning
Bento Boxes
Breastfeeding
Newborn Essentials
Parties
Postpartum Care Essentials
Sensory Play Activities
Sleep Training
Starting Solids Gear
Transitioning to Toddler Bed
All Series
Who We Are
About the Bloggers
About the Hostesses
Contributing Bloggers
Apply to Blog
Apply to Hostess
Submit a Guest Blog
Hellobee Buttons
How We Make Money
Community Policies
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
31 comments