Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Netflix Series: Making a Murderer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Netflix Series: Making a Murderer

    Has anyone watched the Netflix series making a murderer?

    I found it fascinating: A story of injustice followed by a story of some newer "justice-with-questions"...some significant questions IMO.

    I've commented that good discussion = the intersection of black, white AND gray?

    This is almost amazing enough to get me to stop telling pilots how we should be operating aircraft and the aerospace system and start telling Tee Vee how we should be operating the legal system?

    Just like aviation incident discussions, some evidence suggests A, some suggests B, and some suggests C. And, just like aviation, the evidence comes in many levels of certainty and uncertainty and bias and conduct.

    Somewhat different from Aviation, The final report is most definitely out...but the story is not over and the consensus is many times LESS than that of TWA 800 and the Polish president combined.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  • #2
    I think you need to catch up!! Follow Zellnerlaw on Twitter! That's Steven Averys new awesome lawyer!! [emoji1305]


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      Has anyone watched the Netflix series making a murderer?

      I found it fascinating: A story of injustice followed by a story of some newer "justice-with-questions"...some significant questions IMO.

      I've commented that good discussion = the intersection of black, white AND gray?

      This is almost amazing enough to get me to stop telling pilots how we should be operating aircraft and the aerospace system and start telling Tee Vee how we should be operating the legal system?
      The problem is that the objective of an aviation accident investigation and of a crime (or other legal matter) have completely different sets of objectives.

      Accident investigations aim to understand what happened, find opportunities, and make recommendations regarding actions towards preventing that it happens again.

      Judicial investigations, on the other hand, aim to apportion guilt and liability, and the actions are punishment and, sometimes, remediation for the victims.
      That's why judicial investigations have 3 principles that don't apply to accident investigations:
      1- Innocence until proven otherwise.
      2- Proof must meet the "beyond any reasonable doubt" standard.
      3- The 5th: Nobody needs to declare against themselves.

      1- does not apply in accident investigations simply because innocence or guilt is out of the scope.
      2- does not apply because you don't need to be almost 100% sure that this weakness that you found is what caused the accident. If this is something that has the potential to cause the accident and, in circumstances of the accident, it may have happened, then you address it. Heck, more than once I've seen findings and recommendations regarding opportunities that were KNOWN to be NOT RELATED to the accident under study (but may cause another accident another day).
      3- does not apply because there is no "against themselves" (at least ideally), and in the public hearings witnesses (including those that would be "defendants" in a judicial case) have the obligation to tell the truth to the best their abilities, even if that would be considered "declare against themselves" in a trial.

      This is the reason why the conclusions of an accident report cannot be used in a trial and, while factual data can be used, the statements of those who are defendants in a trial cannot be taken into account in the trial (because that statements were done in violation of the constitutional rights and the due process, if they are going to be used in a trial).

      If judicial investigations were conducted as the accident investigations are, many more innocent persons would end in the jail on one hand, and on the other hand the result would be more related to political action (how we improve the society to avoid these cases in the future) that to what we do with this individual that did this.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        ...The problem is that the objective of an aviation accident investigation and of a crime (or other legal matter) have completely different sets of objectives...
        Nice, absolute statement there.

        I acknowledge some difference, but I tend to disagree (and disagree beyond the fact that absolute statements are almost always wrong.)

        -Both the law and aviation investigations attempt to gather evidence of what happened.

        -Both have some interest in finding the truth (I think that is an underlying objective in both).

        -Both may involve some inference and extrapolation.

        -Both may involve the development of a theory and a review of whether the evidence supports or conflicts with or is 'neutral' with respect to the theory.

        -Both may involve questioning if the evidence is reliable (Nothing like an eyewitness, is there?) (And there's evidence beyond eyewitnesses that varies in reliability for both situations).

        -Both will deal with a fair number of unknowns.

        -Both may uncover deliberate wrong-doings.

        -Both may involve a significant life-and-death situations.

        -Both may seek corrective actions.

        -The legal side does trouble me as emotion and conjecture and feelings and other not-so-factual aspects are used to sway 12 folks towards a black and white verdict (and indeed "probably guilty- but we have reasonable doubt" = not guilty).
        (Tee Vee- I acknowledge your standard and correct response: "Show me a better system")

        I find many common, interesting parallels between the two (especially the intersection of black and white with gray!).
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #5
          I love watching stuff like this where a conviction might or might not be wrongful.
          I recommend Amanda Knox's doc on netflix, too because this one at least has a somewhat good ending.

          Also if you are a fan of podcasts: listen to Actual Innocence and Serial (first season)

          Comment


          • #6
            Love this show!

            Comment

            Working...
            X