paisleysaints Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) The comment from prosecution was they had 5 days to clean up during dasseys trial. I think there's a chance jury was well rigged or at least 2 or 3 put on to sway others. I think one was a voluntary cop according the guy who got excused. Edited January 20, 2016 by paisleysaints 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinkle Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Brendan never had a coherent explanation of what happened, so I don't think you can really say anything as to whether he knew anything or not. Every explanation he gave was different. The confession, Avery's trial, his trial, the weird video confession that the lawyer set up. The fact there was no forensic evidence is pretty damning on the verdict though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pride_of_the_Clyde Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) I'd be very wary of taking any sort of conclusion on that case based on a few hours at most (once you take out the first case and editing) of evidence being discussed when in reality the trial lasted, I think, weeks. ETA: I'd be particularly wary of the above given that both his, exceptionally intelligent lawyers gave no assertion of him being innocent. I've also seen this show being used as a stick to beat America with. While I can agree that it's a far better depiction of what America is really like than 99% of shows on TV, in any court of law that uses your peers the fundamental flaw in it is that those peers can be dimwits, disinterested, stubborn, biased and a whole load of other things that can leave any accessed person hoping for luck. That's not exclusive to America in spite of the litany of immortal people I wanted to pummel with fists. Edited January 20, 2016 by Pride_of_the_Clyde 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Must be weird being a prosecution lawyer too, doing your best to put someone away for a crime they may not be guilty of. That'd prey on my mind far more than being a defence lawyer and seeing a guilty person avoiding jail. Anyway, latest in-depth theory about Coburn calling in the license plate here. Pulls together quite a few 'off' threads of the story. That theory still doesn't deal with the whole 'sweat on the car' evidence though. It's completely ignored in the documentary but by the sounds of things it was pretty much the prosecution's main point of evidence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 That theory still doesn't deal with the whole 'sweat on the car' evidence though. It's completely ignored in the documentary but by the sounds of things it was pretty much the prosecution's main point of evidence. There was no sweat found, there was DNA found. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 There is a photo of Theresa Halbach where she is holding a bunch of keys, not just the one car key that was found. Avery also has a new lawyer who specialises in wrongful convictions so there may be more to come in this story. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinclair Street Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 If anybody is interested in reading through hours of testimony of witnesses that weren't included in the program, here is the full transcript of the trial. http://www.stevenaverycase.org/jurytrialtranscripts/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compliment Sandwich Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I'd be very wary of taking any sort of conclusion on that case based on a few hours at most (once you take out the first case and editing) of evidence being discussed when in reality the trial lasted, I think, weeks. ETA: I'd be particularly wary of the above given that both his, exceptionally intelligent lawyers gave no assertion of him being innocent. Agree with the first point to an extent, but it's clear that there is suspicion and doubt around the whole prosecution. Even if he did do it, there's still a strong case to suggest the police tampered with evidence, which should make the whole thing worthy of a retrial. It's been a few weeks since I watched it, but I'm pretty sure one of the lawyers makes reference to personally believing his innocence, during one of his interviews with the documentary makers? I'm happy for you to prove me wrong though if you can do so without sticking holes through a sealed vial of my blood or searching my house 8 times before you find keys clearly visible on on the floor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 There was no sweat found, there was DNA found. Okay, the prosecution put forward the case that it was sweat very strongly but it was DNA of some sort, that wasn't blood. Not sure how the police could have planted it, did they also have a vial of his tears/sweat/whatever? I believe fairly strongly that the police have planted evidence and generally set him up, and I'm really unsure about whether he did it or not but for me there is clearly reasonable doubt. Brendan's case is just a total farce IMO, jailed for life for being thick and susceptible to pretty disgusting police pressure tactics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Lawyers are just incredible, was in awe watching they 2 strut their stuff and how they all managed to make it play out. Looks easy but what a job they do considering the circumstances. Just reading back through the thread now but this is a great point that I also thought about after watching. The two defence lawyers were a class act and came across as being both more competent and also just more genuine, better human beings than the prosecution (paricularly Kratz, a complete walloper of the highest order). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinkle Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Okay, the prosecution put forward the case that it was sweat very strongly but it was DNA of some sort, that wasn't blood. Not sure how the police could have planted it, did they also have a vial of his tears/sweat/whatever? I believe fairly strongly that the police have planted evidence and generally set him up, and I'm really unsure about whether he did it or not but for me there is clearly reasonable doubt. Brendan's case is just a total farce IMO, jailed for life for being thick and susceptible to pretty disgusting police pressure tactics. Whilst i dont have a 'theory' i still think he murdered her however i believe the police planted things to make sure he was sent down. If he didnt do it, theres a hell of a lot of coincedences and unanswered questions from him. Also, to not take the stand when your life is on the line is pretty damning in my opinion especially if you are claiming innocence 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diamond_for_life Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Whilst i dont have a 'theory' i still think he murdered her however i believe the police planted things to make sure he was sent down. If he didnt do it, theres a hell of a lot of coincedences and unanswered questions from him. Also, to not take the stand when your life is on the line is pretty damning in my opinion especially if you are claiming innocence Only thing about that is mate remember Steve Avery has a very low IQ also. A good lawyer could have hime tied up in knots quite easily and that would have damaged his already slim chances 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinkle Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Yeah but if he had nothing to hide, surely even the greatest of lawyers wouldve been struggling to pin it on him? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diamond_for_life Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Yeah but if he had nothing to hide, surely even the greatest of lawyers wouldve been struggling to pin it on him? Lawyers tear folk to bits on the stand all the time. Very easy to get flustered. I've seen many a witness got used for arse paper up on the stand. Look at some of the guys up there during the trial 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Yeah but if he had nothing to hide, surely even the greatest of lawyers wouldve been struggling to pin it on him? Clearly not, as Brendan Dassey found out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pride_of_the_Clyde Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I, too, was surprised he didn't testify. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Unless he had an Alibi or was going to blame someone else he wouldn't be able to say much in the dock. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pride_of_the_Clyde Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 He maintained he had an alibi, albeit with his family. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.