|
Post by AN on Jan 6, 2016 18:35:34 GMT
Three things this show has taught me: 1. Never, ever speak to the police without your lawyer present. This is so freaking true. This video was really compelling for me - I feel like everyone should watch it, ESPECIALLY 18 year olds about to go off to college and those who think "I've got nothing to hide": www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
|
|
|
Post by Zee on Jan 6, 2016 18:42:32 GMT
Yes, there was a conflict with that department. That was the original department that was looking for her, when she was reported missing. At some point, it was turned over to another department. The jury was brought in from Dane County, several hours away. The trial was aired live, I had retired the week before it started, and did watch some/had it on, while working on paperwork. Avery had settled his civil suit with the county before the disappearance of TH. He had been suing for 30+ million and settled for $444,000. Why aren't lawyers rushing forward to help Avery now? I will continue to read this thread, but still try to stay away from the key board. It is making for an interesting discussion, and we will all need to draw our own conclusions. I don't understand why those of you who are so vehemently convinced that he's guilty are refusing to watch the show. It's interesting that you know so much about it that you don't need to see any other view on it.
|
|
Rhondito
Pearl Clutcher
MississipPea
Posts: 4,660
Jun 25, 2014 19:33:19 GMT
|
Post by Rhondito on Jan 6, 2016 18:53:01 GMT
Understand the information presented on this series is edited and not all the facts are being presented. The video footage showing evidence that was tampered with wasn't edited. The video footage of Brendan's interrogations wasn't edited. Maybe they're guilty, maybe they're not, but to me there is enough reasonable doubt that I couldn't have given a guilty vote.
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,578
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jan 6, 2016 18:57:57 GMT
I don't understand why people think the searchers finding the vehicle was so hinky. when you look at the aerial shot of the junkyard, they entered at one end and immediately started to go down the first cars..where you would normally start, at the beginning of the yard. if your intent was to search row by row, then this is where you would start. and they found the car when they got to the end of that first row and saw some vehicles parked up around a pond ridge and checked it out. I don't think it was that strange that they were the ones given a camera either, as many people were already considering avery a suspect and they were going to search his lot, so there may be a higher chance of finding something and they'd want to be prepared. I've heard that mom/daughter search team had some relation to the police, but still- they started at the beginning of the lot, on a row that wasn't very long because of buildings in front of it, it's not really that surprising they found it quickly. The mom/daughter team were related to the Halbachs - cousins I believe. The mom was also a private investigator herself. Why the car location appears hinky to some is because it was located in an area where it was found relatively easily, once the searchers had permission to go on the lot. It also looked like someone had tried to disguise it with a few branches and an old car hood on it, but that just made it stand out more from the cars around it. It's plausible, if you believe in the framing theory, that someone may have found the car a couple of days earlier in another location (like when Colburn called those plates in the first day Theresa was reported missing), then planted the car on the Avery property sometime in the night in a way that made it pretty easy to pick out. The Avery blood evidence inside the car could have also been planted in that time period. The vial of Avery's blood that was kept at the county offices wasn't secured well, and no log or security camera video was kept to determine who had broken the evidence seals and accessed it. It really could go either way - Avery (or whomever murdered Theresa) did a horrible job hiding the car before he could render it unrecognizeable, or it was purposely moved there by someone else to put the focus on Avery.
|
|
IAmUnoriginal
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,894
Jun 25, 2014 23:27:45 GMT
|
Post by IAmUnoriginal on Jan 6, 2016 19:06:40 GMT
I think people find the ease with which they found that car the hinky part. If Avery was attempting to hide it, wouldn't he have hidden it deeper in the junkyard, not at the edge of the first rows? If he was really attempting to hide it, wouldn't he have used the car crusher he had easy access to? Avery might not be the brightest bulb on the tree, but he was familiar with how a police investigation would play out. It doesn't sit right that the car was so easily accessed.
|
|
IAmUnoriginal
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,894
Jun 25, 2014 23:27:45 GMT
|
Post by IAmUnoriginal on Jan 6, 2016 19:11:36 GMT
Yes, there was a conflict with that department. That was the original department that was looking for her, when she was reported missing. At some point, it was turned over to another department. The jury was brought in from Dane County, several hours away. The trial was aired live, I had retired the week before it started, and did watch some/had it on, while working on paperwork. Avery had settled his civil suit with the county before the disappearance of TH. He had been suing for 30+ million and settled for $444,000. Why aren't lawyers rushing forward to help Avery now? I will continue to read this thread, but still try to stay away from the key board. It is making for an interesting discussion, and we will all need to draw our own conclusions. I don't understand why those of you who are so vehemently convinced that he's guilty are refusing to watch the show. It's interesting that you know so much about it that you don't need to see any other view on it. I'd love it if one of you who is completely convinced of his guilt would watch it and take notes. Give us a breakdown episode by episode about what it being portrayed inaccurately. Be the voice of the victim's family, if you will. But, don't do it blindly. You'd have to try to set aside your bias and listen to what's being said. Listen to why people who aren't as familiar with the case are really side-eyeing the heck out of what happened to Avery and his nephew during that investigation and their trials.
|
|
|
Post by peano on Jan 6, 2016 19:27:46 GMT
Three things this show has taught me: 1. Never, ever speak to the police without your lawyer present. 2. If you are poor in America, and accused of a crime, you cannot afford a defense that can help you adequately. 3. That the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a myth. No matter which side of the fence you find yourself on here, I would imagine everyone can agree that Brendan, with his IQ of 69 I believe it was, was questioned and coerced. It's all on tape. It's not even a theory. You can see it, watch it and hear it. It is disgusting. Regardless of if you think Steven Avery killed Teresa, there are so many holes in the defense I can't believe he was convicted. Maybe he did kill her. IDK for certain. But I do know that he could not have possibly assaulted her in his bedroom, stabbed her in his bedroom and then shot her in his garage and somehow magically made every single tiny piece of DNA evidence vanish. I don't believe that for a second. No blood on the mattress? The walls? The floor? Anywhere? But on ONE bullet that was found how many months later and after how many searches? I do not believe that theory for one second. Amend #2 to read "poor and/or unintelligent" and I totally agree with you. And I would also emphasize that we have the criminal justice system we have to combat just what we've seen on all these threads about Making A Murderer, convicting someone based on rumor, hearsay and prejudice. And when our system breaks down, like it did with these two cases, it is a frightening thing.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 28, 2024 11:15:52 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2016 19:44:22 GMT
It's plausible, if you believe in the framing theory, that someone may have found the car a couple of days earlier in another location (like when Colburn called those plates in the first day Theresa was reported missing), then planted the car on the Avery property sometime in the night in a way that made it pretty easy to pick out. The Avery blood evidence inside the car could have also been planted in that time period. The vial of Avery's blood that was kept at the county offices wasn't secured well, and no log or security camera video was kept to determine who had broken the evidence seals and accessed it. It really could go either way - Avery (or whomever murdered Theresa) did a horrible job hiding the car before he could render it unrecognizeable, or it was purposely moved there by someone else to put the focus on Avery. For me, I have a VERY hard time believing that someone that could clean a crime SO WELL as to not leave one single drop or piece of trace evidence was so clumsy with the vehicle or the remains in the fire pit! It just does not make sense.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 28, 2024 11:15:52 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2016 19:47:55 GMT
I don't understand why those of you who are so vehemently convinced that he's guilty are refusing to watch the show. It's interesting that you know so much about it that you don't need to see any other view on it. I'd love it if one of you who is completely convinced of his guilt would watch it and take notes. Give us a breakdown episode by episode about what it being portrayed inaccurately. Be the voice of the victim's family, if you will. But, don't do it blindly. You'd have to try to set aside your bias and listen to what's being said. Listen to why people who aren't as familiar with the case are really side-eyeing the heck out of what happened to Avery and his nephew during that investigation and their trials. Seeing the prejudice though helps me to at least understand how these people were convicted despite the multitude of mistakes AND unethical behavior of ALL offices of government in dealing with this case.
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,578
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jan 6, 2016 19:54:49 GMT
It's plausible, if you believe in the framing theory, that someone may have found the car a couple of days earlier in another location (like when Colburn called those plates in the first day Theresa was reported missing), then planted the car on the Avery property sometime in the night in a way that made it pretty easy to pick out. The Avery blood evidence inside the car could have also been planted in that time period. The vial of Avery's blood that was kept at the county offices wasn't secured well, and no log or security camera video was kept to determine who had broken the evidence seals and accessed it. It really could go either way - Avery (or whomever murdered Theresa) did a horrible job hiding the car before he could render it unrecognizeable, or it was purposely moved there by someone else to put the focus on Avery. For me, I have a VERY hard time believing that someone that could clean a crime SO WELL as to not leave one single drop or piece of trace evidence was so clumsy with the vehicle or the remains in the fire pit! It just does not make sense. I agree. I really try to look at things with more logic than emotion these days, and although there is much about the way these cases (and others) were handled that both anger and frighten me, there is also much that doesn't make sense. I do acknowledge that Steven Avery could have killed Theresa somewhere else, then moved her body and burned it on his property, but that's not what the prosecution presented. The one little piece of evidence (the bullet fragment) they found with her DNA on it placed her murder in the garage, yet that was the only evidence they found of her there.
|
|
Gennifer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,991
Jun 26, 2014 8:22:26 GMT
|
Post by Gennifer on Jan 6, 2016 20:04:53 GMT
There's no way that someone with an IQ of around 70 (per his first attorney) would be smart enough to get rid of so much DNA evidence and be stupid enough to leave her car on his property. Particularly when he had given both the police and search parties permission to look there. I agree with stittsygirl: I'm not proclaiming his innocence, but there's no way he did it the way they said he did. Evidence was planted and/or tampered with, there's no doubt in my mind.
|
|
junior
Shy Member
Posts: 29
Dec 27, 2015 23:58:02 GMT
|
Post by junior on Jan 6, 2016 20:06:38 GMT
I forget which episode it was but during the trial when the forensic anthropoligist said that there were THREE burn sites one off Avery property. The collection of evidence was unusual for this type of crime and made it impossible to determine the original burn site. Another HUGE error. They have used grid search meathods before in recovery of a burn site yet this time they didn't. In a case where all the i's should be dotted carefully and the t's crossed for accuracy, it seems more like Barney Fife was at work.
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,578
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jan 6, 2016 20:33:03 GMT
I forget which episode it was but during the trial when the forensic anthropoligist said that there were THREE burn sites one off Avery property. The collection of evidence was unusual for this type of crime and made it impossible to determine the original burn site. Another HUGE error. They have used grid search meathods before in recovery of a burn site yet this time they didn't. In a case where all the i's should be dotted carefully and the t's crossed for accuracy, it seems more like Barney Fife was at work. I believe they said the sherrif department wouldn't let the county coroner on the site. The coroner would have been the one most likely to do the grid method search, as well as better documentation all around. Another huge WTF for me is why Colburn and Lenk were allowed on the Avery property at all after Steven Avery was arrested and the investigation turned over to Calumet. The Calumet investigators testified that they were told to keep an eye on Lenk and Colburn while they were in the trailer, because apparently plenty of people understood the conflict of interest there, yet even the Calumet guys acknowledged they weren't as diligent as they maybe should have been in watching the Manitowoc pair. They should have never been placed in the position of babysitting Lenk and Colburn while simultaneously trying to do their job of collecting evidence. Just unbelievable.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jan 6, 2016 20:35:58 GMT
We just started watching last night. I believe that we are on episode 4 or 5. To me, it was clear that Brendan's statement was coerced. He never should have been interviewed without his parent or lawyer, especially given his low IQ and his age. He clearly didn't understand what he was saying when he said, "Can I be done by 1:29 so I can get back to class?" and then when they said they needed to arrest him his response was, "Is it like for one day or something?" It was also clear to me that they were leading him and trying to get him to say what they wanted in regards to what happened to her head. We ended with the police officer's testimony regarding his call to 911 to check on the license plates of the car, and it was clear that he had an "Oh, shit" moment and was lying.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jan 6, 2016 20:40:40 GMT
Yes, there was a conflict with that department. That was the original department that was looking for her, when she was reported missing. At some point, it was turned over to another department. The jury was brought in from Dane County, several hours away. The trial was aired live, I had retired the week before it started, and did watch some/had it on, while working on paperwork. Avery had settled his civil suit with the county before the disappearance of TH. He had been suing for 30+ million and settled for $444,000. Why aren't lawyers rushing forward to help Avery now? I will continue to read this thread, but still try to stay away from the key board. It is making for an interesting discussion, and we will all need to draw our own conclusions. I don't understand why those of you who are so vehemently convinced that he's guilty are refusing to watch the show. It's interesting that you know so much about it that you don't need to see any other view on it. Unless I am wrong, but I believe that the dates on the show are different. They gave the dates of the depositions of the officers and others as well as the date she went missing. They also said that Avery settled for $400,000 because he needed it to pay for the lawyers because he had recently been arrested for the murder. I don't think it is accurate to say that he settled prior to her going missing.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jan 6, 2016 20:47:32 GMT
I don't understand why people think the searchers finding the vehicle was so hinky. when you look at the aerial shot of the junkyard, they entered at one end and immediately started to go down the first cars..where you would normally start, at the beginning of the yard. if your intent was to search row by row, then this is where you would start. and they found the car when they got to the end of that first row and saw some vehicles parked up around a pond ridge and checked it out. I don't think it was that strange that they were the ones given a camera either, as many people were already considering avery a suspect and they were going to search his lot, so there may be a higher chance of finding something and they'd want to be prepared. I've heard that mom/daughter search team had some relation to the police, but still- they started at the beginning of the lot, on a row that wasn't very long because of buildings in front of it, it's not really that surprising they found it quickly. The mom/daughter team were related to the Halbachs - cousins I believe. The mom was also a private investigator herself. Why the car location appears hinky to some is because it was located in an area where it was found relatively easily, once the searchers had permission to go on the lot. It also looked like someone had tried to disguise it with a few branches and an old car hood on it, but that just made it stand out more from the cars around it. It's plausible, if you believe in the framing theory, that someone may have found the car a couple of days earlier in another location (like when Colburn called those plates in the first day Theresa was reported missing), then planted the car on the Avery property sometime in the night in a way that made it pretty easy to pick out. The Avery blood evidence inside the car could have also been planted in that time period. The vial of Avery's blood that was kept at the county offices wasn't secured well, and no log or security camera video was kept to determine who had broken the evidence seals and accessed it. It really could go either way - Avery (or whomever murdered Theresa) did a horrible job hiding the car before he could render it unrecognizeable, or it was purposely moved there by someone else to put the focus on Avery. There was also a statement by someone, can't remember who, that the woman who found it had commented that she heard from a police officer that that the car was in the junkyard. That was stated during the trial when she testified and Avery's lawyer asked her why she was given a camera that day but others who were also searching weren't.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 28, 2024 11:15:52 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2016 22:17:13 GMT
I just finished the episode of Avery's trial. After watching the juror talk about feeling uncomfortable and how the deliberations went, I just sit here shaking my head. How was it all allowed to happen?
On the other thread, a pea said that Steven looked as though he were reliving the crime when asked why he was there. To me, he looked as though he were at a loss of understanding. And when the guilty verdict was read, he looked at the jury as if to say how could you do this? I don't know that I have ever seen a guilty person look at the jury after a guilty verdict. Typically, it seems to me they look away or down because they KNOW they are guilty.
|
|
|
Post by not2peased on Jan 6, 2016 22:32:46 GMT
while I believe that Avery did commit the murder (episode 7 when, IMO, he was reliving the murder in his mind when his lawyer asked him why he thought he was here) I do believe there was reasonable doubt that should have prevented his conviction of the crime. I think that the manitowac police planted some evidence in a misguided attempt to "ensure" that the person they felt had committed the crime was punished, and to avoid the further cost and embarrassment his lawsuit was causing.
I don't know about Brendan-but what I do know is he was treated HORRIBLY and there definitely was nowhere near enough evidence to convict, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by beanbuddymom on Jan 7, 2016 0:49:40 GMT
I'm on episode 4 and this is so disturbing to me. I find it incredibly convenient that this murder occurred literally days before he was supposed to receive a huge award and prior to the lawsuit being settled against the county. Maybe I watch too much TV but the thought of a murder for hire situation and planting evidence to get rid of Steven Avery wouldn't be too farfetched to avoid further investigation into the county and the 33 million dollar payout from the county. Watching the interrogation, if you can call it that, of Brendan is just insane that would be admissible.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 28, 2024 11:15:52 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2016 1:01:00 GMT
For all those saying that these are absolutely guilty, have you even SEEN the interrogation of Brendan Dassey?
Completely disregarding how that was so much a part of Steven's case, that was ALL the State had to go on in Brendan's trial. HOW anyone can convict him in good conscience after seeing that is beyond me.
I don't understand why the part of Brendan telling his mom that they got in his head was not brought up by the defense.
|
|
|
Post by Bridget in MD on Jan 7, 2016 1:27:58 GMT
For all those saying that these are absolutely guilty, have you even SEEN the interrogation of Brendan Dassey? Completely disregarding how that was so much a part of Steven's case, that was ALL the State had to go on in Brendan's trial. HOW anyone can convict him in good conscience after seeing that is beyond me. I don't understand why the part of Brendan telling his mom that they got in his head was not brought up by the defense. I thought they played the confession, but stopped before it got to that point in the tape. Yes, why didn't Brendan's lawyers use that portion of the tape??? I also don't understand how/why he made up such elaborate stories. Even the niece did it. WTF? I realize he was fed what to say/admit/draw, but I honestly cannot understand why he wouldn't have just keep saying "I don't know" or "I wasn't there." And where did Kayla get her info? But to tell them he delivered mail, was there, etc... Again, I realize had he had a parent or a lawyer present, it might have been stopped. Maybe they would have never gotten that far with the forced/farced confession. I just have a really hard time understanding - and this will sound awful - that he was really that stupid? naive? to make up that story? I know his IQ was low, didn't they say 4th grade (or was that reading level), but my son is in the 4th grade, and believe me, if he gets accused of doing something, he is ADAMANT about being innocent. Or, he cries like a baby if he knows he is guilty. Speaking of crying like a baby, why the heck did O'Kelly cry so much with the retrospect of the ribbons? was he related to TH? that seemed a little much. And his letter saying how the gene pool but stop there... well, to me that's probably the attitude of teh whole area towards this family, and no way he/they could get a fair shot!
|
|
|
Post by jovifan on Jan 7, 2016 2:28:58 GMT
I've heard that mom/daughter search team had some relation to the police I think she was a second cousin to Teresa, who found the vehicle.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jan 7, 2016 2:36:29 GMT
I'm on episode 4 and this is so disturbing to me. I find it incredibly convenient that this murder occurred literally days before he was supposed to receive a huge award and prior to the lawsuit being settled against the county. Maybe I watch too much TV but the thought of a murder for hire situation and planting evidence to get rid of Steven Avery wouldn't be too farfetched to avoid further investigation into the county and the 33 million dollar payout from the county. Watching the interrogation, if you can call it that, of Brendan is just insane that would be admissible. I thought we were on episode 4 last night, but just started watching again and we just started number 4. I am feeling so sick about how Brendan is being treated. Why was the investigator for Len doing the same things that the police did? He did everything he could to make sure that Brendan wouldn't tell the truth. It is so clear that Brendan is not able to comprehend what is going on and what the consequences are.
|
|
|
Post by sincity2003 on Jan 7, 2016 2:40:21 GMT
I'm on episode 4 and this is so disturbing to me. I find it incredibly convenient that this murder occurred literally days before he was supposed to receive a huge award and prior to the lawsuit being settled against the county. Maybe I watch too much TV but the thought of a murder for hire situation and planting evidence to get rid of Steven Avery wouldn't be too farfetched to avoid further investigation into the county and the 33 million dollar payout from the county. Watching the interrogation, if you can call it that, of Brendan is just insane that would be admissible. I thought we were on episode 4 last night, but just started watching again and we just started number 4. I am feeling so sick about how Brendan is being treated. Why was the investigator for Len doing the same things that the police did? He did everything he could to make sure that Brendan wouldn't tell the truth. It is so clear that Brendan is not able to comprehend what is going on and what the consequences are. That attorney was on TMZ Live yesterday and he made me sick to my stomach. Harvey Levin kept asking him why he hired that investigator and just turned this kid over to him like he did and before the ink was even dry on the drawings, he wa setting up another meeting with the police investigators. He didn't have any real answers. Also, just a note, that attorney is now a judge. Things that make you go hmmmm....
|
|
tincin
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,367
Jul 25, 2014 4:55:32 GMT
|
Post by tincin on Jan 7, 2016 2:40:43 GMT
If I'm understanding it, doesn't the producer has ties to the Avery family. What's the old clique, Just because you see it on TV (or the internet) doesn't make it true. Don't believe everything you see on this show is accurate. It is designed to get an audience and it is successfully doing that. Isn't this the one where the reporter that was coming to talk to Avery about the first case ended up dead. Yeah, coincidence. You just don't have that kind bad luck twice. Especially not when you are rich. The producers don't have ties to the Avery family. They moved there specifically to do the documentary. Also, who the heck is rich in the documentary? They may have owned a junk yard but by the looks of the property, if they were rich they were doing a heck of a job of hiding it.
|
|
|
Post by sincity2003 on Jan 7, 2016 2:43:05 GMT
They were poor. That's in the very first episode - how poor they were and the first victim was a well off married woman who owned a lot of businesses with her husband and family. The Avery family lived on the outskirts of town operating a junk yard and it appears not a successful one.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jan 7, 2016 2:44:16 GMT
For all those saying that these are absolutely guilty, have you even SEEN the interrogation of Brendan Dassey? Completely disregarding how that was so much a part of Steven's case, that was ALL the State had to go on in Brendan's trial. HOW anyone can convict him in good conscience after seeing that is beyond me. I don't understand why the part of Brendan telling his mom that they got in his head was not brought up by the defense. I thought they played the confession, but stopped before it got to that point in the tape. Yes, why didn't Brendan's lawyers use that portion of the tape??? I also don't understand how/why he made up such elaborate stories. Even the niece did it. WTF? I realize he was fed what to say/admit/draw, but I honestly cannot understand why he wouldn't have just keep saying "I don't know" or "I wasn't there." And where did Kayla get her info? But to tell them he delivered mail, was there, etc... Again, I realize had he had a parent or a lawyer present, it might have been stopped. Maybe they would have never gotten that far with the forced/farced confession. I just have a really hard time understanding - and this will sound awful - that he was really that stupid? naive? to make up that story? I know his IQ was low, didn't they say 4th grade (or was that reading level), but my son is in the 4th grade, and believe me, if he gets accused of doing something, he is ADAMANT about being innocent. Or, he cries like a baby if he knows he is guilty. Speaking of crying like a baby, why the heck did O'Kelly cry so much with the retrospect of the ribbons? was he related to TH? that seemed a little much. And his letter saying how the gene pool but stop there... well, to me that's probably the attitude of teh whole area towards this family, and no way he/they could get a fair shot! His reading level may have been at a 4th grade level, but his social skills, emotional maturity, comprehension level and other cognitive skills appear to be much, much lower. He does not show any emotion in any of his conversations or interviews, asks his mother what "inconsistent" means, asked if he could go back to school by 6th period after just saying that he was part of a brutal rape and murder. He was very easily influenced, as was clear by the videos.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 28, 2024 11:15:52 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2016 2:58:36 GMT
I'm quite sure based on knowledge of other trials, that if evidence wasn't presented during the trial (such as Brendan saying they got in his head) it's because the Judge didn't permit it. There are always all sorts of things that as a juror I would feel like I would want to know, but the reality is that they, in one way or another, are ruled to be prejudicial or nonadmissable.
To be honest, I thought that the Judge wasn't particularly fair in his rulings that we did see, but from a legal standpoint, I can't say if that is true or not.
|
|
|
Post by beanbuddymom on Jan 7, 2016 3:20:38 GMT
I'm on episode 4 and this is so disturbing to me. I find it incredibly convenient that this murder occurred literally days before he was supposed to receive a huge award and prior to the lawsuit being settled against the county. Maybe I watch too much TV but the thought of a murder for hire situation and planting evidence to get rid of Steven Avery wouldn't be too farfetched to avoid further investigation into the county and the 33 million dollar payout from the county. Watching the interrogation, if you can call it that, of Brendan is just insane that would be admissible. I thought we were on episode 4 last night, but just started watching again and we just started number 4. I am feeling so sick about how Brendan is being treated. Why was the investigator for Len doing the same things that the police did? He did everything he could to make sure that Brendan wouldn't tell the truth. It is so clear that Brendan is not able to comprehend what is going on and what the consequences are. I agree, I am just sick to my stomach watching this interview with Len's investigator (Michael O'Kelley) and I am honestly furious about how misleading he is being with him.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jan 7, 2016 3:36:42 GMT
There are so many things about this that make me frustrated and sad, but I can't believe how many people seemed to be in on this or at least have some inkling that things were not on the up and up and kept quiet and perpetuated it.
|
|