scipio_usmc
Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2017
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 100
MAM is a propaganda piece that misrepresents in an effort to create doubt. It accomplishes the intended goal of getting some to doubt the verdict but the basis for that doubt has no ability to legally warrant reversing the conviction.
MAM covered Steven Avery's trial and presented it in a false light. It did so by failing to discuss the counter arguments to all the claims it made thus failing to explain why the jury rejected the claims and convicted. Since it covers arguments the jury was aware of it fails in any way to help warrant a new trial.
For example they spliced together testimony from Colborn instead of presenting his actual testimony that way they could hide his answers to the questions they want to pretend were never answered and also try to make it seem like he was worried and shifty. The jury saw the full testimony and such trickery is not able to be used to try to accomplish anything legally. It is a propaganda technique to try to fool people.
Another example is that they tried to make it appear that the blood vial was tampered with and was a source of blood that was planted. They failed to include the counter evidence presented to the jury which was that the seal was broken by Steven Avery's attorney and the DA when it was used to free him from the rape charge and that police had no access to it and didn't even know blood was improperly being stored in a box that contained files. When you look at the evidence in full (especially what evidence went before the jury) it is totally different than how MAM presented it. MAM also was not limited to evidence that is admissible in court and thus ran with all sorts of wild crap without presenting the counter points.
Day after day people say there should be a new trial simply based on what they saw in MAM even though MAM failed in any way to articulate a legal basis for a new trial.
MAM covered Steven Avery's trial and presented it in a false light. It did so by failing to discuss the counter arguments to all the claims it made thus failing to explain why the jury rejected the claims and convicted. Since it covers arguments the jury was aware of it fails in any way to help warrant a new trial.
For example they spliced together testimony from Colborn instead of presenting his actual testimony that way they could hide his answers to the questions they want to pretend were never answered and also try to make it seem like he was worried and shifty. The jury saw the full testimony and such trickery is not able to be used to try to accomplish anything legally. It is a propaganda technique to try to fool people.
Another example is that they tried to make it appear that the blood vial was tampered with and was a source of blood that was planted. They failed to include the counter evidence presented to the jury which was that the seal was broken by Steven Avery's attorney and the DA when it was used to free him from the rape charge and that police had no access to it and didn't even know blood was improperly being stored in a box that contained files. When you look at the evidence in full (especially what evidence went before the jury) it is totally different than how MAM presented it. MAM also was not limited to evidence that is admissible in court and thus ran with all sorts of wild crap without presenting the counter points.
Day after day people say there should be a new trial simply based on what they saw in MAM even though MAM failed in any way to articulate a legal basis for a new trial.