Sinclair Street 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. It wasn't included in the documentary but the Crime Lab admitted that one of their officers that handled DNA evidence inside the car then opened the hood of the car while wearing the same gloves. No surprise that Kratz didn't mention that when he was complaining that that was one of the pieces that was left out of the programme. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 It wasn't included in the documentary but the Crime Lab admitted that one of their officers that handled DNA evidence inside the car then opened the hood of the car while wearing the same gloves. No surprise that Kratz didn't mention that when he was complaining that that was one of the pieces that was left out of the programme. So the crime lab said that an officer had handled the blood in the car then put it under the hood by accident? The prosecution argument was that the DNA evidence under the hood was definitely not blood. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albertlegend Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I recall listening to a lawyer talking about a suspected Murderer testifying in their trial and they didn't recommend it, think it was the serial podcast or one of those relating to Adnan Syed. It's basically a damned if you do, the lawyer tears strips of you, you look like a dick or you don't and everyone gives it the what'd he got to hide patter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diamond_for_life Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 So just another example of how fucked up this is Steve Avery was found not guilty on the body mutilation part but Brendon was found guilty of it. Even that makes no fucking sense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepper Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 So just another example of how fucked up this is Steve Avery was found not guilty on the body mutilation part but Brendon was found guilty of it. Even that makes no fucking sense. One of Avery's lawyer's in one of his many interviews since the show aired talked about the fact that in the states where two people are accused of murder, as they are entitled to separate trials, the prosecution are free to put forward an entirely different, even contradictory, version of events at each trial to suite their agenda. The example give was two people accused or murdering someone with a single gunshot during a robbery. At the trial of defendant A the prosecution could argue defendant A fired the fatal shot and achieve a conviction, then at the second trial argue it was defendant B that fired the shot so both could easily end up on death row for the same murder. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diamond_for_life Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 One of Avery's lawyer's in one of his many interviews since the show aired talked about the fact that in the states where two people are accused of murder, as they are entitled to separate trials, the prosecution are free to put forward an entirely different, even contradictory, version of events at each trial to suite their agenda. The example give was two people accused or murdering someone with a single gunshot during a robbery. At the trial of defendant A the prosecution could argue defendant A fired the fatal shot and achieve a conviction, then at the second trial argue it was defendant B that fired the shot so both could easily end up on death row for the same murder. That is absolutely fucking crazy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thereisalight.. Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 As much as Avery is a horrible human being (burning a live cat ffs), I just refuse to believe someone who was on the verge of a massive payout from the authorities would be so stupid or so brazen as to kill somebody. It makes no sense at all for him to "do" that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 One of Avery's lawyer's in one of his many interviews since the show aired talked about the fact that in the states where two people are accused of murder, as they are entitled to separate trials, the prosecution are free to put forward an entirely different, even contradictory, version of events at each trial to suite their agenda. The example give was two people accused or murdering someone with a single gunshot during a robbery. At the trial of defendant A the prosecution could argue defendant A fired the fatal shot and achieve a conviction, then at the second trial argue it was defendant B that fired the shot so both could easily end up on death row for the same murder. If that's right then that's mental. It's one fucked up nation but that's taking the pish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 So the crime lab said that an officer had handled the blood in the car then put it under the hood by accident? The prosecution argument was that the DNA evidence under the hood was definitely not blood. Actually, I'm pretty sure that on top of the possible transfer from inside the car to outside, the hood DNA test was also performed in the batch of tests done by that incompetent, professionally morally bankrupt forensic tests woman. Everything done by her at the behest of the prosecution should be taken with skepticism. The separate trials stuff is frightening. In the case of two suspects in separate trials, the innocent conviction rate will be 50 or 100%, which flies completely in the face of presumption of innocence and Blackstone's forumlation. Surely that can't be fully true, and that there are checks and balances in place? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepper Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 https://youtu.be/xF9si2LwCE8 This is the interview with dean strang where he talks about the two trials scenario it's about 9 minutes in. The whole thing is worth watching tho. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 As much as Avery is a horrible human being (burning a live cat ffs), I just refuse to believe someone who was on the verge of a massive payout from the authorities would be so stupid or so brazen as to kill somebody. It makes no sense at all for him to "do" that It's a fair point and one that I would agree with - it would be crazy to murder someone on the verge of a huge payout, but at the same time genuine murderers (like whoever did this) tend to not think logically. Psychologically they tend to just have urges to kill and not think about the consequences. Obviously this is completely hypothetical for this case but it's worth considering that he just didn't think about the consequences. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Parr Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 On the basis of the documentary footage the Dassey conviction doesn't look safe at all. When this garbage is heard in a Federal court, I suspect we may start to see things head in a different direction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Terrapin Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Whilst Avery doesn't come across as the sharpest tool in the box I don't think he would be daft enough to murder a woman who he knew would be linked to his property immediately, in his own back yard, try and burn her body yards from his home, leave her car intact on his lot particularly when he had legitimate access to a crusher. I think the most likely scenario is she was killed by one of his relatives(other nephew and brother in law) and the police had a gilt edged chance to plant evidence they felt was crucial to putting him away and save themselves from financial ruin. I don't think he helped his case when he didn't take the stand but I take it this would have been discussed with his lawyers and they felt he may be led down a path by the prosecutors. Whatever the case it shows up the American legal system as seriously flawed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieT1314 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 In this scenario how would the cops be in possession of the car key? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerSaint Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 In this scenario how would the cops be in possession of the car key? They likely found and planted the car (would explain Colburns dodgy number plate phone call) or found the key elsewhere. The thing about the key itself is it didn't had any other keys on the keyring like it did in a picture of Theresa Halbach and there was only Steven Avery's DNA - none of Theresa's despite her using the car every day for years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paisleysaints Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) Sex pest trying for a confession for his book?? Edited January 27, 2016 by paisleysaints 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J_Stewart Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Kenneth R. Kratz is an absolute fucking cretin. Vile, odious man. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Sex pest trying for a confession for his book?? CZhEoCWXEAEYCFH.jpg Sending a man down and them taunting him while he's inside - classy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Did anyone catch the documentary on ID over the weekend regarding this case? The amount of stuff left out on the Netflix season was remarkable. Not coincidentally, all the stuff left out looked bad for Avery. A nurse admitted in interview that it was her who made the hole in the top of the blood vial. Avery had called Halbach twice before she arrived whilst withholding his caller ID. He then called her at 4pm without withholding his caller ID. There was various other little things that obviously didn't suit the narrative the film makers were looking for and were left out. Her mobile being found burned in the barrel for example. Or Halbachs friends testimony that she had been creeped out by Avery and had told him so. After seeing that I'm fairly certain Avery killed her. I think you could give a one sided account of any murder case and convince the public of even the most guilty persons innocence, and that's what's happened here. 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.