Making a Murderer - Steve Avery

[bcsaberks]

https://twitter.com/madler9000/status/687502890978639872

 

(unsure how to embed a tweet directly)

Edited January 14, 2016 by bcSaberks

[musichunch]

You don't get it at all.

 

I don't believe anything told to me by someone so arrogant as to believe he can divine a person's character simply by looking at him. There is a word (or two) for that.

 

OK....

 

I believe that ANYBODY can get a general feel of a person's character by watching him speak, act, and move for a period of time. Some may be naturally better, but like muscle strength, it can be built up. I'm no special snowflake, I see it as a latent power inherent in everybody. I believe even you K-9 can do it, if you earnestly wanted to. Now I'm not saying you can know everything about a person just by looking at him, but I believe you can generally figure out somebody is an ###### or slimeball by looking at him, some moreso than others.

 

It may be borderline metaphysical, comparable to auras and vibes, which may turn off the skeptics here but if you haven't noticed, I don't see science's consensus opinion as absolute truth. In fact, I tend to trust older cultures on many things that science tells me is false. 

 

I believe many of the things that we accept as indisputable fact nowadays in our smarty pants culture is in fact 100% wrong, so to me, it's arrogant to think that we CAN'T read people's character AT ALL, and that you know for a fact we can't, and that anybody claiming to think we can is arrogant. It's sort of a reverse arrogance. 

 

So to summarize what you misinterpreted:

I'm arrogant - Anybody can do it

Simply looking at him - Watching him speak, act, move, and react for a period of time

 

And besides, nobody here thinks you can get ANY read on a person by watching him for a period of time? I don't believe that. 

[MattPie]

 

OK....

 

I believe that ANYBODY can get a general feel of a person's character by watching him speak, act, and move for a period of time. Some may be naturally better, but like muscle strength, it can be built up. I'm no special snowflake, I see it as a latent power inherent in everybody. I believe even you K-9 can do it, if you earnestly wanted to. Now I'm not saying you can know everything about a person just by looking at him, but I believe you can generally figure out somebody is an ###### or slimeball by looking at him, some moreso than others.

 

It may be borderline metaphysical, comparable to auras and vibes, which may turn off the skeptics here but if you haven't noticed, I don't see science's consensus opinion as absolute truth. In fact, I tend to trust older cultures on many things that science tells me is false. 

 

I believe many of the things that we accept as indisputable fact nowadays in our smarty pants culture is in fact 100% wrong, so to me, it's arrogant to think that we CAN'T read people's character AT ALL, and that you know for a fact we can't, and that anybody claiming to think we can is arrogant. It's sort of a reverse arrogance. 

 

So to summarize what you misinterpreted:

I'm arrogant - Anybody can do it

Simply looking at him - Watching him speak, act, move, and react for a period of time

 

And besides, nobody here thinks you can get ANY read on a person by watching him for a period of time? I don't believe that. 

 

 

This is the kind of stuff that leads to, "we know this guy is guilty, we just have to figure out how make the evidence point that way".

[woods-racer]

This is the kind of stuff that leads to, "we know this guy is guilty, we just have to figure out how make the evidence point that way".

 

It could also be considered a survival instinct. Do I trust/ not trust a situation/person. *Is that a rock or a sabre tooth tiger? Did it move or am I just imagining things?* First impressions or trying to get a read on some one is, and always will be, part of our nature. 

[MattPie]

It could also be considered a survival instinct. Do I trust/ not trust a situation/person. *Is that a rock or a sabre tooth tiger? Did it move or am I just imagining things?* First impressions or trying to get a read on some one is, and always will be, part of our nature. 

 

I agree, reading from body language and actions is valuable insight in some cases. But making the determination of innocence and guilt is NOT one of those cases.

[K-9]

OK....

 

I believe that ANYBODY can get a general feel of a person's character by watching him speak, act, and move for a period of time. Some may be naturally better, but like muscle strength, it can be built up. I'm no special snowflake, I see it as a latent power inherent in everybody. I believe even you K-9 can do it, if you earnestly wanted to. Now I'm not saying you can know everything about a person just by looking at him, but I believe you can generally figure out somebody is an ###### or slimeball by looking at him, some moreso than others.

 

It may be borderline metaphysical, comparable to auras and vibes, which may turn off the skeptics here but if you haven't noticed, I don't see science's consensus opinion as absolute truth. In fact, I tend to trust older cultures on many things that science tells me is false. 

 

I believe many of the things that we accept as indisputable fact nowadays in our smarty pants culture is in fact 100% wrong, so to me, it's arrogant to think that we CAN'T read people's character AT ALL, and that you know for a fact we can't, and that anybody claiming to think we can is arrogant. It's sort of a reverse arrogance. 

 

So to summarize what you misinterpreted:

I'm arrogant - Anybody can do it

Simply looking at him - Watching him speak, act, move, and react for a period of time

 

And besides, nobody here thinks you can get ANY read on a person by watching him for a period of time? I don't believe that.

 

So now you include hearing someone speak and, more importantly, observing how someone acts, in determining their character. That is fair and it is what reasonable people need make a better informed determination as well. Merely looking at someone to determine their character is just not enough. Thanks for clearing that up.

[musichunch]

So now you include hearing someone speak and, more importantly, observing how someone acts, in determining their character. That is fair and it is what reasonable people need make a better informed determination as well. Merely looking at someone to determine their character is just not enough. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

Of course. I probably didn't make myself clear. 

 

However, there are psychics who claim they can deep read somebody just by looking at a picture. Character reading was popular in the 18th and 19th century based on head shape. It's been debunked, but I believe there was some truth in reading people based on just their faces. But that's heading in a metaphysical direction. 

 

But overall I believe I can get a really good feel on who somebody generally is just by observing them or interacting with them for several minutes. Some people are better than this than others and I believe it's a skill that can be fostered. 

 

Now I'm not saying I can know everything about somebody, but I can get a good feel for their general trustworthiness, self-esteem, levels of happiness, etc. General stuff, not specifics. GODD was good at this which was probably related to his work with horses. You saw that with his reads on Bylsma, Lindy, and Darcy. I felt he was right on with all of them. 

 

This is the kind of stuff that leads to, "we know this guy is guilty, we just have to figure out how make the evidence point that way".

 

It could. But I think that's more confirmation bias, mob mentality, community conformity, and personal grudges, rather than character reading. One doesn't have to go with the other. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

I agree, reading from body language and actions is valuable insight in some cases. But making the determination of innocence and guilt is NOT one of those cases.

 

 

As for your 2nd point, I don't see why it can't be considered in with all the other evidence for a juror. I understand why it shouldn't be the ONLY determinant of innocence and guilt. But to include it with everything else? What's wrong with that. Again, baby out with the bathwater. 

 

I'm a believer that your subconscious mind knows far more than our conscious minds. 

 

Here's an article from just a few months ago

 

 

When it comes to detecting lies, you should trust your instinct, research suggests.

We are better at identifying liars when we rely on initial responses rather than thinking about it, say psychologists.

Generally we are poor at spotting liars - managing only slightly better than flipping a coin.

But our success rate rises when we harness the unconscious mind, according to a report in Psychological Science.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-26764866

[deluca67]

Reminds me of WEST MEMPHIS 3

This is much much worse. The West Memphis 3 was due to incompetence. This is an intentional.  

[WildCard]

So, turns out Avery routinely beat his wife and former girlfriend, and sent multiple death threats to them

 

In a new interview, however, Avery’s ex-fiancee Jodi Stachowski says he was a violent and abusive "monster" who strangled her and threatened to kill her during their two-year relationship.

 

"He'd beat me all the time, punch me, throw me against the wall," Stachowski told HLN on Wednesday. "He's like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

 

Stachowski described one incident in which Avery beat her and then strangled her. Police records show that in September of 2004, she reported that Avery pushed her to the floor, hit her and told her he was going to kill her. She then said he strangled her to the point where she lost consciousness. When she woke up, she told police, Avery was dragging her to his car. They were eventually stopped by an officer and Avery was taken into custody. 

 

......

 

 

There's also evidence that Avery may have abused his former wife, Lori. In a police report from 1983, Avery's sister-in-law told police that Avery "beat up on his wife, and she left home and went to a domestic violence center."

 

Then in 1984, police responded to a "family trouble" incident at the Avery residence, but Lori declined to give a written statement. 

After Avery was imprisoned for the 1985 rape of Penny Beerntsen, Lori reported to police that she received threatening letters in the mail from her husband -- a fact the documentary breezes over quickly.

 

"###### you if you dont brang up my kids I will kill you I promis. Ha Ha (sic)" one reads. Another one says simply: "I will get you."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steven-avery-making-a-murderer_us_56992180e4b0ce4964243136

Edited January 18, 2016 by WildCard

[Patty16]

So, turns out Avery routinely beat his wife and former girlfriend, and sent multiple death threats to them

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steven-avery-making-a-murderer_us_56992180e4b0ce4964243136

 

 

The documentary was not aimed at showing his innocence but at exposing the system. Those who are saying but he was a bad man are missing the point and part of the *@$ problem.  

 

The system is supposed to give a fair shake to all, whether guilty or not, and Avery didn't get that.  Implying that it's ok because he was bad and probably did it does not change the fact that he was likely set up by the police.  The bullet, the key, the car, the DNA, and the judge making really really bad rulings (DNA evidence from the FBI should never have been allowed).  

 

He was no angel and many of those things you mention seem to be accurate although many of them weren't allowed as evidence at his trial.

Way way too many people are trying to rationalize this away by saying so what he threatened people and burned a cat, so who cares if he got hosed at trial....again. 

[WildCard]

The documentary was not aimed at showing his innocence but at exposing the system. Those who are saying but he was a bad man are missing the point and part of the *@$ problem.  

 

The system is supposed to give a fair shake to all, whether guilty or not, and Avery didn't get that.  Implying that it's ok because he was bad and probably did it does not change the fact that he was likely set up by the police.  The bullet, the key, the car, the DNA, and the judge making really really bad rulings (DNA evidence from the FBI should never have been allowed).  

 

He was no angel and many of those things you mention seem to be accurate although many of them weren't allowed as evidence at his trial.

Way way too many people are trying to rationalize this away by saying so what he threatened people and burned a cat, so who cares if he got hosed at trial....again. 

I'm not disallowing the validity of the documentary, merely providing information on the guy.