|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Apr 6, 2020 22:02:09 GMT
I was going to say that. They cherry picked the facts in that. The nephew on the other hand. That "confession" was pitiful. How that wasn't thrown out of court is beyond me. A minor with limited mental capacity, without his parents or a lawyer. That was criminal
No documentary is objective - - it's only the Michael Moore ones that let us recognize that. Even the Ken Burns-style ones aren't objective. Some are worse than others. That's why I didn't list Making a Murderer. I thought it was well done but a load of baloney
|
|
|
|
Post by fjenkins on Apr 6, 2020 22:55:22 GMT
Making of a Murderer is one of the most dishonest unethical documentaries I've ever seen. They purposely leave out stuff that shows he's clearly guilty for the sake of their agenda. it's insulting and worse, most people who've watched it think that's how it is and have never taken time to actually research the case. Teh guy is really guilty and deserves to rot in prison for what he did. I was going to say that. They cherry picked the facts in that. The nephew on the other hand. That "confession" was pitiful. How that wasn't thrown out of court is beyond me. A minor with limited mental capacity, without his parents or a lawyer. That was criminal
The handling of the nephew was wrong and I'm not sure what should be done with everything he said - that said, he was absolutely involved, in his numerous confessions pointed out stuff that only someone who was there could have known. The manner which the info was obtained, yeah, probably not legal. But the kid definitely assisted in the death of the girl. Check out the sub reddit Steven Avery is guilty on reddit, it's got tons of interesting stuff. I used to spend a lot of time in there because the Avery supporters were so incredibly dumb and pulled so much stuff out of their ass, it was really entertaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by fjenkins on Apr 6, 2020 22:57:25 GMT
I was going to say that. They cherry picked the facts in that. The nephew on the other hand. That "confession" was pitiful. How that wasn't thrown out of court is beyond me. A minor with limited mental capacity, without his parents or a lawyer. That was criminal
No documentary is objective - - it's only the Michael Moore ones that let us recognize that. Even the Ken Burns-style ones aren't objective. But to purposely leave out stuff that shows the guy is definitely guilty to make a 'documentary" about a guy unjustly convicted is unethical and wrong. They made up a story and passed it off a documentary and there are now lots of people who spend their time fighting for this nut to be free, it's absurd.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Apr 6, 2020 23:05:17 GMT
No documentary is objective - - it's only the Michael Moore ones that let us recognize that. Even the Ken Burns-style ones aren't objective. But to purposely leave out stuff that shows the guy is definitely guilty to make a 'documentary" about a guy unjustly convicted is unethical and wrong. They made up a story and passed it off a documentary and there are now lots of people who spend their time fighting for this nut to be free, it's absurd. It's like the JFK Conspiracy documentaries. Seen one that had proof that Oswald couldn't have got off three shots. They had a "marksman" who shot, raised the rifle, emptied the chamber, reloaded, dropped the rifle aimed and shot. Of course you couldn't. No one would shoot that way, you leave the gun sight on the target and reload. I could get off three shots, my brother could, my sister could, my uncles could, my wife could and 3/4 of western New Yorkers could. And someone who was trained in the USMC sure as hell could have.
|
|
|
|
Post by fjenkins on Apr 6, 2020 23:06:31 GMT
But to purposely leave out stuff that shows the guy is definitely guilty to make a 'documentary" about a guy unjustly convicted is unethical and wrong. They made up a story and passed it off a documentary and there are now lots of people who spend their time fighting for this nut to be free, it's absurd. It's like the JFK Conspiracy documentaries. Seen one that had proof that Oswald couldn't have got off three shots. They had a "marksman" who shot, raised the rifle, emptied the chamber, reloaded, dropped the rifle aimed and shot. Of course you couldn't. No one would shoot that way, you leave the gun sight on the target and reload. I could get off three shots, my brother could, my sister could, my uncles could, my wife could and 3/4 of western New Yorkers could. And someone who was trained in the USMC sure as hell could have.
Did you ever read Bugliosi's book on the JFK theories? Great book, I think everyone interested in it should read it.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Apr 6, 2020 23:10:14 GMT
It's like the JFK Conspiracy documentaries. Seen one that had proof that Oswald couldn't have got off three shots. They had a "marksman" who shot, raised the rifle, emptied the chamber, reloaded, dropped the rifle aimed and shot. Of course you couldn't. No one would shoot that way, you leave the gun sight on the target and reload. I could get off three shots, my brother could, my sister could, my uncles could, my wife could and 3/4 of western New Yorkers could. And someone who was trained in the USMC sure as hell could have.
Did you ever read Bugliosi's book on the JFK theories? Great book, I think everyone interested in it should read it. I have. It's been accused of being as biased as the conspiracy crap. But I don't think so. Oswald shot Officer Tippit. A ton of witnesses and the ballistics matched to the gun he had on him. If Oswald was a "patsy" why did he shoot a cop? He would have fried for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by wonderburstanger on Apr 7, 2020 0:07:39 GMT
|
|
