[Yaelle]

But you do understand the juxtaposition of this case after Avery’s previous rape conviction?? You saw how much he looked like the actual rapist. And he was convicted, due process and all that. He was wholly innocent and spent about 20 years locked up for a crime he had NOTHING to do with. It does happen. And the second case has MORE doubt than the first had. Plus motive for the county to frame him.

[BBell]

He looked like the rapist from the composite drawing the sheriffs department did and they had Avery’s mugshots available to them. Also the rape victim said her rapist eyes were blue not brown. Another thing I noticed was Avery is not very tall. How tall is Gregory Allen? I searched but I could not find the answer.

[IronJack]

I did NOT say he was innocent or guilty. I simply said he was accorded due process, which is the definition of justice in this country.

Besides, if you're basing your whole analysis of this case on the documentary, you're only seeing part of the picture. The jury, on the other hand, saw it all.

Yes, mistakes happen. Innocent men are convicted. And, far more often, guilty men go free. It's not a perfect system; it's only better than anything else.

[IronJack]

I agree that there should have been SUBSTANTIAL doubt as to Avery's guilt in the minds of the jury. The defense had some major holes, and strategically walked a very dangerous line in playing the "cops framed my client" argument. But even the circumstantial evidence SHOULD have been enough to cast a shadow of doubt, which is the burden of proof necessary in a capital crime.

However, for whatever reason, it didn't. And, under the system, the verdict stands unless contravened by some other process under the law.

The wild card in any jury trial is always the jury. I highly doubt this one heeded the judge's instruction to decide based solely on the evidence and the testimony, regardless of personal prejudices. If it had, I don't see any way they could have voted to convict.