Longview1982

He was the sole focus of the police investigation and they were throwing the kitchen sink at him to try and make him confess as they were convinced he was the guilty man - all of this was conducted in the full glare of the national media where his entire life, character and identity was irrevocably destroyed and there was a wholesale assumption of guilt simply for being charged and long before he would ever get any chance to put up any defence. Sound familiar? Fortunately, the police got an anonymous tip off about the actual murderer - who they'd cleared of involvement to go after Jefferies - and that was a game-changer. And all of that happened to a man who wasn't involved in any of the previous convictions, grudges and civil lawsuits with the authorities that Avery had as a background. There are plenty of people in the UK who've been fitted up with testimony and evidence being created and/or tailored to allow police to get the outcome they wanted. Jefferies was treated disgracefully, but in some ways he was much more fortunate than many others who find themselves falsely accused.

Further to watching it, I was reading up on a few further things raised in it and found a couple of articles that I thought were really good. A really good article from 2013 (two years before Making a Murderer is released) on the Reid interrogation techniques that were a significant influence on the whole case: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/09/the-interview-7 Here's an interview with Penny Bernsteen - the woman from Avery's original conviction. It's a fascinating account from a perspective you simply don't get to hear: http://www.refinery29.uk/2016/01/100539/penny-beernsten-the-rape-victim-in-making-a-murderer-speaks-out?utm_r29_redirect=us

I think the focus on whether people believe Avery or Dassey to be guilty is inevitable, but I do think it isn't the point of the documentary. The documentary is to shine a light on the enormous imbalance of power that exists within a justice system that is supposed to deliver fairness. Dean Strang made some brilliant and powerful observations around this point in his usual understated manner. There was no great conspiracy of dozens of people dishonestly colluding to bring this about. It simply takes one or two people to be determined to ensure that there is a conviction and everything else easily falls in to place. There's an automatic acceptance in counties like Manitowoc that law enforcement officers and state officials are pillars of the community and that it's unthinkable that these people would act dishonestly. They don't have the cynicism and distrust of authority that exists in urban populations in major cities. Similarly, within the organisations that provide resources and support to law enforcement agencies there is a similar view. This is how we see the Wisconsin State DNA Analyst, Sherry Culhane, calmly presenting conclusions on a sample that caused her to deviate from established protocol under instruction from the FBI investigator, Fassbender. In the film, it comes across as a massive collusion where people are conspiring to change procedures to get a result to match the narrative prosecutors want. The reality is that, like everyone in their workplaces, it was probably a totally insignificant and meaningless event in her daily routine where you just make one small exception to a process to get a job done on time. Culhane is happy to do this because of the assumption that the investigating officers asking her for this are honest people and so there's nothing to be suspicious of when they make these requests. We're viewing all of these actions through a prism of cynicism that simply doesn't exist in counties like Manitowoc, or in the organisations that support law enforcement. Consequently, proper cunts like Lenk, Colburn and Kratz can go about their business without a hint of suspicion and the full support and co-operation of all around them. It's why, during the trial, Strang and Buting suffered a constant barrage of abuse and criticism from county residents who simply couldn't comprehend how they could contemplate accusing these good, honest men - pillars of the community - of such deeds and defend pond-life like the Averys. It's only since the documentary was shown that the feedback has turned through 180 degrees and become supportive as cynics like us tune in and see obvious misconduct that casts doubts on the convictions. Whilst it obviously does matter in real life whether Avery and Dassey are guilty or not, what we should be most outraged about is just how very, very easy it is for ordinary people to be denied any sense of fair treatment and simply "disappeared" for decades within the massive grinding machine of State delivered justice systems.

The treatment of Christopher Jefferies shows that exactly the same thing happens in the UK.

I'd prefer it if they didn't keep allowing our most important players to leave each summer. I'd also prefer it if they got more than one major decision correct every 3 years.

That's a very relevant parallel with FSG and Klopp. Make 3 years of terrible decisions on transfers and strategy and then finally bring in some proper expertise.

Are you sure about that?

That Dallas v Philadelphia game was the poorest quality NFL match I've ever seen. Truly fucking awful standard from both teams and just a relentless stream of stupid penalties.

I wonder if Cameron actually watched it? I bet he was jealous that he's never had the chance to justify pig-fucking as being in the interests of national security.

Never suggested for a moment that Benitez did anything other than get the best out of Gerrard. My post was in response to one that allowed Benitez a "that's just how he is", but not Gerrard. Neither is right or wrong - they simply had different preferences but each were professional enough to still deliver excellence together.

Similarly, whether you like Gerrard or not, that's who he is - introspective and insecure. Footballer in human flaws shocker! I don't see how people are bothered by what he says. All he's saying in effect is what I imagine 90% of footballers think about their managers - we'll never be bezzies but we both acted professionally. And he's thrown in a few, "I didn't agree with the manager's decision" bits for good measure. Again - where's is the problem with that? I don't understand how it would sully his reputation at all.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/picture/2015/sep/15/david-squires-on-what-football-can-expect-under-jeremy-corbyns-reign-of-terror

Beckham isn't the first "name" receiver to face double coverage. Most QB's with a guy that good will still go to him because he'll still make the plays.

I see where Neil is coming from as they are the current rules of engagement, but agree with Jairzinho, that the tactics so far have been shrewd. There have been two major political movements in the last 10 years where a rank outside candidate has emerged to overcome the conventional wisdom to actually mobilise mass support. One, the epitome of what strategy Centre/Left Labour needs to pursue, was Barack Obama. He didn't play the game by the accepted terms of relentless negativity and disparaging your opponent. He set out a simplistic, but positive message that people who are sick of the same thing, or who thought politics and elections had no relevance to them, were motivated to get on board with him. The second was UKIP over the last couple of years. They transformed themselves from being constantly belittled and disparaged as an inconsequential bunch of racist crackpots into being a party that polled 4 million votes (13%) at the Election. That's an enormous achievement that would see them as a major coalition player in almost every other country in Europe. Again, their success was down to setting themselves as conveying an alternative message and presenting themselves as not being part of the same machine that made people not care and turn away from politics. Centre/Left politics in the UK is seriously outgunned in the mainstream media by on-message politicians and "journalists" who have a vested interest in preserving the narrow Centre/Right establishment. There is no point taking them on at their own game on their own pitch. Corbyn's campaign was super-smart and already has the media and the Conservatives throwing a massive assault their way. That such a planned and co-ordinated campaign has been in operation for weeks against a man, and ideology, that is apparently unelectable demonstrates the Centre/Right smelling significant danger. Labour now needs to keep moving the battle ground, whilst retaining the same message Corbyn led with and focus on an almost guerilla campaign in the next 6-12 months to establish this new candidacy and maintain as much of it's momentum as possible.

It's interesting to watch MOTD games from the 80's and hear Motson then and compare him to now. He was a generally calm and articulate commentator back then, but now he's morphed into the hysterical shouter that modern TV coverage demands. I blame Jonathan Pearce. He started off this trend for ranting, hysterical, hyperbole-laden, shouty over reactions on radio and on Channel 5 in the late 90's.

Unnecessarily bitter about Dallas' performance there. If the only points you concede in a game are the direct result of turnovers then the big positive from that is that your defence totally shut down the opposition offense and that you have control of fixing the reasons why you did concede points. It's much easier to fix 3 turnovers than it is to fix an entire defence. The Giants fought hard, but only 3 receptions for Odell Beckham prior to their final drive was crazy given the damage he did to Dallas last season. Poor strategy and poor play calling all game on the Giants offense.

Thought he was just about the only player yesterday who wasn't passively accepting defeat. He was a bit headless chicken at times with his pressing, chasing down and runs forward in possession, but at least he was actually attempting to affect the game. It's damning him with faint praise, but he was much less shit than most yesterday. I think he's a decent quality midfielder, but he won't develop into one for us as long as the manager remains obsessed with turning everyone into a utility player and playing them in various positions as though they were all brought up through the Ajax academy in the 70's.

Do Manchester City make fans register for official accreditation before they can come into the ground dressed as Spongebob Squarepants?

Is that like a Dignitas for hamsters?

People thinking bad of me on the internet? I can live with that.

It's a fair point, although Clark does acknowledge his own failing in this respect: "......Spending too much time, perhaps, talking to professional politicians and to each other......" There are too many members of the public who lazily buy into the narrative presented to them by Westminster politicians and media despite it's obviously incestuous and self-serving nature simply because it's the only game in town. If that sounds patronizing then so be it - there are far too many people in this country who are happy to see millions of others fucked up the arse by any type of government and any number of global corporations as long as their tiny little part of Britain contains a house, a car and a job.

Whereas Mignolet is solid as a rock. It's fine to say it was time to replace Reina, but look at what he's been replaced by? Someone who was so bad, for so long, that Rodgers dropped him for Brad Jones. Just let that sink in before you start throwing your hilarious #AIDSBANTZ around you fucking gimp.

Ah, the classic David Coleman!

It does illustrate the fear Corbyn's centre/left populism has created. The Conservatives felt no need to go after any of the other candidates. That in itself is a telling comment on the leadership election. In the article you linked, Tom Clark's contribution is really good, in my view. Everyone within the party has to show the humility he speaks of. To be fair to Cameron, getting the party to show the same humility in admitting their own hubris and mistakes was the big achievement of his Conservative leadership.

Since August 2014 the defining characteristic of our performances has been: passive ˈpasɪv/ adjective 1. accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance. synonyms: submissive, acquiescent, unresisting, yielding, unassertive, non-resistant, compliant, complaisant, pliant, resigned, obedient, docile,tractable, malleable, pliable, meek, subdued, deferential, forbearing,long-suffering, patient, lamblike, non-violent, supine;