|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 13:50:43 GMT -5
this is a fantastic answer, and I hope she starts gaining some ground. She's INCREDIBLY qualified for this, and deserves the nomination! You're probably right on all accounts, but if she deserves the nomination, I could say that so does Sanders, but I'd rather say that in the state it is in, the USA deserve Sanders, it's long overdue, something different was at least experimented, because almost everything else sold as the sure thing has horribly failed the citizens. Is Cinton worthy? Probably. Is she the best? Hopefully not, because that would be a depressing thought. although I do not believe that Sanders is going to get the nomination, I absolutely will go vote for him if he does. I only hope that the Sanders supporters will do the same for Clinton if she does get the Nomination. because if they stay home, or throw away their vote to a 3rd party/independent? we're gonna end up with President Trump or President Cruz. and then we, as a Country, as well me, as a Gay Man, are screwed (along with Women, Minorities, and all those who stayed home and didn't vote) |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Feb 19, 2016 14:37:53 GMT -5
I didn't comment on if they got fair trials or not, or even if they were guilty or not. I merely stated that guilt or innocence should not be decided based on TV.
Whether it's considered a documentary or not is up to judgment. I can't comment in detail, having not seen it, but the amount of detail that was reportedly omitted is troubling. I lived through the trial and journalistic coverage at the time, and since, and will make my judgments based on that. No yuo didn't comment on that but twice you made a statement about the series, which is whay I asked for your opinion in specific questions  So do you feel these people got a fair trial etc? From my investigation of the case details outside the documentary, the ones kind of omited aren't proofs but have more to do with Steven's Avery old record. You should watch the series as it is really interesting work : the directors never take personnal part in the storytelling, only either use existing official recordings or let the people speak freely on camera, never asking questions therefore never giving their own personnal opinion, they kept the required distance, much more so than anyone from the prosecution part. If it got accused of omitting certain details, it certainly brought new ones never brought up by that trial and journalistic coverage, either then or since. Moreover, it would be really interesting to have someone like you who followed that coverage and was a local, getting that amount of info that wasn't covered previously, because you'd more than anyone of us here could see where all of this new info fits in the global historical narrative. Yes, I've commented about the series. That's due in large part to annoyance at the huge influx of people who, because they watch TV, believe they are armchair detectives. We've even had people travel across the country to come here to protest based on what they saw on TV.
No, I haven't watched it and don't intend to. My opinions on the case are based on independent news organizations. Did they get a fair trial? I wasn't there at the trial or privy to the actual details of investigation, so I don't know for sure. Do I believe they're guilty? Based on the independently reported news articles during and after the trial, and those reported since this show came out, yes I believe they're guilty.
Everything I've read regarding the supposed inconsistencies and suggestions of evidence tampering has been disproved by multiple independent sources. From what I've read, the filmmakers raise numerous instances of "this could have happened" and no proof of "this did happen". And since what I've read about the self-proclaimed motivations of the filmmakers were to expose injustice and misconduct in the legal system, they didn't exactly seem to approach the project with an open mind, but a preconceived objective.
Since this is not really in line with the subject of this thread, if you wish to continue discussing it I can create a separate thread and move the posts there to minimize thread drift.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Feb 19, 2016 15:21:44 GMT -5
From what I've read, the filmmakers raise numerous instances of "this could have happened" and no proof of "this did happen". Then you read lies as they don't raise anything of the sort a single time during the 10 hours of the series, trust me I watched it twice. The directors never immerse themselves in the debate a single time, which is why the work is so impressive. I didn't trust everything I saw in it it and went for the opposing side's "story", you should do the same. I could figure you'd have strong doubts about Steven, but really, just watch the series to see if you still feel that way about Brendan. You already have a ton of info n the matter, why not make up your mind with this addiionnal material? All the stuff about Brendan is just facts, video recorded by the state, and it's baffleing. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Feb 19, 2016 16:10:00 GMT -5
From what I've read, the filmmakers raise numerous instances of "this could have happened" and no proof of "this did happen". Then you read lies as they don't raise anything of the sort a single time during the 10 hours of the series, trust me I watched it twice. The directors never immerse themselves in the debate a single time, which is why the work is so impressive. I didn't trust everything I saw in it it and went for the opposing side's "story", you should do the same. I could figure you'd have strong doubts about Steven, but really, just watch the series to see if you still feel that way about Brendan. You already have a ton of info n the matter, why not make up your mind with this addiionnal material? All the stuff about Brendan is just facts, video recorded by the state, and it's baffleing. So they didn't claim evidence was planted? As I understood it, that's the whole premise, that the sheriff's department framed them. They claim evidence was planted, but did they prove it? And the directors may not appear in the TV show, but they are directing the debate with what they choose to include and what they don't.
Still no plans to waste 10 hours of my life on something that is strictly from the defense's point of view when I've already seen the real news reports. And honestly have little interest in discussing it further.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Feb 19, 2016 16:23:49 GMT -5
Well that's not the theory of the directors, just one of the defense attorneys, as you must know. But the directorsnever direc the debate, theyjust let it happen. They offered the prosecutor a chance to participate, which he refused many many times. They get Theresa's family to give their point of view and never judge it either. So basically, yes, you read lies about it. And the "real" news reports you mention probably weren't of the investigating kind. But if you chose to ignore one side of the story and refuse to discuss it, especially when it occured close to you, that's kind of what the whole series is about as well  The vast majority of all footage used in the series is provided by authorities. What the series achieves is mostly to put global context to a matter that was so much fractionned that it was difficult to see the colossal amount of lies, mistakes and felonies that ammounted to conviction. The recording of the detectives, the investigators and Brendans initial defense team are not subjective, those recording weren't produced by the directors of the series, and those all are a testimony to the grave mishaps, lies and manipulation the prosecution used to convict, it's just objective facts, undeniable. So much so that the prosecutor in the matter was recently interviewed and conceded that they didn't handle that properly, that prosecutor who later was convicted of sexual harrassement and using his official power for personnal gains. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Feb 19, 2016 17:27:33 GMT -5
Well that's not the theory of the directors, just one of the defense attorneys, as you must know. But the directorsnever direc the debate, theyjust let it happen. They offered the prosecutor a chance to participate, which he refused many many times. They get Theresa's family to give their point of view and never judge it either. So basically, yes, you read lies about it. And the "real" news reports you mention probably weren't of the investigating kind. But if you chose to ignore one side of the story and refuse to discuss it, especially when it occured close to you, that's kind of what the whole series is about as well The vast majority of all footage used in the series is provided by authorities. What the series achieves is mostly to put global context to a matter that was so much fractionned that it was difficult to see the colossal amount of lies, mistakes and felonies that ammounted to conviction. The recording of the detectives, the investigators and Brendans initial defense team are not subjective, those recording weren't produced by the directors of the series, and those all are a testimony to the grave mishaps, lies and manipulation the prosecution used to convict, it's just objective facts, undeniable. So much so that the prosecutor in the matter was recently interviewed and conceded that they didn't handle that properly, that prosecutor who later was convicted of sexual harrassement and using his official power for personnal gains. As a final word on the subject: You don't know what I've seen on the news, so don't tell me what I watched/read/heard. Having lived through it I don't need Netflix to tell me what to think. Don't tell me I've ignored one side of the subject because I don't choose to watch an entertainment show on TV that you believe to be true. I haven't refused to discuss it, I just haven't agreed with you that this TV show is unspun truth. And I'm done with the topic because I've been hearing about the whole thing for several years before you tuned in to this show, and I'm tired of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Feb 19, 2016 17:48:15 GMT -5
That is a gross mis characterization of what I said and of the material. And you don't know yourself for how long I've been aware of the matter. I Just try to remain objective about this. The matter wasn't new to me before the documentary, far from it. And I was quite surprised by what I saw in it that I hadn't had any access to prior to that. When I worked in politics in France, I used to work on a governmant mission about human rights, false imprisonement and death penalty throughout the world, and I was just the right age to follow this right when the documentary starts. So if you say you got your info from the "real news", yes I have a fairly good idea what you refer to, so please don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when I actually was probably given the same kind of infi you were before I discovered the documentary series, one you keep qualifying of being entertainment while refusing to watch it. Nowhere did I say that the documentary was unspun truth, because it is not about truth FCS! Never does it give you it's opinion, just facts and emotions gathered around ten years, and from both sides. It just made me angry to discover the amount of manipulation that never was uncovered by this supposedly "real" news reports. Reports are what they are, not investigation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 17:54:58 GMT -5
You're probably right on all accounts, but if she deserves the nomination, I could say that so does Sanders, but I'd rather say that in the state it is in, the USA deserve Sanders, it's long overdue, something different was at least experimented, because almost everything else sold as the sure thing has horribly failed the citizens. Is Cinton worthy? Probably. Is she the best? Hopefully not, because that would be a depressing thought. although I do not believe that Sanders is going to get the nomination, I absolutely will go vote for him if he does. I only hope that the Sanders supporters will do the same for Clinton if she does get the Nomination. b ecause if they stay home, or throw away their vote to a 3rd party/independent?
we're gonna end up with President Trump or President Cruz.
and then we, as a Country, as well me, as a Gay Man, are screwed (along with Women, Minorities, and all those who stayed home and didn't vote)Only if they happen to be among the 538 electors. As I've noted more than once, thanks to the Electoral College I could vote 100,000 times in November & still have no impact whatsoever on the election. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 17:58:18 GMT -5
Actually, make that 460,000 times, if the 2012 voting results are any guide.
I'd probably be pretty tired, though. And perilously at risk of being nabbed for jury duty, which not wasting my time by registering to vote has guarded me from being subject to.
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Feb 19, 2016 19:57:10 GMT -5
Supposedly, they no longer use the "registered voter" system to pick jury members anymore, though I was summoned 5 years ago and lost a week's income being self-employed by serving my civic duty. I was glad to do it, but just sayin as a matter of fact.
I'm a lifelong Democrat, and I agree with most of what Hillary has said, though I, like others, have some concerns about her. OTOH, I remember saying years ago, "Wouldn't it be great if someone like Bernie Sanders ran ? I'd vote for that guy in a minute."
Most of what Hillary says I agree with, but, when Bernie talks, I cheer. It really comes from the heart. I suspect this race, on the Democratic side, will be neck and neck to the convention, however, the
"super delegates" are going to lock it up for Hillary.
If that happens, I'm a. going to leave the Democratic party and register as an Independent, and b. write in Bernie on Election Day.
I no longer am going to vote pragmatically (the lesser of two evils), and am going to vote my conscious, and send my tiny little signal to TPTB that I want an alternative.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Feb 19, 2016 20:18:05 GMT -5
Does the US media convey a little the level of enthusiasm Sanders gets in the rest of the occidental world, the level of hope he raises? Because I can tell you that all over Europe, all the people I talk to, no one has ever been that invested in a US election before, not even with Obama, and that is 90% due to Bernie Sanders, and 10% because of the GOP entertainment...
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Feb 19, 2016 20:21:41 GMT -5
One Republican blogger thinks that the only possible way for the Democrats to lose this election would be to nominate Bernie Sanders. |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Feb 19, 2016 21:47:42 GMT -5
I like Hillary. I love Bernie.
Despite what the Intelligentsia says, I think big changes are driven by big visions.
Bernie has more of the same views that I have, and I cheer when he speaks.
Before this election, I would've voted for Hillary being on the ticket, as being the better of the two mainstream candidates to pick from, but, I now follow my conscience, and am thinking long-term.
By voting for Bernie, whether he's at the top of the ticket or not, I am broadcasting my single vote for who I truly think would be best, instead of voting for the middle of the road candidate who's to the left of the Republican.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 23:10:21 GMT -5
I like Hillary. I love Bernie. Despite what the Intelligentsia says, I think big changes are driven by big visions. Bernie has more of the same views that I have, and I cheer when he speaks. Before this election, I would've voted for Hillary being on the ticket, as being the better of the two mainstream candidates to pick from, but, I now follow my conscience, and am thinking long-term. By voting for Bernie, whether he's at the top of the ticket or not, I am broadcasting my single vote for who I truly think would be best, instead of voting for the middle of the road candidate who's to the left of the Republican. and potentially handing the election to the Right Wing nutjob who will benefit from your wasted vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 23:35:13 GMT -5
You really think that Steven Avery got a fair trial? Got subsequant fair appeal hearings? That Brendan Avery got the same? If not, don't you think that that could very easily happen in a state where the death penalty is still applied? That was my argument. And you can think the series is leaning towards one side, but the reality of prosecution did more than that as well, with dramatic consequences. As neither are pure entertainement, it's really not fair to call that documentary series entertainement at heart. The conspiration of Brendan's lawyer is a fact, the scare tactics of the detectives on a mentally challenged kid are a fact, and the series doesn't comment it, it just shows the videos. If you consider that the fact that the series omited some elements from the prosecution disqualifies it as a documentary one, don't you feel that the fact that all key evidence found on SOC were done so by officials specifically forbidden to be there disqualifies the whole process as "law"? As I said in another topic, I don't know if Steven Avery is guilty, but no one has been able to prove it, he's only been convicted of it, and this in huge part based on a catastrophic series of legal mishaps. Without this series, apart from his family, some hillbillies and his lawyers, history would only remember one side of the story, the official one. Imagine having in your custody such a child as Brendan and living in a state with the death penalty, a state where the elite has deemed your kind as scum which should be eradicated in a eugenic way. I don't think I would feel safe at all. The purpose of the series isn't to prove that hte Avery's are innocent or not but to show the level of corruption the legal system is capable of. As Steven Avery's lawyer said late in the series, I hope he is guilty, because if he isn't - which no one has been able to prove - the world is a horrible place. I didn't comment on if they got fair trials or not, or even if they were guilty or not. I merely stated that guilt or innocence should not be decided based on TV.
Whether it's considered a documentary or not is up to judgment. I can't comment in detail, having not seen it, but the amount of detail that was reportedly omitted is troubling. I lived through the trial and journalistic coverage at the time, and since, and will make my judgments based on that.
But since this is a political thread, looks like Cruz has more birther trouble. A lawyer in Illinois has filed suit for the courts to determine what is the definition of "natural born citizen". Natural Born Cruz? It's not about guilt or innocence. It's about reasonable doubt. Is there reasonable doubt? Absolutely. I have no doubt in my mind they were both framed. Could they also have been guilty? Sure. But you don't get to frame someone who is guilty any more than you get to frame someone who is innocent. Play by the rules and give them a fair trial. They didn't get a fair trial, and of that there is no reasonable doubt. |
|
The vast majority of all footage used in the series is provided by authorities. What the series achieves is mostly to put global context to a matter that was so much fractionned that it was difficult to see the colossal amount of lies, mistakes and felonies that ammounted to conviction. The recording of the detectives, the investigators and Brendans initial defense team are not subjective, those recording weren't produced by the directors of the series, and those all are a testimony to the grave mishaps, lies and manipulation the prosecution used to convict, it's just objective facts, undeniable. So much so that the prosecutor in the matter was recently interviewed and conceded that they didn't handle that properly, that prosecutor who later was convicted of sexual harrassement and using his official power for personnal gains.
