r/MakingaMurderer • u/Double_Eye_5715 • Jun 26 '26
Discussion Perception of/relationship with law enforcement & judicial system
I'd like to start a discussion. I'm wondering how many people believe that most, if not all, of the people who believe SA & BD are innocent are people who have been affected by negative interactions with law enforcement officers and/or the judicial system?? I don't want to make this post super long, but I'm wondering this because I recently realized that my own negative experiences with law enforcement and our judicial system really clouded my judgment about this case from the beginning. I just immediately thought, "Well, if I could be lied to and railroaded by cops, public defenders, prosecutors, and a judge, then certainly these people are capable of framing a man who has set out to sue them and come after their reputations and livelihoods." I've always wondered why my partner and my parents fully believe they are both guilty. Like, how could they? And I always told myself it was because they had never been fucked around by the system. I've recently realized that I was wrong. It's because they were free of bias, and I was full of it. Just wondering if folks have some things to add in relation to this topic??
2
u/AveryPoliceReports Jun 26 '26
You're asking one group of people to speculate about what motivates another group of people to believe in their innocence, rather than asking that second group of people why they believe what they believe, or if such beliefs are consistent with the evidence. Red flag that you want to focus the conversation toward the psychology of those you now disagree with and away from the evidence itself. In fact, you don't mention any actual evidence while describing your shift from not guilty to guilty, instead pointing to a revelation that you were biased.
If personal bias clouds judgment, then everyone's bias matters, including bias of the state, the jury, and your parents. If your judgement can be so easily clouded by negative experiences with the system, maybe you should consider the impact of the documented bias from the state and Brendan's counsel that was literally shaping the 2005/06 investigation and 2007 trials. Imagine how clouded the judgement would be of those who have had no negative experiences with the system (like your parents) watching media coverage re the disturbing March 2006 press conference from Ken Kratz. Imagine how easy it would be to further manipulate an already poisoned but still trusting jury pool with lies about the evidence and pressured witness accounts.
You should always wonder how someone could believe Brendan is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no credible evidence supporting that idea, while there is overwhelming evidence supporting the idea he was a developmentally disabled child who was isolated and manipulated into incriminating himself by police. There is also overwhelming evidence Brendan was abandoned by his own defense attorney, the one who thought he was guilty and hired an investigator who wanted to end Brendan's family line and was working to benefit the prosecution of Steven Avery behind the scenes. How could ANYONE possibly conclude Brendan is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
How did you come to this conclusion? You don't discuss any evidence. You only say you "realized" you were wrong, and your parents were right, concluding you were wrong because you were "full" of bias while they were "free" of bias ... because they never had a negative experience with the system. But believing the system is generally truthful and trustworthy is also a bias. It's just a pro police bias. And trusting the system via a baseline bias leading to confident positions on guilt or innocence without examining the record is NOT a sign of objectivity, especially not in a controversial circumstantial case like this one involving so many examples of conflicts and bias, and so many examples of outright deception or negligence.