|
Kal Torak posted:You must have had ridiculously low expectations because he was terrible on the stand. Did you see any of the other footage of Brendan in this series?
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
Diabolik900 posted:Did you see any of the other footage of Brendan in this series? At the very least, he made the prosecution lose their composure to the point that they sounded like they were gonna start throwing poo poo. Shame he collected himself and salvaged it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Chrtrptnt posted:Someone brought up the blood in the car but no fingerprints, a cloth or leather glove wouldn't leave fingerprints but could soak up enough blood to leave it on surfaces. Likewise, a surgical glove could be torn, or cut while a person is wearing it and get blood all over it. So I can see how that could happen and I don't find it hard to believe that the Averys have work gloves or mechanics rubber/latex gloves laying around a junkyard. If he wore gloves he wouldn't have cut his finger as easily. If he wore gloves for the purpose of not leaving evidence inside the car, and cut his finger so badly it went through the glove (i.e. not just a scrape he wasn't aware of), wouldn't he have noticed he was bleeding and done something about it? Also, if he killed Teresa, he would have known HER blood was all over the back of the car. So why hide the car on his property at all? Even without his fingerprints, it's massively incriminating. He left blood around the ignition switch, but not on the key which he held in his bleeding hand? The DNA on the key wasn't blood, but some other type of DNA. If he bled through the glove enough to leave drops there, the fabric strap of the key would probably have at least some blood on it. He could have cleaned it with his super-CSI skillz, but why keep it at all then? He was apparently not going to drive it (removed battery terminals). Why not leave it in the car? The problem I have with the DA's storyline thing is that it requires Avery to constantly flip between being a Dexter crime scene clean-up genius and a guy who plants evidence on himself (keeps the car and the key, cleans up the garage floor but then puts the casings and bullet fragment back). Chrtrptnt posted:Would a backyard burn pit get hot enough to destroy that much of a body? This isn't a conspiracy type question, just an honest one. Crematory ovens are purpose built and still take several hours to get a body to ash. Chrtrptnt posted:I also don't understand completely the vial of blood as being potentially tampered with. Those types of blood vials are filled through the top via needle, so a needle hole doesn't automatically mean that it was used to steal blood for planting evidence. The hole in the tube in itself wasn't the biggest problem, it was the fact that the evidence seal on the styrofoam box had been broken and then shoddily resealed with scotch tape.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Diabolik900 posted:Did you see any of the other footage of Brendan in this series? Yeah, I get it. I just wanted him to stand up and say in a strong and confident voice that he didn't do it and it was the police who originally suggested how it all went down. My hopes were clearly too high.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
Frankly it'd be way worse for him if he got up on the stand and seemed intelligent and confident. You can't really say "this kid's dumber than dirt and you can get him to say whatever you want if you prod him the right way" and then have him give an eloquent speech about how he was tricked, it would just make him look like an obvious liar. He did about as well as he could, he still seemed like the borderline retard that he is without totally collapsing under pressure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:He was wearing the off cuts from fingerless gloves. This allowed him to bleed all over the car without leaving any fingerprints. Okay, now how'd he get hand DNA on the inside of the hood with no blood, AFTER driving the car?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
I got nervous every time the prosecutor tried to Bugs Bunny Brendan when was on the stand. The thing about his story that stood out to me is that what he did after school never changed - got home, played PS2, spoke to his mom, then Blaine's boss, then went to the bonfire. Meanwhile each confession was different because of the way he was being manipulated. Whatever the truth is with Avery, everything involving Brendan is a travesty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
It is pretty retarded that the prosecution was saying "only one man could have committed this crime" about Avery while Brendan's case was on deck, but if you listen to enough closing arguments in court you're bound to hear some really stupid stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:What on earth is the justification for this? Why the hell shouldn't jurors have a transcript of the case they're deciding? Its better if they make their decision based on half-remembered testimony from earlier in the week than be able to read through exactly what was presented?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
JohnClark posted:Honestly, I never realized just how archaic this process was. What possible justification is there for not, at the very least, audiotaping the trial? Certainly in this day and age videotaping it makes even more sense, why the hell are we relying on the short hand typing ability of some random person when it is trivially easy to have an arbitrary number of cameras and microphones recording everything that's said and done? Audio recordings aren't as easy to search as text.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 08:15
|
|
TL posted:I will say, despite how unbelievably sad the outcome of his trial was, Brendan did far better on the stand than I thought he would. If only he had a lawyer who believed in him from the start.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
I'm seriously surprised at how many people's takeaway from the documentary is CONSPIRACY  I think it's pretty obvious that Steve Avery is guilty as gently caress. I think a lot of what was presented as corruption was more like sheer incompetence. Steve Avery actually got a better case than he should have because the prosecution was functionally retarded, and he really did hire some ruthless defense sociopaths who were clearly of a much higher caliber than the opposition. Everyone's saying how the prosecution is so evil, but I wouldn't trust those 2 smarmy defense fucks with a bag of rice earmarked for orphans with aids. That being said, if I was on trial for murder, I would definitely want them on my side.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
jarjarbinksfan621 posted:I'm seriously surprised at how many people's takeaway from the documentary is CONSPIRACY lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
jarjarbinksfan621 posted:I'm seriously surprised at how many people's takeaway from the documentary is CONSPIRACY this, this is the greatest post yet
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 10:59
|
|
|
I am generally cool with trolling but it should be funny or interesting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
jarjarbinksfan621 posted:I'm seriously surprised at how many people's takeaway from the documentary is CONSPIRACY 10/10
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
Bug Bill Murray posted:Stop responding to bad trolling My comment still stands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 12:23
|
|
|
One glimmer of hope from the whole thing is my realisation that there was lawyers out there who are genuinely fighting for justice and truth. We all like to give lawyers a hard time but there are some good guys out there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
WastedJoker posted:One glimmer of hope from the whole thing is my realisation that there was lawyers out there who are genuinely fighting for justice and truth. We all like to give lawyers a hard time but there are some good guys out there. Don't let the doc cloud your judgement, if those dudes get paid tomorrow by Bill Cosby they'll be trying their hardest to get a Not Guilty verdict just like they did here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
Grem posted:Don't let the doc cloud your judgement, if those dudes get paid tomorrow by Bill Cosby they'll be trying their hardest to get a Not Guilty verdict just like they did here. And they'll still be just as great because if they don't give everyone the same effort in their representation, they're just as guilty of twisting the law into vengeance as the cops and prosecutors in this case. Mother gently caress, after all of this people still don't get what "systemic flaws in the criminal justice process" actually means.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
Grem posted:Don't let the doc cloud your judgement, if those dudes get paid tomorrow by Bill Cosby they'll be trying their hardest to get a Not Guilty verdict just like they did here. As they should. It's their job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:And they'll still be just as great because if they don't give everyone the same effort in their representation, they're just as guilty of twisting the law into vengeance as the cops and prosecutors in this case. Basically, if they didn't give everyone the same effort, they'd be Len Kachinsky.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Diabolik900 posted:Basically, if they didn't give everyone the same effort, they'd be Len Kachinsky. I dunno if they'd be that bad, with Kachinsky it was more like he was actively undermining his client rather than just not giving his fullest effort
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:And they'll still be just as great because if they don't give everyone the same effort in their representation, they're just as guilty of twisting the law into vengeance as the cops and prosecutors in this case. That is the thing for me. I followed a case here in the bay area this year (some people I know were already following it and then I kind of took notice when the defendant escaped from jail back in the spring), including attending a few days of the trial. Other than maybe the jury's personal emotions -- some of those people were clearly ready to murder the guy after the first day of victim testimony -- I was so impressed with how fair and respectful the entire process clearly was to him, even though he was an enormous scumbag and a guilty verdict was pretty much inevitable. Big cities have more resources and more practice at this, and maybe it's easier to do well with living victims and a smart defendant. Who knows. But that -- a fair trial -- is what every defendant should get.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Yeah, I think it's important to remember that completely regardless of everything else going on, arguably the most despicable act committed towards the rights of Steven Avery by the state was when DA Kratz and Sherrif Pagel (I think it was) got on TV in early March and graphically told Brendan's testimony like the most gruesome horror story imaginable, even with the dramatic touch of telling children under 15 to leave the room. That press conference was really what sealed Steven Avery's fate, I think. Because after that the entire state was probably convinced he was guilty. I would have been convinced he was guilty, is the scary thing, because I wouldn't have seen what a travesty Brendan's "confession" really was. And that's what really scares me - how easily perception is manipulated by people in positions of authority who are nominally "respectable" like the Sheriff or the DA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
kaworu posted:That press conference was really what sealed Steven Avery's fate, I think. Because after that the entire state was probably convinced he was guilty. I would have been convinced he was guilty, is the scary thing, because I wouldn't have seen what a travesty Brendan's "confession" really was. You would have been convinced a guy who had his blood in the victim's car and the victim's charred remains on his property was guilty? How horrible an oversight that would have been.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
WastedJoker posted:One glimmer of hope from the whole thing is my realisation that there was lawyers out there who are genuinely fighting for justice and truth. We all like to give lawyers a hard time but there are some good guys out there. I've had two DUI arrests (2005 and 2009). Both times happened when I wasn't drunk (or high, or anything) and the reason I got arrested in both cases are long stories but the short version of the first time is "targeted by cops because of where I lived/how poor I was/not being white" and the second time - I poo poo you not - boiled down to "You were wearing sunglasses" (one of the cops admitted this in the squad car despite the fact I had told them they're prescription glasses that are due to my eyes being damaged and super light-sensitive). Anyway, both times I had public defenders and both times they were alarmingly good about being on my side, believing me, and getting the charges dropped - which they did, both times. So sometimes the system works. Like, rarely, but it does happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
jarjarbinksfan621 posted:You would have been convinced a guy who had his blood in the victim's car and the victim's charred remains on his property was guilty? How horrible an oversight that would have been. You're right, there's a real possibility they planted that evidence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
kaworu posted:You're right, there's a real possibility they planted that evidence. Put down the bong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
You know, there's a GBS thread about this if you want to do really low effort trolling, you'll catch more flies there than here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
precision posted:You know, there's a GBS thread about this if you want to do really low effort trolling, you'll catch more flies there than here. People use the term 'trolling' too much without really understanding the term. I"m sharing my genuine opinions. Calling a spade a spade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
I kept wanting to stop watching after each episode and write my own ending of "Then the cops confessed they planted a bunch of evidence, the real killer came forward and everything is Right and Just in the world". I'm not entirely convinced of Steven Avery's innocence, but I am convinced that they attempted to frame him to "help" the investigation. Also the cops who interrogated a learning disabled minor for 3 hours with out a lawyer or parent present need to be jailed for life, then burn in whatever version of hell is real.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
jarjarbinksfan621 posted:People use the term 'trolling' too much without really understanding the term. I"m sharing my genuine opinions. Calling a spade a spade. Saying "put down the bong" to the 95% of people in this thread who think there is a real chance evidence was planted in this case is most certainly trolling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Kal Torak posted:Saying "put down the bong" to the 95% of people in this thread who think there is a real chance evidence was planted in this case is most certainly trolling. No, it's not. Trolling is saying something controversial solely to elicit a response or make people angry. I"m saying that because I genuinely think you're an idiot stoner if you actually lean towards evidence being planted with no evidence of that other than the wild doubt casted by the slick defense lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
jarjarbinksfan621 posted:No, it's not. Trolling is saying something controversial solely to elicit a response or make people angry. I"m saying that because I genuinely think you're an idiot stoner if you actually lean towards evidence being planted with no evidence of that other than the wild doubt casted by the slick defense lawyers. It really seems like you didn't even watch the documentary though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
It would have made it a lot easier to claim no evidence was planted if the county cops that said they were removing themselves from the investigation had actually done so, and not coincidentally been around on search #7 when actual evidence linking Steven to the crime started to appear. The whole system relies on 'beyond reasonable doubt', the defense lawyers (from what the documentary showed) did a good job of convincing me that there was a lot of doubt over Steven's involvement. He might well have done it and covered it up really well, but that's not how courts work. On the evidence presented in the courtroom there is no way a guilty verdict should have been returned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:He might well have done it and covered it up really well, but that's not how courts work. On the evidence presented in the courtroom there is no way a guilty verdict should have been returned. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it a reasonable doubt to think that his blood and her remains were planted. To me, no.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:It really seems like you didn't even watch the documentary though. All 10 eps over 2 days. I don't think that a pinhole in a blood sample was a "red letter day" for the defense like David Wallace seemed to think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
jarjarbinksfan621 posted:Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it a reasonable doubt to think that his blood and her remains were planted. To me, no. What about the car key and the bullet? If you concede that those pieces of evidence are likely to have been planted then you have to accept that there's doubt about the other stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
Basebf555 posted:What about the car key and the bullet? If you concede that those pieces of evidence are likely to have been planted then you have to accept that there's doubt about the other stuff. I don't think they were planted either, and don't think it's fair to say it is likely they were planted. I just focused on the big 2, because those 2 alone are a slam dunk. It was an incredibly idiotic thing to say in his position, but I think Kratz was on the money when he said it would have been a lot easier for whomever to kill Steven then kill someone else and frame him for the crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 23:16
|
|