Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 43 of total 43 in this topic |
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jan 7, 2016 - 10:24pm PT
|
For those who haven't caught the episodic Netflix documentary....
1985 - after years of back-and-forth with small town families in rural Wisconsin, Steven Avery is tried convicted of Rape after an investigation by the Manitowoc Sheriffs dept.
2003 - DNA testing catches up and Steven Avery is released - Gregory Allen, the true culprit, had committed several violent crimes since 1985 and at the initial trial Manitowoc PD warned the Sheriffs department that Greg was a possible subject, which was roundly ignored, and his DNA was found on the sex crime kit.
2003 - Steven Avery files 36 million dollar lawsuit. Insurance for the department do not cover and the suit would be criminal and paid by the county.
October 2006 - Theresa Halbach goes missing.
November 2006 - Her Rav 4 and remains are found on Steven Avery's property, and in the week long search a key is found by the same sergeants responsible for Stevens 1985 arrest, Sergeants not allowed on scene due to a conflict of interest. A key not seen in the first few days of searching but was found on the floor in plain view where there was none before.
That's when sh#t starts to get interesting. I've watched three episodes now and I'm obsessed. There's some dark sh#t going down in Manitowoc...
|
|
justthemaid
climber
Jim Henson's Basement
|
|
Locked down in my studio with the cold weather I'm mining Netflix right now since we don't have cable and the video joint closed.
I'm about where you are on that series. I'm interested to see where it goes. It's extremely disturbing to contemplate the whole scenario as a real event.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Where in the hell is Major Kong?
|
|
Netflix has another documentary even more disturbing. Down in Texas a guy was executed even after it was proven that he was innocent. Gov. Rick Perry disbanded a state committee that was about to announce he was innocent. Rick Perry murdered a man for his own political gain.
|
|
SC seagoat
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, Moab, A sailboat, or some time zone
|
|
I did a marathon on Making a Murderer.
Very worth it.
I'm left totally conflicted. You'll enjoy it. It is troubling on many levels.
I'm now doing the Podcast "Serial" on rainy day gym workouts. It's supposed to be compelling also.
Susan
|
|
Prod
Trad climber
|
|
OOOOOHHHHHHHHH!!!!
It's a goodie!
2 sittings in 2 days. Only stopped to pee.
Prod.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
I just saw last night that Nancy Grace has already called this one.
A documentary to show that cops lie all the time. Novel.
At least three witnesses to the Laquan McDonald police killing were questioned for hours, threatened by officers and ordered to change their accounts to match the official Chicago police version of the shooting, the attorneys for the teen's estate say.
Next up:
Whole nother can of worms and considerably shorter
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
this just in
climber
Justin Ross from North Fork
|
|
Great documentary. Though documentaries tend to be one sided, those cops are lying their asses off.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
I wonder if Avery will dedicate his life to finding the "real killer," a la OJ Simpson. The evidence of guilt in the two cases is about the same.
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 8, 2016 - 12:35pm PT
|
Remember during the preliminary hearing, when katz retold the story that Brendan had told the interrogating officers, with extra pizazz and gore that wasn't in the original account? Right after saying "children under... um... 15 should leave, this is really bad stuff", when he described a brutally messy scene with zero evidence to support it, including the extra events he made up?
Great prosecuter, I would definitely trust him.
For my point, I think Steven Avery *probably* did it - but that doesnt' exonerate the terrible police work that led first to his original mis-trial and then almost a second.
Imagine this - Steven Avery is guilty but is let off like O.J. because as#@&%e cops plant evidence and push an agenda.
THAT would be bad.
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 8, 2016 - 12:36pm PT
|
Victims in this case, as I see it, ranked in order of how unfortunate:
Theresa Halbach
Penny Beernstein
Brendan Dassey
Steven Avery
The last two are contentious - the first two are not.
|
|
SC seagoat
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, Moab, A sailboat, or some time zone
|
|
Brendan is such a sad soul. To be smart enough you know you are limited intellectually and then get, somehow, pulled into a situation that was way beyond anything he could cope with, layered on top of being a teenager. My heart did actually break for him.
Susan
|
|
MattB
Trad climber
Tucson
|
|
Haven't seen it, but somewhat familiar.
County framing murder over lawsuit, or is there deeper motive?
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2016 - 04:18pm PT
|
Just finished watching it.
Powerful stuff, and very complex.
One thing to remember is that there is bias in everything we view.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 06:37pm PT
|
I'm on episode six now. This is painful to watch. They framed this guy twice. I don't know who killed the woman, but I don't believe Steven Avery did. If he did, then he is the greatest actor ever.
That is at least how I see it up to episode 6. Just had to say something because this is so terrible. Someone got away with murder and with framing this guy.
I would put him at the top of Greg's list. Two framings and more then 20 years in prison.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Where in the hell is Major Kong?
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 08:37pm PT
|
Jesus! They deal in cat parts?!?!
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 09:17pm PT
|
Its not even remotely elementary.. What the cops did to Brendan is proof of that. If even half of what he said was true, then they would have found blood evidence in the trailer or the garage. They found neither, nor did they find evidence of a clean up.
the gun is easy to explain if you believe the cops were planting evidence. which I do believe.
Is it possible that some of the Averys are messed up? yes.. they aren't that intelligent and so easily swayed and easily messed up.
Brendans first lawyer was utterly and completely incompetent. shamefully incompetent, to allow a 16 year old client to be interviewed without him present. And to have his own investigator lead that young man that way. Brendan is functionally mentally retarded. A functional IQ of 73 and a verbal IQ of 69.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 10:04pm PT
|
Having a hard time reconciling some of the above comments and today's CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/12/entertainment/steven-avery-appeal-feat/index.html
Is CNN in on the conspiracy?
It neglected to mention that he was framed, and noted that his appeal focuses on a near guaranteed loser (one juror pressured the others to vote guilty?!) and an invalid search warrant (which may or may not be loser, but is hardly a claim of innocence and being framed).
The notion that police would frame someone because he has a lawsuit pending against the county seems pretty nutso (might the police think that the case would get heightened scrutiny and their framing would be uncovered?), but I suppose stranger things have happened.
|
|
mucci
Trad climber
The pitch of Bagalaar above you
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2016 - 10:10pm PT
|
^^except the conflict of interest coupled with the "increased scrutiny" Meant absolutely nothing in regards to a conviction in the second case.
Where was the blood, jizz, and spit in the room?
It's the judges that failed the state.
|
|
Rolfr
Trad climber
La Quinta and Penticton BC
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 09:30am PT
|
Do we all believe everything a film maker produces? There are a lot of inconsistencies and items the film maker left out for better drama and increasing the ratings.
I am not disputing there was a miscarriage of justice , but why is everyone so eager to assume the film is unbiased. !
Dig a bit deeper and you will discover numerous inconsistencies and biased reporting on both side.
Example ,Making A Murderer did mention Avery’s whole “young and stupid” phase that led to him being charged with animal cruelty, but what the show didn’t mention was how explicitly cruel it actually was. In the show, the animal cruelty incident was depicted as Avery just having some youthful fun of chucking a cat over a bonfire, assumingly to watch it freak out when it lands on the other side, and accidentally misjudged his throw.
What actually happened was that Avery and his friends found some gasoline and oil, drenched the cat and then threw it in the fire to watch it burn.
"When they brought out the fact that he lit a cat on fire, I think that's when people started to turn against him," said Chris Avery, 57, Avery’s aunt by marriage, according to Madison.com. "It's almost hard to put your face out there.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 10:19am PT
|
but why is everyone so eager to assume the film is unbiased. !
can you point to anyone who has said the film is unbiased? At least on this thread. I don't think that its unbiased.
I also though see the holes in the polices case, and the abuses. why was so much of the evidence against him found by the police force who supposedly took themselves off the case because of the lawsuit against them? evidence that places that woman in both the garage and this trailer and was not found by the other police department that searched for weeks and months. Something that they have no other evidence of. No blood in the trailer, though supposedly her throat was cut. No blood in the garage, though supposedly she was shot 11 times. The cop who found the key, a key with only Stevens DNA on it, though it was her key, this key was found by a cop who wasn't supposed to be there. Plus the evidence was tainted because it had both the lab persons DNA and Stevens, yet no DNA from the person who used that key for 11 years. A cop who had good reason to frame him as his future was at stake. This key was found months after multiple groups of police searched this very small trailer.
Then who found the bullet that supposedly killed her? A bullet found months after multiple searches were conducted in a garage where no other evidence was found. They dug up the cement floor where there were cracks to try to find blood. No blood found, though she was shot 11 times. They also found no evidence that it had been cleaned up as they found other DNA. Just not the woman's. There were also no blood splatters and if you saw the pictures of that garage, then you would find it every difficult to clean. Nothing was found.
Then there is the facts of where her body was burned. Why were bones found in 3 different burn places? A burn pile out of sight of Stevens trailer and out of sight of much of the rest of the property. A burn barrel. And the area next to Stevens house where most of the bones were found. Why would Steven move the body from a burn pile away from his home, to one next to his home. That makes no sense unless you realize she was burned in the pile away from the trailer, then her ashes were put in the barrel and she was transported to the spot near the trailer. Why would Steven do that?
As for the bullet coming from Steven's gun. They didn't find the bullet in the woman. An officer who shouldn't have been searching found it in the garage where no other evidence was found, except for shell casings, which were found all over the property. No blood, no hair, nothing.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven. At this point we have no way of knowing who actually killed this woman. Which is very sad to me. Plus I believe Steven was framed.
Is the film biased? Of course it is. But watch it and listen to his lawyers. They of course want to win, but these are very thorough and decent people. I don't believe they would lie for the camera just to win. Plus they would have to be brilliant actors and so would steven.
This whole thing is a tragedy. And there is definitely evil afoot in that police department. Watch the interviews of Brendan and tell me thats not evil.
Plus if you think a police department isn't up for framing someone, then watch and see how they convicted him of the first attack, one which he served 18 years for and which he was found innocent because of DNA. One which they knew there was another guy who matched the description, but they refused to look at, and who was found to be the person who did the attack. They framed him. That police chief did the composite drawing off of either memory, his own, or off of a police mug shot. Look at the hair. It looks exactly like what Stevens hair looked like at the time and not what the real guy who did it looked like. So they tainted the only witness that they had, the woman who was attacked.
This police department is corrupt and the whole thing is a travesty.
Edit: also.. watch the testimony of the FBI guy, who testified that he could say unequivocally that all six blood splatters did not have the persevative in it, though only 3 samples were tested. and then watch the lab expert who testified for the defense and tell me that something isn't hinky there.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 10:28am PT
|
If you were innocent and framed and sitting in jail and your wife was leaving you and taking your kids away, you might write some very ugly things yourself. He showed the letters. He apologized. They didn't hide that. this guy isn't perfect. Please show me someone who is.
Edit: she doesn't appear to have any money. Where did she get money? Steven paid the money that he got to his lawyers. So what money?
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 10:35am PT
|
what does the new lawyers motive for taking the case have to do with whether Steven is innocent or not? Maybe now she believes that she can get a new trial because of the publicity of this film. Maybe before the film she didn't believe there was a chance in hell of getting him a new trial. Have you noticed how biased the judges are? The one judge saw no reason to throw out Brendans confession, though he is very low IQ and had no attorney present during the first 3 times he was interviewed. And once he had an attorney, that fool allowed him to be interviewed without him present again. Do you have to be dense to not see how that can taint the whole confession? Can you not see the travesty of that?
I'm sorry, but this whole thing stinks and it bothers me very much.
|
|
this just in
climber
Justin Ross from North Fork
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 10:46am PT
|
When Brenden asks what time he'll be back at school to turn in a project, after just confessing to a rape and murder, it shows he doesn't get at all what's going on.
Funny thing about being a troll, are you being serious or just being your regular, troll, self? Makes me read everything you say as worthless drivel.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 10:53am PT
|
When Brenden asks what time he'll be back at school to turn in a project, after just confessing to a rape and murder, it shows he doesn't get at all what's going on.
He had at the time a verbal IQ of 69. which is extremely low. He could be led to say anything.
|
|
atchafalaya
Boulder climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 12:06pm PT
|
The film is a nice piece of advocacy for their client. It is far from objective, and is completely laughable at times how far they will go to draw a weak inference or connection. Entertaining as fiction, but wished they would have offered up/explained the evidence the jurors relied upon in convicting Avery.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 12:33pm PT
|
Example ,Making A Murderer did mention Avery’s whole “young and stupid” phase that led to him being charged with animal cruelty, but what the show didn’t mention was how explicitly cruel it actually was. In the show, the animal cruelty incident was depicted as Avery just having some youthful fun of chucking a cat over a bonfire, assumingly to watch it freak out when it lands on the other side, and accidentally misjudged his throw.
What actually happened was that Avery and his friends found some gasoline and oil, drenched the cat and then threw it in the fire to watch it burn.
"When they brought out the fact that he lit a cat on fire, I think that's when people started to turn against him," said Chris Avery, 57, Avery’s aunt by marriage, according to Madison.com. "It's almost hard to put your face out there.
That's the whole purpose of such testimonty WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACCUSED CRIME. It is why such "testimony" is routinely excluded, unless it can be tied to the crime.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 12:36pm PT
|
What's happening with Avery's suit against the county related to his earlier wrongful conviction for rape?
Why would his subsequent arrest/imprisonment affect that suit?
Under what rule of evidence would it even be admissible? To the extent it is admissible as relating to damages, I could see his later crime as helping his case--he could plausibly argue that the years of unjust imprisonment caused him to go batshit crazy, culminating in the murder.
Also, what's the theory (if there is one) as to who is the real killer? Completely random stranger? (seems impossible)
Someone else in the Avery clan? (possible, I suppose)
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 12:45pm PT
|
What's happening with Avery's suit against the county related to his earlier wrongful conviction for rape?
He settled the lawsuit for 400,000 dollars, which he used to hire the lawyers that defended him in the second case. He said he decided to settle because he knew he had no chance with a public defender. They had him over a barrel.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 02:15pm PT
|
He settled the lawsuit for 400,000 dollars, which he used to hire the lawyers that defended him in the second case. He said he decided to settle because he knew he had no chance with a public defender. They had him over a barrel.
Not really.
If his case was objectively worth significantly more than $400k but he needed the money fast (to pay an attorney in the 2nd case or for whatever reason), he could have obtained a loan with his fist lawsuit as collateral or could have received litigation financing.
A meritorious lawsuit with significant damages is a valuable asset and they're monetized all the time in different ways--he did not have to settle for something like pennies on the dollar because he needed the money fast. (Obviously the financing takes a "piece of the action," but so what, that's business.)
Perhaps there is a law that prevents litigation financing in this type of case, but I'd doubt it.
Sounds like a lot of you guys are just buying this guy's story without a lot of critical analysis?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 08:43pm PT
|
This thing was brutal and so disturbing to watch such a miscarriage of justice.
I think C. Schwarma did it.
Who else has so much invested in this thing ......
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 13, 2016 - 09:12pm PT
|
holy sh#t that's a great insult. I'm going to borrow that.
Chris Schwarma were you in the middle of bumf*ck nowhere on halloween, 2006????
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 09:39pm PT
|
Bullsh!t
You've never climbed anything except into a pit of bullsh!t ......
|
|
Jorroh
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 09:46pm PT
|
I don't think Avery has to be innocent for the documentary to have made its point.
I think there's a decent chance he was guilty, and am pretty sure that at the same time there was all sorts of prosecutorial and police misconduct. Even if there wasn't, its not all that often that you see just how beside the point justice is for our justice system.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 10:09pm PT
|
I don't think Avery has to be innocent for the documentary to have made its point.
I think there's a decent chance he was guilty, and am pretty sure that at the same time there was all sorts of prosecutorial and police misconduct. Even if there wasn't, its not all that often that you see just how beside the point justice is for our justice system.
yes! though I believe that there is a decent chance that he is innocent.
we have a messed up judicial system. Don't get sideways of it. Especially if you have little to no power. You could end up with a public defender who actively works against you.
The problem with this story is most people don't think they could end up like these two, especially Brendan, because they believe they are smarter, and they probably are, thus they can't empathize. Its interesting that there is a thread right now asking if people ever realize how dumb they are. Another question is, can you imagine what its like to not be intelligent and to even be below average, and then go further and be extremely below average. How vulnerable to police interrogation methods one is. Even if those cops have good intentions. They screwed Brendan every which way imaginable. And the judge hearing the appeal was the same judge who tried the case. What is fair about that? A judge oversees himself. Mercy…
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 14, 2016 - 07:46am PT
|
Had he had proper counsel he wouldn't have admitted to a crime he didn't commit in the first place...
|
|
justthemaid
climber
Jim Henson's Basement
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2016 - 09:05am PT
|
Whether or not Avery committed the second crime is (edit:)moot in light of the inappropriate behavior of the prosecutors. The important point in my mind is protect innocent people in the future from this type of mis-justice. They shouldn't be rewarded with a conviction when it is proved through dishonest means.
The real victim is Brendan (and Theresa of course). That kid is so dumb and confused he doesn't know which way is up. Pretty heartbreaking to watch those police interrogations. Brendan simply agrees with anything anyone pressures him to say- whether it me the police, his mother or his lawyer. His testimony flip flops and changes so many times I simply can't understand any honorable judge allowing his statements. I don't think Brendan even knows the truth any longer after all the brain-washing. Kid should be in a psych-ward.
Theresa's family goes through hell over and over again as the case gets re-tried because of prosecutorial mis-conduct leaving doubt in many people's minds.
Edit for sp error
Meh.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2016 - 10:13am PT
|
Interesting contemporaneous account of the trial:
http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/steven-avery/2016/01/08/dasseys-mom-scolds-him-not-being-hero/78508142/
Seems that the notion that Dassey was manipulated in his confession was very much a part of the trial--and the jury obviously didn't buy it.
Here's some interesting testimony in the trial about Dassey lying to investigators about denying that there was a bonfire on Halloween (the murder date)--there was in fact a bonfire, and that's where the victim's remains and phone were found.
Seems odd to me that so many of you seem to believe Dassey now when he was caught lying about a very relevant aspect of the case in which he would have no reason at all to lie if he was innocent (why would anyone care if Avery had a bonfire, in general?).
The best Dassey could do to explain his lie was "Because I'm just like my family. I don't like cops."
Early fabrications
Fallon sought to show that the misinformation from Dassey started early and when he had no reason to lie if he was not involved.
Fallon cited an interview done by a Marinette County sheriff's detective in which Dassey denies there was a bonfire on Halloween night, something he now admits.
"So you lied to (Detective Anthony O'Neill)?" Fallon asked.
"Yes," Dassey said.
"Why did you lie to him?" Fallon asked.
"Because I'm just like my family. I don't like cops," Dassey said.
"Justthemaid"--I think the word you're looking for is "moot," not "mute," but it still doesn't make much sense. It's kind of hard to get too bent out of shape that someone was wrongfully convicted when they were not in fact wrongfully convicted.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2016 - 10:45am PT
|
n which he would have no reason at all to lie if he was innocent (why would anyone care if Avery had a bonfire, in general?).
you need to watch the video and see how they shaped his confession. There is one very clear part where they show this. And you need to try and understand what it means to have a verbal IQ of 69. It doesn't matter if it would have been better for him not to lie, because he was incapable of understanding that. This has been shown in many cases, how its possible and almost probable to lead certain IQ levels and certain age levels to say anything.
Yes it was brought out in trial. Its a difficult subject to try and explain to a layman during a trail, which is why the judge should have done something.
Here is an example of what happens with leading questions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
In this case kids confessed to all sorts of things happening. Most were easy to prove untrue. Brendans confession also went all over the place. Something that didn't come out in Steven's trial because the prosecution did not use his testimony except in an indirect way. That indirect way was the result of what I believe was planted evidence. The two pieces of evidence that made it appear that brendans testimony was at least partially accurate, were the key in Steven's bedroom and the bullet in the garage. Both of these pieces of evidence were found by a manitowoc detective who was not suppose to be investigating because of the conflict with the lawsuit, and they were found after multiple other agencies had already searched the very small bedroom and the garage. Plus the DNA evidence on both pieces was shown to be very suspect. The key had only Steven's DNA on it. It was a key that had been used for 11 years by the woman who was killed. Yet none of her DNA was on it. How is that possible unless the key was first bleached.
we have since learned the things we need to avoid doing with certain ages and certain mental IQ levels. Because they are too susceptible to leading questions. If you know what to look for, its pretty easy to see in the video of his interrogation.
As for the bones being found next to Steven's cabin. This is also muddy water because of the way the police handled the scene. Very incompetent, and that was shown during trial. The guilty verdict is in my opinion more an indictment of what can happen in a jury. I don't trust the average person to understand the concept of leading questions and low IQ. Or be willing to believe that a police force could screw up that bad, or even perhaps even do illegal things. This happened in an area of the country where people still implicitly trust the police.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2016 - 03:06pm PT
|
^ ^
Interesting stuff.
While Avery's guilt seems clear to me unless you believe he was framed by numerous people who had no clear motivation to do so, Dassey is a different question--all they had was his confession, which had obvious problems.
There are still troubling aspects regarding Dassey, and I wouldn't at all assume that he's innocent--just impossible to really say based on what I've seen.
|
|
Coach37
Social climber
Philly
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2016 - 04:16pm PT
|
I wouldn't at all assume that he's innocent
WTF? Go back to law school, you seem to have missed a few days!!
Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895), was an appellate case before the United States Supreme Court in 1895 which established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2016 - 11:22am PT
|
Coach, you are make an all too common and unfortunate fallacy--namely, that the legal presumption of innocence that defendants receive in connection with the criminal justice system means that we must assume that everyone who hasn't been convicted of a crime (or whose conviction has been overturned) is in fact innocent.
We're free to draw whatever conclusions we see fit depending on the circumstances.
To give an example from out legal system, OJ was found not guilty of murdering Nicole and Goldman. He was, however, found liable in a civil suit. This is generally explained as happening because of the different standards of proof in civil and criminal cases. That's a big part of it, but even that is a bit of a legal fiction--it's entirely possible that some or all of the civil jury members believed that OJ was in fact guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The two jury verdicts could be reconciled by believing that the evidence showed OJ was guilty by a preponderance of evidence but was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But you're free to believe the OJ was guilty as hell or clearly innocent or anything in between, as you will. (The evidence in the two trials was not the same, but that doesn't change the point I'm making.)
Your comment also raises some fallacies. For example, a conviction may be overturned because an admission (or other evidence) was ruled inadmissible even if there does appear to be any doubt as the actual guilt of the defendant. This is often described as a conviction being overturned on a "technicality"--people don't have to accept that description, but the point is that appeals courts are not necessarily making judgments about the actual guilt or innocence of the defendant (although of course that can be an important and even necessary part of the process, depending on the circumstances).
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2016 - 11:47am PT
|
While Avery's guilt seems clear to me unless you believe he was framed by numerous people who had no clear motivation to do so,
This case is such a mess.
There was motivation to frame him. He was suing the county for 36 million dollars for wrongful conviction. He spent 18 years in prison for a rape and murder that he did not commit. DNA evidence cleared him. There was evidence of the actual person who did the crime, but the county chose to ignore it. He had a good case.
Once he was incriminated in this new case, he settled the old one and it never went to court.
If he didn't do the murder, then I believe the cops framed him. They needed him to be guilty so no one would look at how bad they messed up his first conviction.
Two of the main pieces of evidence against him were found by a local cop/detective after the investigators from the next county over had done their investigation. Crime scene techs had gone over the garage for 4 days and found nothing, including no blood evidence, though the theory was that Avery shot her in the garage. Then the local cop walks in, though he wasn't suppose to be there because the county had given the investigation over to the next door county because of the lawsuit. So after four days of going over the crime scene, this cop walks in and after 20 minutes he finds the bullet just laying on the floor of the garage.
If that doesn't baffle the mind enough, then he did the same thing inside Avery's mobile home. Crime scene techs and detectives go over that place for days and find no evidence. They tore the place apart. The boy had given testimony that the girl was murdered and raped in the bedroom and that Her throat had been slashed numerous times. His testimony has now been found by a judge to have been coerced. He is very low IQ, borderline severe mental retardation. No blood was found, nor any other evidence. Then this local cop walks in and in a few minutes finds the keys to the murdered girls car behind a night stand. He said it was wedged behind the night stand, as though the night stand had not been moved by other crime scene techs, though the room had been torn apart.
The same cop found two crucial pieces of evidence just minutes after starting searching, after multiple teams of crime scene techs and detectives had combed the places for days. A detective who wasn't supposed to be at the scene.
If you add in that that same cop's girlfriend had had trouble with Casey.. well, it sure looks hinky.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 43 of total 43 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!