Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 18:50:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2016 17:45:12 GMT
Interesting information, but almost all of this was in the documentary. Let et me throw this out there.... It's well known that some sexual predators start off flashing victims before making the leap to more violent acts. I was surprised at how similar looking Greg Allen and Steven Avery were to each other. Both were bushy, unkept men. Could it not be possible that it was Allen flashing his cousin? I mean, if you are driving by and are not close to the person, would you really be able to tell the difference? I do not dispute that Steven went after his cousin, that was discussed in the documentary. IIRK, he said he did because she said he was going around flashing people and that was not true. Agreed that he was a wackadoodle for confronting her in such a manner. As as to the torture chamber, that was told to be heresay since there were no documents or witnesses to prove otherwise. And let's be realistic here. It was his cousin. There's obviously some history there, whether good or bad. Like most families, there's probably a "good side" and a "bad side" of the family and animosity between those sides. It's not as though he "ran" a random stranger off the road. I would be willing to guess there was some back and forth antagonism between them. Not to mention that she was married to a deputy in that county, which we already know doesn't/didn't have a good relationship with the Avery family.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 18:50:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2016 17:51:44 GMT
The fact that upper echelon knew of Kratz's inappropriate behavior for a year and did nothing, makes me think he could point to higher misconduct on behalf of the State. Correct me if I am wrong, but did he not allude to as much in a letter. I believe it was the last episode that talked about this and a letter was flashed up on the screen that referenced something of that nature. Am I remembering that incorrectly?
|
|
|
Post by Zee on Jan 9, 2016 17:57:17 GMT
Interesting information, but almost all of this was in the documentary. Let et me throw this out there.... It's well known that some sexual predators start off flashing victims before making the leap to more violent acts. I was surprised at how similar looking Greg Allen and Steven Avery were to each other. Both were bushy, unkept men. Could it not be possible that it was Allen flashing his cousin? I mean, if you are driving by and are not close to the person, would you really be able to tell the difference? I do not dispute that Steven went after his cousin, that was discussed in the documentary. IIRK, he said he did because she said he was going around flashing people and that was not true. Agreed that he was a wackadoodle for confronting her in such a manner. As as to the torture chamber, that was told to be heresay since there were no documents or witnesses to prove otherwise. And let's be realistic here. It was his cousin. There's obviously some history there, whether good or bad. Like most families, there's probably a "good side" and a "bad side" of the family and animosity between those sides. It's not as though he "ran" a random stranger off the road. I would be willing to guess there was some back and forth antagonism between them. Not to mention that she was married to a deputy in that county, which we already know doesn't/didn't have a good relationship with the Avery family. Yeah, I'm sure he was the one showing her his penis. He confronted her. Not a lot of room to suspect the other guy. I think showing her his penis and threatening her with a gun were his redneck hillbilly family's way of addressing a dispute. I don't think he's a great guy. But I don't think the trial was fair. So as far as I'm concerned, everyone can quit trying to convince me that a family feud and idiot actions means he's automatically a murderer. WHY IN THE FUCK CAN'T SOME OF YOU JUST WATCH THE FUCKING SHOW ALREADY. Until then, I'm tired of debating with you when all you know is what you saw on TV ten years ago. I'm willing to read things provided by the prosecution...is there some limitation that prevents you from watching the show, but keeps you posting links here instead because you "know" he's guilty? Christ, I hope none of you are ever called for jury duty.
|
|
|
Post by MaryPea on Jan 9, 2016 18:15:22 GMT
This show sucked me in big time. I had to work but watched every night for a week and finished last night. I just don't see with so many things that make you go hmmm, and don't even get me started on how they treated Brendan, how he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. it's fascinating and mind-boggling and scary all at the same time. Like the lawyer said in the last episode, you can make sure you never commit a crime, but you can't make sure you're never accused of a crime.
|
|
uksue
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,500
Location: London
Jun 25, 2014 22:33:20 GMT
|
Post by uksue on Jan 9, 2016 19:21:08 GMT
Off topic, but that you for the kind words for my daughter.
She is AMAZING. She was due to go to Spain for her third year to study Spanish law at Toledo university and I honestly didn't think she would go after what happened. She spent less than 48 hrs at home with me until she told me she wasn't going to let these men take her power and that she needed to get back to get started on some essays. She also told me straight off she was still going to Spain. You can imagine how worried I was but she had a wonderful time out there, achieved a fantastic degree and is now in a wonderful relationship with a great young man- they literally live a mile away from each other all their lives, went to different schools but had friends in common - she met him just over two years ago and although not officially engaged they are saving for their first home *love*.
I am so grateful and so proud of her- I think she is made from sterner stuff than her mum!
|
|
|
Post by cmhs on Jan 9, 2016 20:16:29 GMT
I'm just curious, was there an explanation of why Teresa made the video they showed throughout of her talking about things/people she loved, etc. Was it "just because" or was for something?
|
|
Nink
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,947
Location: North Idaho
Jul 1, 2014 23:30:44 GMT
|
Post by Nink on Jan 9, 2016 22:21:52 GMT
I gotta say, I don't think that a court judge that sits on the actual trial, should be allowed to sit for the appeals as well. Seems like a bit of a conflict of interest to me v
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 18:50:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2016 10:16:04 GMT
I gotta say, I don't think that a court judge that sits on the actual trial, should be allowed to sit for the appeals as well. Seems like a bit of a conflict of interest to me v I would have thought it would be mandated that it be a different judge for that very reason.
|
|
uksue
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,500
Location: London
Jun 25, 2014 22:33:20 GMT
|
Post by uksue on Jan 10, 2016 15:14:17 GMT
This pre-dates the documentary and is very disturbing if true
Not onky because there may be a connection to the case but because once again it reflects the manitowac police unfavourably.
An Alternative While the Search for Teresa Halbach was underway in November 2005, another series of events was beginning in Bonduel, Wisconsin.
A woman was moving from Bonduel, Wisconsin to Maribel. She had rented a house with the lease to start on 1 November, 2005. The house was on a property that included several outbuildings.
In Bonduel, her husband had exhibited bizarre behavior such as sleeping in their attic and sleeping in a fetal position.
She discovered that the labels had been cut from her clothing, and then her underwear was missing. Her husband denied any knowledge. During the week, he said he burned something at their new address and said it was a doll crib. There was a doll crib at the Maribel address, however, it was not burnt, however.
During the marriage, the citizen found that her husband had attempted to burn himself in the past. He also had previously burnt her clothing. He was diagnosed with personality disorder, narcissistic disorder, depressive disorder, and psychosis, but he refused to take medication.
She found that on 31 October, 2005, he visited the Maribel area and had stopped at the rental before the lease began. He spoke of visiting an auto salvage yard. He commented that a woman wanted to take pictures of the rental property on 31 October while he was there, and he felt that the photographer was “stupid.”
During the week, she observed that her husband had scratches on his back and a cut finger that bled intermittently. She was beginning the move while working in Green Bay.
She found her underwear stuffed in an attic closet at the Bonduel home. She also noted a boombox along with cans of Cherry Pepsi Cola near the steps of the Maribel home. Her underwear disappeared again.
On the 5 of November, when they stopped for lunch in the Maribel area, the husband saw a missing person poster for Halbach and stated dogmatically, “She’s dead.”
The following evening, her husband’s behavior turned worse. He refused to allow her into the Maribel rental. The citizen contacted the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s department, and he was arrested on 6 November, 2005. He was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting an officer.
When she returned to the Bonduel home to continue the move, she checked the attic cupboard again for her missing underwear. Instead, she found a pair of yellow lace panties than were not hers. They were about her size and had stains consistent with menstruation. She placed the panties in a plastic bag to ask her husband about them.
About 10 November, 2005 she looked through the outbuildings in Maribel for her missing clothing. She found some of her clothing cut into pieces. She also discovered a can of lighter fluid with a bloody fingerprint.
Unbeknownst to the citizen, her husband had been placed in two separate psychiatric care facilities during his custody. He was released to an outside address in January, 2006. Court records show that address as Glen’s Bar and Grill in Manitowoc. The County did not notify the woman that her husband was free and in the community.
Between November and the end of the year, a few odd things happened. Two explicit adult magazines were placed on the property. Also, her dogs found relatively fresh bones somewhere on the property. She discarded the bones.
While attempting to distract the dogs from the bones, the citizen dropped her husband’s tool chest in one of the outbuildings. A masons’ hammer and a pair of surgical gloves fell from the chest. The hammer had visible dark red flecks.
In January, she noticed a person staring at her home from the gas station/truck stop across the road. She then discovered that her husband had been released as well as his address. When she parked in the parking lot of the bar and grill, he approached her car and insisted that she take him to the Maribel residence and began searching the house. During the search, he struck her. She called the Sheriff’s Department, and her husband was rearrested.
The new charges were burglary, intimidation of a witness, criminal trespass, resisting an officer, and bail jumping.
One night she noted a second floor balcony door was open. She entered the home and secured the door. After that she discovered an opened closet at the base of the stairs with a pair of women’s jeans, a top, and a pillowcase stained with red stains.
She contacted the sheriff’s department. When a deputy arrived, the citizen explained her findings and wondered if the clothing were connected with the Halbach case. She then discussed the other incidents with the deputy. The deputy stated that she believed the Halbach clothing had been recovered! She collected one magazine and the yellow panties.
If the Halbach clothing had been recovered, it was not information that was released at or after the trial of Steven Avery. If not, then the deputy was fabricating.
The citizen was contacted by Manitowoc County Detective Dennis Jacobs. Jacobs is the child sex investigator for Manitowoc County. He insisted that the panties were from a child despite the staining and size. He wanted the citizen to accuse her husband of pedophilia. He also volunteered that authorities had their suspect in the Halbach case.
She told Detective Jacobs of the cut clothing and a previous incident when her husband had burnt her clothing. His response was that was not a crime.
The woman left Wisconsin for a job in Oregon. On 2 March, 2006 the Manitowoc County prosecutor dismissed the charges of burglary and intimidation against the husband. Charges of disorderly conduct, criminal trespass, and bail jumping were also dismissed. He pleaded no contest to the two resisting officer charges and was sentenced to time served.
She believes that the victim services office in Manitowoc County provided her husband with her new address. He was at her door soon after his release.
She considered the events of the week of 31 October, 2005, and her husband’s behaviors and injuries. The citizen believes that there may be a connection with the Halbach disappearance. When she asked her husband about any possible connection, he simply laughed and said no one would believe her if she reported her suspicions.
But, she had developed a distrust of Manitowoc County law enforcement. Her husband was probably correct that the Wisconsin authorities could not accept the concept that someone else did the crime.
by Brian McCorkle posted on 23 June, 2009 at 20:17 pm in category Steven Avery Comments Off
|
|
oaksong
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,164
Location: LA Suburbia
Site Supporter
Jun 27, 2014 6:24:29 GMT
|
Post by oaksong on Jan 10, 2016 18:13:04 GMT
I just binge-watched this over the last few days so I could read this thread. After finishing, I was convinced of his innocence. Certainly, the way that justice was carried out had a lot of problems from the very beginning. Even if both cases are not examined individually, there should be enough there for the Federal government to step in to oversee how things are done in the individual counties, if not the state. These can't be the only questionable cases under such a sloppy legal system. However, in light of the discussion here, it's not as cut-and-dried as the documentary made it seem. Maybe we'll never know who really did it. Here is a link to a Daily Beast article describing the relatives that Steven Avery thinks could have done it. It's the same information as a precious article that was linked, but with names and more detail about their criminal history. I can see why this family was on law enforcement's radar, that's for sure! Steven Avery's Suspects
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,580
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jan 10, 2016 19:40:42 GMT
Former DA Ken Kratz has made a big deal about the Avery "sweat DNA" found on the RAV4 hood latch not being shown in the documentary, and much of the media has run with that. The truth of the matter actually hurts the prosecution as much as it helps it. As mentioned before, there's no such thing as "sweat DNA". Sweat can carry epithelial cells that contain DNA, but there are other ways to transfer epithelial cells as well, including just through touch. According to the documentarians in this interview with Chris Matthews, a crime lab tech worked first in Steven Avery's car, then went to the hood latch on the RAV4 without changing his gloves. The tech admitted this on the stand. It's very plausible that some cells carrying Avery DNA were carried on his gloves to the hood latch. It would also explain why there were no "sweaty" fingerprints with it. Kratz loved the term "sweat DNA", and impressed on the jury that Manitowoc county didn't also have a vial of Avery's "perspiration" to use to plant evidence, but that wasn't the only way the DNA (a very small amount according to the DNA expert) could have gotten on the latch The documentarians said that the DNA on the hood latch just wasn't treated as a big deal by either the prosecution or the defense in the trial, and that's why they didn't include it.
|
|
MerryMom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,538
Jul 24, 2014 19:51:57 GMT
|
Post by MerryMom on Jan 10, 2016 20:30:49 GMT
Understand the information presented on this series is edited and not all the facts are being presented. I will admit I did a quick internet search for other information as I keep seeing this point brought up. But again, where is the additional information that presents a more clear picture? If you are speaking about his repeated calls to her or showing up in a towel, I read that. absolutely it is creepy. But WHERE is the blood evidence? If he killed her as they say he did, WHERE is the DNA evidence of that from Avery, Brendan or Teresa? If I am missing something, I would like to know. Is there some other evidence? link Yes Copy from link: Here's where I want to talk about what's not in the documentary series, because like many of you, I finished the series furious because I was convinced that Steven Avery (and to an even larger extent, Brendan Dassey) had been unfairly framed for the murder by the police and were serving life sentences for crimes they didn't commit. To a certain extent, whether Avery and Dassey were guilty or not, like in the Adnan Syed case, it doesn't matter. The series revealed massive flaws in our legal system. There was unquestionably reasonable doubt in Avery's case, in spite of the fact that his blood was found in Halbach's car, the burned body was found on his property, and a bullet with Halbach's DNA was found in his garage, because there was evidence supporting the fact that the police could have planted that evidence. In fact, I remain convinced -- like Avery's lawyers -- that whether Avery committed the murder or not, the police planted evidence to ensure his conviction. There are, however, a few things that were not presented in the series that convince me that Avery -- and maybe even Dassey -- were guilty of the murders, which makes the failure of the legal system a slightly less bitter pill to swallow. The process was wrong, but the result -- I think -- was right. But again, whether he was guilty or not, he never should've been convicted based upon the circumstantial evidence, and what Dassey's lawyer and investigator did to Brendan should not only warrant a new trial, it should result in the permanent disbarment of Dassey's attorney. There was clearly some shady shit here, but I snooped around in various Reddit threads and through some local news reports and found a few pieces of evidence not presented in the docuseries that persuade me that Avery was probably guilty. Some of this was presented at trial, while some of it was excluded in pre-trial motions.Here's what I found. -- The documentary said that part of Avery's criminal past included animal cruelty. To my recollection, it didn't specify exactly what that animal cruelty was. I know that for some of our readers, knowing is enough to want to see Avery get the death sentence regardless of whether he murdered Halbach: He doused a cat in oil and threw it on a bonfire (this is not relevant to the murder trial, but it certainly diminishes the sympathy some of us felt for him).-- Past criminal activity also included threatening a female relative at gunpoint.-- In the months leading up to Halbach's disappearance, Avery had called Auto Trader several times and always specifically requested Halbach to come out and take the photos.-- Halbach had complained to her boss that she didn't want to go out to Avery's trailer anymore, because once when she came out, Avery was waiting for her wearing only a towel (this was excluded for being too inflammatory). Avery clearly had an obsession with Halbach.-- On the day that Halbach went missing, Avery had called her three times, twice from a *67 number to hide his identity.-- The bullet with Halbach's DNA on it came from Avery's gun, which always hung above his bed.-- Avery had purchased handcuffs and leg irons like the ones Dassey described holding Halbach only three weeks before (Avery said he's purchased them for use with his girlfriend, Jodi, with whom he'd had a tumultuous relationship -- at one point, he was ordered by police to stay away from her for three days).
-- Here's the piece of evidence that was presented at trial but not in the series that I find most convincing: In Dassey's illegally obtained statement, Dassey stated that he helped Avery moved the RAV4 into the junkyard and that Avery had lifted the hood and removed the battery cable. Even if you believe that the blood in Halbach's car was planted by the cops (as I do), there was also non-blood DNA evidence on the hood latch. I don't believe the police would plant -- or know to plant -- that evidence. I certainly believe that there was a tremendous amount of police misconduct in this case. I believe the police helped the case against Avery along by planting evidence (and there's no doubt in my mind that they planted the RAV4 key in Avery's trailer). I also don't believe the prosecution's theory of events: There's no way Halbach was raped and had her throat slashed in the trailer without a speck of DNA evidence, and there's no way she was shot in the garage without any blood splatter evidence. After all, if Avery had somehow used bleach to erase all trace of Halbach's DNA, he would've also cleaned the garage of his own DNA (and the garage still contained lots of Avery's DNA). I don't know how Avery murdered Halbach. I also don't believe anything that Dassey said in his coerced confession, but I also won't rule out Dassey's involvement because he would've done anything anyone asked of him. Still, the idea that the police killed Halbach is impossible to believe, not because they weren't capable of it, but because of the planning and foresight it would've required. I also believe that Adnan Syed is guilty, but in both cases, I don't believe the jury should've convicted because there simply wasn't enough unimpeachable evidence to support a guilty verdict. I am even more convinced than after Serial that the jury system is fucked, but ironically, in both cases, I also think the jury arrived at the correct conclusion. Updated: Here's some additional damning evidence against both Avery and Dassey either not presented in the series, or not presented in its entirety. -- The reporter from the doc who had all the great reaction shots, added this: -- In this phone conversation (transcript in link) with his mother (which is not entirely included in the docuseries), Brendan told his mother that he did it, that Steven made him do it, and that Steven had touched him (and others) inappropriately in the past.Mom: What all happened, what are you talking about? Brendan: About what Me & Steven did that day, Mom: What about it? Brendan: Well, Mike & Mark & Matt came up one day and took another interview with me and said because they think I was lying but so, they said if I come out with it that I would have to go to jail for 90 years. Mom: What? Brendan: Ya. But if came out with it would probably get I dunno about like 20 or less. After the interview they told me if I wanted to say something to her family and said that I was sorry for what I did. Mom: Then Steven did do it. Brendan: Ya Mom: (Mom Crying) Why didn't you tell me about this? Brendan. Ya, but they came out with something that was untrue with me Mom:. What's that? Brendan: They said that I sold crack ... Mom: So did you talk to her family? Brendan: No M: Huh Brendan: They just asked me if I wanted to say something to them, on the tape. Mom: Did you? Brendan: .lust that I was sorry for what I did. ... Mom: Did he make you do this? Brendan: Ya. Mom: Then why didn't you tell him that. Brendan: Tell him what Mom: That Steven made you do it. You know he made you do a lot of things. Brendan: Ya, I told them that. I even told them about Steven touching me and that. Mom: What do you mean touching you? Brendan: He would grab me somewhere where I was uncomfortable. Mom: Brendan I am your mother. Brendan. Ya. Mom: Why didn't you come to me? Why didn't you tell me? Was this all before this happened? Brendan: What do you mean? Mom: All before this happened, did he touch you before all this stuff happened to you. Brendan: Ya. Mom: Why didn't you come to me, because then he would have been gone then and this wouldn't have happened. Brendan: Ya .. Mom: Yes, and you would still be here with me. Brendan: Yes, Well you know I did it. Mom: Huh Brendan. You know he always touched us and that. Mom: I didn't think there. He used to horse around with you guys. Brendan: Ya, but you remember he would always do stuff to Brian and that. Mom: What do you mean. Brendan: Well he would like fake pumping him Mom: Goofing around Brendan: Ya but, like that one time when he was going with what's her name Jessica .. sister. Mom: Teresa? Brendan: Ya. That one day when she was over, Steven and Blaine and Brian and I was downstairs and Steven was touching her and that. -- There's no denying that it was unethical as hell for the investigator of Dassey's own attorney to elicit a confession out of Brendan, but the documentary suggests that the investigator peppered Brendan with leading questions and basically fed him the answers. From the full transcript, that is not the case at all. Brendan not only confessed, he gave a very detailed account of what happened. They had sex with Teresa on the bed, then they carried her out to the garage, where they cut her throat, and that's where Steven shot her five times with the .22 Brendan said he pulled from above his bed. Then they threw her in the fire. She begged for her life through the entire ordeal. Brendan even cut off some of her hair. Then they cleaned up with bleach and burned all the clothes in the bonfire. The bits and pieces from the interview provided in the series make it seem like Brendan is kind of making it up as he goes along or is being fed answers. The 21-page transcript leaves very little doubt of Brendan's role. But again, Brendan's IQ is 70. He'd been molested by Steven in prior occasions. Basically, Steven forced him to do this, and Brendan wasn't bright enough to say no. He's also not bright enough to make up a story that matches much of the evidence, without being fed the answers.On the other hand, make no mistake: That was tantamount to a coerced confession. From a legal perspective, the information contained within it was worthless. Brendan would've said anything at this point, and it should've never been admitted at trial. Yet, it was, and to any jury seeing it -- and the specificity of the details -- you might see why they believed Avery and Dassey committed the crime.
|
|
|
Post by bostonmama on Jan 10, 2016 21:12:25 GMT
Hearing/Reading Brendan talk makes my brain hurt.
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,580
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jan 10, 2016 21:28:48 GMT
-- There's no denying that it was unethical as hell for the investigator of Dassey's own attorney to elicit a confession out of Brendan, but the documentary suggests that the investigator peppered Brendan with leading questions and basically fed him the answers. From the full transcript, that is not the case at all. Brendan not only confessed, he gave a very detailed account of what happened. They had sex with Teresa on the bed, then they carried her out to the garage, where they cut her throat, and that's where Steven shot her five times with the .22 Brendan said he pulled from above his bed. Then they threw her in the fire. She begged for her life through the entire ordeal. Brendan even cut off some of her hair. Then they cleaned up with bleach and burned all the clothes in the bonfire.
Yet, as you stated before, the only evidence they were able to link to the above story was one small bullet fragment with a very small amount of Teresa Halbach DNA on it - not even blood DNA. Absolutely no biological or other evidence that she was ever in the trailer (the receipt Avery had in his room could have very well been handed to him at the door, like my Terminix and yard care guys hand mine to me). No Teresa Halbach DNA on the leg irons (of the sex toy variety, found in many bedrooms across the country); no DNA or blood evidence on the wheeled creeper Brendan said they took her out to the fire pit on; no blood or DNA evidence found anywhere in the cluttered garage except for the bullet fragment, found after the garage had already been searched a couple of times; no blood or DNA evidence found anywhere on the gun, even in the muzzle; none of Teresa Halbach's hair was found in the trailer or garage, even in the vacuum they took into evidence. Experts stated the fire pit would have not burned hot enough, even with tires on top, to burn Teresa's remains to the extent they were burned. The forensic anthropologist stated she didn't find evidence of another accelerant used, and her claim that the bones couldn't have been moved from another place to the pit was shot down by the defense.
There's just nothing in the evidence that conclusively backs up Brendan's story above, no matter how detailed it was. Even the prosecution in Avery's trial used none of Brendan's confession in that trial, because they knew how problematic it was. Brendan, though, was convicted based only on that confession, and that is why so many people believe at least Brendan deserves a retrial.
There were other men on the property that day that had bigger criminal histories than Steven Avery did, especially violence against women.
None of the claims that Teresa was afraid of Avery and didn't want to go back to the property were allowed in the trial because the judge determined there wasn't enough to back them up. Many people, including Teresa, knew where she was going that day. The #67 phone calls were made by Avery after Teresa was already later than she said she'd be. The defense countered that with Avery's history in the county, he did what he could to protect his privacy, which could include a habit of hiding his phone number from others.
I already spoke of the DNA evidence on the hood latch in a previous post. First, there's no such thing as "sweat DNA". Second, there was evidence of possible cross contamination by the crime lab tech, testified to on the stand. That was left out of the documentary as well, and was as damning to the prosecution and the investigation as the DNA evidence was to the defense.
There is just no evidence in this case, whether it was included in the documentary or not, that proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. All of it is tainted in some manner.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 18:50:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2016 23:07:54 GMT
Hearing/Reading Brendan talk makes my brain hurt. Holy shit. Are you kidding? He's intellectually disabled! Sorry it hurts your brain.
|
|
|
Post by bostonmama on Jan 10, 2016 23:23:19 GMT
Hearing/Reading Brendan talk makes my brain hurt. Holy shit. Are you kidding? He's intellectually disabled! Sorry it hurts your brain. Uh...no, not kidding. How anything he says can be used as FACT against him is preposterous. It hardly makes any sense -- to his own mother, even.
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,580
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jan 10, 2016 23:27:44 GMT
Holy shit. Are you kidding? He's intellectually disabled! Sorry it hurts your brain. Uh...no, not kidding. How anything he says can be used as FACT against him is preposterous. It hardly makes any sense -- to his own mother, even. Exactly. Even if they didn't show all of his interrogations, what they did show was painful to watch on a few different levels. I had to step away for a couple of days after episode four.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 18:50:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 0:44:10 GMT
I have a very hard time understanding how ALL of the appeals were shot down. Am I wrong that can a new judge be petitioned for an appeal?
Do you think it goes all the way up the ladder within the State to keep him in so that the State cannot be sued?
I am having a hard time digesting how this has all been legally upheld!
|
|
|
Post by beanbuddymom on Jan 11, 2016 5:07:04 GMT
I have a very hard time understanding how ALL of the appeals were shot down. Am I wrong that can a new judge be petitioned for an appeal? Do you think it goes all the way up the ladder within the State to keep him in so that the State cannot be sued? I am having a hard time digesting how this has all been legally upheld! I agree, the appeal trial being held under the same judge just seems extremely wrong and cannot believe that was allowed. Then to find out the supreme court refused his appeal and that he has now "exhausted" his appeals, that's just ?? what? Hopefully something will come of all this attention and somehow something is done. I heard on the news that some of the lawyers (Ken Kratz) is receiving threats which seems inappropriate. I mean, I am upset over this but really that seems excessive. I am surprised Len Kachinsky wasn't disbarred for his actions, to be honest. I watch too many lawyer shows but I thought you had to represent your client and his helping the prosecution seems like it should be disbarrable offense at the very least.
|
|
linda~lou
Pearl Clutcher
Keep calm and eat crumpets
Posts: 2,744
Location: Motown but my heart is in San Francisco
Jun 25, 2014 21:57:08 GMT
|
Post by linda~lou on Jan 11, 2016 17:29:24 GMT
I have a question that perhaps has already been addressed. Did Kratz ever go back and give explanation about his initial press conference where he gave a detailed description of the murder taking place in the bedroom based on a 16 year old's coerced interrogation that was what, just a few days after the initial arrest. Without even a preliminary investigation. Tainting jury much, Kratz? But then in final summation, he tells a completely different story now that no DNA was found in bedroom and that the actual murder was committed in the garage.
Was he ever called out on that? Did defense attorneys ever mention how unethical that was? Wouldn't that be cause for a mistrial right there. Or at least grounds to hold the trial in a different county?? Hell, different state!
I haven't read anywhere where he gave a explanation about that press conference and how incredibly incorrect it was and why he changed his tune later during the trial. I think he wanted Avery convicted so badly he didn't care how unethical he was in going about doing it.
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,580
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jan 11, 2016 17:46:25 GMT
I have a question that perhaps has already been addressed. Did Kratz ever go back and give explanation about his initial press conference where he gave a detailed description of the murder taking place in the bedroom based on a 16 year old's coerced interrogation that was what, just a few days after the initial arrest. Without even a preliminary investigation. Tainting jury much, Kratz? But then in final summation, he tells a completely different story now that no DNA was found in bedroom and that the actual murder was committed in the garage. Was he ever called out on that? Did defense attorneys ever mention how unethical that was? Wouldn't that be cause for a mistrial right there. Or at least grounds to hold the trial in a different county?? Hell, different state! I haven't read anywhere where he gave a explanation about that press conference and how incredibly incorrect it was and why he changed his tune later during the trial. I think he wanted Avery convicted so badly he didn't care how unethical he was in going about doing it. From my reading no, he never got called out on it. The laws stating what a prosecutor can feed to the press before a trial, even before a jury is picked, appears very gray. I've read comments from lawyers in other countries who couldn't believe he got away with that. This is one of the reasons why his whining now about how biased the documentary seems doesn't affect me at all. He was clearly shown for the buffoon I believe he is, and with the sensationalistic yet uncorroborated details he gave in that press conference he seriously poisoned the potential jury pool. Talk about biased. None of Brendan's confessions were used in Avery's trial. Brendan, though, was convicted only on those confessions, because there was no physical evidence found proving he had anything to do with Teresa's murder.
|
|
|
Post by BoilerUp! on Jan 11, 2016 18:21:40 GMT
I have a question that perhaps has already been addressed. Did Kratz ever go back and give explanation about his initial press conference where he gave a detailed description of the murder taking place in the bedroom based on a 16 year old's coerced interrogation that was what, just a few days after the initial arrest. Without even a preliminary investigation. Tainting jury much, Kratz? But then in final summation, he tells a completely different story now that no DNA was found in bedroom and that the actual murder was committed in the garage. Was he ever called out on that? Did defense attorneys ever mention how unethical that was? Wouldn't that be cause for a mistrial right there. Or at least grounds to hold the trial in a different county?? Hell, different state! I haven't read anywhere where he gave a explanation about that press conference and how incredibly incorrect it was and why he changed his tune later during the trial. I think he wanted Avery convicted so badly he didn't care how unethical he was in going about doing it. I was literally screaming at my television during this press conference. It's mind blowing to me that he would offer so many details prior to the trial.
|
|
|
Post by arielsmom on Jan 11, 2016 19:07:24 GMT
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,580
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jan 11, 2016 19:19:09 GMT
The Steven Avery jury was comprised of Manitowoc county residents, including a man who was volunteering at the Manitowoc county sheriff's department at the time of the jury selection and the trial, and who was also the father of a man who worked as a sergeant for Manitowoc county sheriff department. Brendan Dassey's jurors were brought in from Dane county. This is also an interesting Reddit link of information left out of the documentary that would have been considered pro-defense, with sources, since so much hoopla has been raised about the documentary being biased. One of the biggies for me was the fact that the Manitowoc county coroner was not allowed to go to the burn pit when the bones were discovered, which falls under her job responsibilities. She was told not to go by Manitowoc authorities because it would be a "conflict of interest". Yet Manitowoc county sheriffs Colburn and Lenk, who had recently been deposed in a civil trial brought against the county by Steven Avery, had almost unfettered access to the Avery property while the investigation was going in. What a joke. If the coroner had been allowed, there's a better chance the fire pit site would have been investigated in a more orderly manner, including a grid search and more photographs.
|
|
oh yvonne
Prolific Pea
Posts: 7,996
Jun 26, 2014 0:45:23 GMT
|
Post by oh yvonne on Jan 11, 2016 19:48:04 GMT
I'll just ITA with MerryMom's great post. I marathoned this weekend and went back and forth on this, but I honestly believe that there is enough to convict Steven, anyone who is capable of dousing the family cat with gasoline and tossing it into the fire is a sick son of a bitch who should not be roaming the streets, and I think he was fully capable of committing this heinous act, that poor girl!
And the other thing that I just can't let go of is the fact that the nephew was so freaked out about his actions he could not eat and lost weight. When your appetite leaves you, there is some seriously heavy shit on your mind. Also his cousin's testimony against him. She didn't lie the first time, and I don't buy his story that he was trying to lose weight on purpose because of his girlfriend. I think he is slow and dim witted, and I think he was easily coerced into his actions, but I think he did it.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jan 11, 2016 20:01:19 GMT
I'll just ITA with MerryMom's great post. I marathoned this weekend and went back and forth on this, but I honestly believe that there is enough to convict Steven, anyone who is capable of dousing the family cat with gasoline and tossing it into the fire is a sick son of a bitch who should not be roaming the streets, and I think he was fully capable of committing this heinous act, that poor girl! And the other thing that I just can't let go of is the fact that the nephew was so freaked out about his actions he could not eat and lost weight. When your appetite leaves you, there is some seriously heavy shit on your mind. Also his cousin's testimony against him. She didn't lie the first time, and I don't buy his story that he was trying to lose weight on purpose because of his girlfriend. I think he is slow and dim witted, and I think he was easily coerced into his actions, but I think he did it. Being capable of something does not mean that you are guilty of doing it. I agree that it seems that Avery has done some things that were unsavory, but the problem here is the misconduct by the police and others in the justice system. Even if he did do it, their actions were wrong.
|
|
Nink
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,947
Location: North Idaho
Jul 1, 2014 23:30:44 GMT
|
Post by Nink on Jan 11, 2016 20:12:53 GMT
I'll just ITA with MerryMom's great post. I marathoned this weekend and went back and forth on this, but I honestly believe that there is enough to convict Steven, anyone who is capable of dousing the family cat with gasoline and tossing it into the fire is a sick son of a bitch who should not be roaming the streets, and I think he was fully capable of committing this heinous act, that poor girl! And the other thing that I just can't let go of is the fact that the nephew was so freaked out about his actions he could not eat and lost weight. When your appetite leaves you, there is some seriously heavy shit on your mind. Also his cousin's testimony against him. She didn't lie the first time, and I don't buy his story that he was trying to lose weight on purpose because of his girlfriend. I think he is slow and dim witted, and I think he was easily coerced into his actions, but I think he did it. I too think he's not the greatest guy. If he was convicted and serving time for burning the cat, I'd be all for it. While many of us probably feel the man deserves to be in jail for various other things, the bottom line, at least for me, is he shouldn't be in jail for this as I don't believe the case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. When we start being ok with people being locked up for stuff because we think they should have been in their past, but weren't, society as a whole has lost more than they've gained.
|
|
oh yvonne
Prolific Pea
Posts: 7,996
Jun 26, 2014 0:45:23 GMT
|
Post by oh yvonne on Jan 11, 2016 20:25:39 GMT
I'll just ITA with MerryMom's great post. I marathoned this weekend and went back and forth on this, but I honestly believe that there is enough to convict Steven, anyone who is capable of dousing the family cat with gasoline and tossing it into the fire is a sick son of a bitch who should not be roaming the streets, and I think he was fully capable of committing this heinous act, that poor girl! And the other thing that I just can't let go of is the fact that the nephew was so freaked out about his actions he could not eat and lost weight. When your appetite leaves you, there is some seriously heavy shit on your mind. Also his cousin's testimony against him. She didn't lie the first time, and I don't buy his story that he was trying to lose weight on purpose because of his girlfriend. I think he is slow and dim witted, and I think he was easily coerced into his actions, but I think he did it. Being capable of something does not mean that you are guilty of doing it. I agree that it seems that Avery has done some things that were unsavory, but the problem here is the misconduct by the police and others in the justice system. Even if he did do it, their actions were wrong. Not saying the actions weren't wrong, I'm just posting that I think he is guilty as charged, from everything I've read addtionally about him.
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,580
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on Jan 11, 2016 20:27:18 GMT
I'll just ITA with MerryMom's great post. I marathoned this weekend and went back and forth on this, but I honestly believe that there is enough to convict Steven, anyone who is capable of dousing the family cat with gasoline and tossing it into the fire is a sick son of a bitch who should not be roaming the streets, and I think he was fully capable of committing this heinous act, that poor girl! And the other thing that I just can't let go of is the fact that the nephew was so freaked out about his actions he could not eat and lost weight. When your appetite leaves you, there is some seriously heavy shit on your mind. Also his cousin's testimony against him. She didn't lie the first time, and I don't buy his story that he was trying to lose weight on purpose because of his girlfriend. I think he is slow and dim witted, and I think he was easily coerced into his actions, but I think he did it. I too think he's not the greatest guy. If he was convicted and serving time for burning the cat, I'd be all for it. While many of us probably feel the man deserves to be in jail for various other things, the bottom line, at least for me, is he shouldn't be in jail for this as I don't believe the case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. When we start being ok with people being locked up for stuff because we think they should have been in their past, but weren't, society as a whole has lost more than they've gained. And if that were the way things worked, then all of the Avery brothers and Scott Tadych should be locked up too.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 18:50:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 21:13:33 GMT
I'll just ITA with MerryMom's great post. I marathoned this weekend and went back and forth on this, but I honestly believe that there is enough to convict Steven, anyone who is capable of dousing the family cat with gasoline and tossing it into the fire is a sick son of a bitch who should not be roaming the streets, and I think he was fully capable of committing this heinous act, that poor girl! And the other thing that I just can't let go of is the fact that the nephew was so freaked out about his actions he could not eat and lost weight. When your appetite leaves you, there is some seriously heavy shit on your mind. Also his cousin's testimony against him. She didn't lie the first time, and I don't buy his story that he was trying to lose weight on purpose because of his girlfriend. I think he is slow and dim witted, and I think he was easily coerced into his actions, but I think he did it. During the trial, Brendan said he lost weight because people had started to call him fat and that he believed that is why he lost his girlfriend. Apparently it had nothing to do with Steven Avery.
|
|