|
This entire series is loving horrifying.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:11 |
|
|
Kal Torak posted:I don't know what the motive would be for killing your sister. The brother was at the trials and sentencing every day. Seems like a lot to go through... As soon as I saw that video, it made me think she must already have a person in her life who she's aware is dangerous and might end up hurting or killing her. Kal Torak posted:I still think it has to be someone who lived on or close to the Avery property and knew enough to intercept her leaving the property and then burn her body close to the property. This... doesn't really go against your argument. In fact, looking at the roads, the "quarry pile" seems to basically just be a dirt road off the side of the Avery driveway. Kal Torak posted:Again, I am going to bring up Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych who just happen to give each other an alibi during the time Steven says she would have leaving. I know there's no motive there either for them, but their testimony changed considerably from the time they were first interviewed to the time of the trial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
I just got done with episode 3, the interview of the nephew was literally sickening. Half the time I feel like I'm watching an experimental found footage spinoff of Law & Order.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Measly Twerp posted:How does not being a rapist somehow fit in with this so called "path to murder" as you put it? And what is his "path to murder"? Oh stop http://www.mprnews.org/story/2006/07/06/animalkillers The DA was a dick, DA's usually are. The cops are dicks, they usually are. But Avery was not a normal non-violent member of society and people would be better off acknowledging that. The fact there was no EDTA in the blood in the car was really the final straw for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Lack of EDTA proves nothing. If that's the final straw for you then it says a lot about your cognitive abilities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Even if you honestly believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Avery did it - first of all, congratulations on being a moron - I simply cannot fathom how anyone could believe the crime occurred the way the police presented it, with Brendan being involved and all. On that basis alone the verdict should have been overturned and at a minimum a new trial done. The basis of the American legal system is not supposed to be "Well, nothing happened the way we said it did, and there's even a mountain of evidence to demonstrate it absolutely didn't happen the way we're saying it did, but we got The Right Guy so that's all that matters!" This thread may end up making me more sad than the show itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
probably mentioned but people who enjoy this would probably love the serial podcast https://serialpodcast.org/
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Grem posted:Oh stop This is from the piece you linked to: quote:But Farnsworth is quick to point out that a single act of childhood violence against animals, while disturbing to many, may not mean that more violence is inevitable. For example if children hurt an animal as part of group, that could be more of a sign of gang or mob thinking, rather than a sign of individual mental illness. Leads me to think that you didn't even read the article you linked to and just quickly scrambled for something that would support your position so you wouldn't have to spend any time considering your position.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Measly Twerp posted:This is from the piece you linked to: That's not the case but I did read multiple articles before posting that one, and honestly got a little tired of it and just posted the last one I read. Animal cruelty is a pretty good indicator of future problems. Being sent to prison falsely for over a decade certainly didn't do Avery's psyche any favors. In summary, police are bad, Avery is bad, DA is bad. Grem fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:The first time they showed Teresa was that super weird, kinda creepy taped video will of hers that she had recorded several years before her murder where she basically lays out that it'd be no big surprise to her if she were to die sometime soon, and it's something she's just accepted as something she can't change about her life. That's... that's super, super, super not normal. What the gently caress. And then she does die in a couple years under shady circumstances. Interesting. I hadn't considered that. However, I think the body was obviously burned at either the quarry or Avery's fire pit. Can we agree on that? If it was someone close to her, we are to assume that whoever did it, knew about Avery, knew about his history, knew he would be the perfect target, and knew that she would be going to take pictures for him? That seems like a serious stretch for her brother or ex-boyfriend.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Grem posted:That's not the case but I did read multiple articles before posting that one. Animal cruelty is a pretty good indicator of future problems. Being sent to prison falsely for over a decade certainly didn't do Avery's psyche any favors. Avery may be a bad person, but that does justify any of what has happened to him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Measly Twerp posted:Avery may be a bad person, but that does justify any of what has happened to him. Wow harsh. I don't think that Avery would have been a murderer if he hadn't been sent to prison for most of his life on a false rape charge, if that helps. The police conspiracy is just a little too  for me, sorry folks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Look, we should just start locking up everyone we think is capable of committing crimes and not because they actually committed a crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
From your own link: quote:But Farnsworth is quick to point out that a single act of childhood violence against animals, while disturbing to many, may not mean that more violence is inevitable. Killing the family cat by lighting it on fire? Yes, awful, despicable, etc. But just because he killed an animal (and admitted to it!) 20 years ago doesn't mean he's going to murder some photographer that he has no real relationship with. He also ran a woman off the road and held her at gunpoint. But both crimes (cat, road rage) happened before he was falsely imprisoned for the Beerntsen crime. As far as I know, he didn't get into any trouble once he was released from prison until the Halbach disappearance. Grem posted:The fact there was no EDTA in the blood in the car was really the final straw for me. There was another expert who said that one could not, with any definite certainty, conclude that there was no EDTA in the blood. Just because the test didn't find any EDTA, doesn't mean there wasn't any EDTA in the blood. Could be the test didn't work/wasn't sufficient. Remember this was a test that was supposed to take 4-6 months that the FBI pushed out in less than a week.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Grem posted:That's not the case but I did read multiple articles before posting that one, and honestly got a little tired of it and just posted the last one I read. Animal cruelty is a pretty good indicator of future problems. Being sent to prison falsely for over a decade certainly didn't do Avery's psyche any favors. Animal cruelty is not a deterministic indicator of being a future rape murderer. Being a dumb hick (i.e. 95% of Wisconsin) is not a crime. The state's narrative is garbage and they have no coherent theory that implicates Avery or Dassey. To your other post, you clearly are a Wisconsinite if you buy the DA's slimy assertion that to not convict Avery is to judge the police guilty of murder. Further, a $36 million lawsuit and abject hatred will make people do bad things, tinfoil not included. In short, you need to believe in Avery's guilt as to immunize yourself to the terror that this could, given your cognitive limitations, happen to you! Yudo fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
MrCodeDude posted:From your own link: I'm sure the FBI was very eager to collude with Bumfuck Wisconsin to frame an innocent man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Grem posted:I'm sure the FBI was very eager to collude with Bumfuck Wisconsin to frame an innocent man. I hope at this point you are trolling: WP posted:The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000. https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...c310_story.html Which, as it happens, it but the tip of the iceberg, e.g. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/csi-is-a-lie/390897/, but a snippet: Atlantic posted:In North Carolina, "agents withheld exculpatory evidence or distorted evidence in more than 230 cases over a 16-year period. Three of those cases resulted in execution. There was widespread lying, corruption, and pressure from prosecutors and other law-enforcement officials on crime lab analysts to produce results that would help secure convictions. And the pressure worked." Much of forensics is shoddy pseudoscience if not in manner in method. Edit: and just so we are clear, the above has resulted in hundreds being falsely convicted of death penalty crimes that have later exonerated, all across the country. The FBI is very eager to collude with local law enforcement and the checkered history of their Crime Lab is proof positive. Yudo fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Grem posted:The police conspiracy is just a little too Do you not remember the multiple parts of the documentary where law enforcement officials refuse to state that Avery didn't commit the 1985 rape despite DNA evidence proving beyond any doubt that the real attacker was not Avery? These are the people responsible for collecting the evidence against Avery and testifying against him. There is a mountain of evidence to suggest that the 1985 conviction was a direct result of a police conspiracy. Are you saying the police in that department developed a sense of justice while Avery was locked away? And as stated previously by another poster, the conspiracy could be as small as one man (Lenk) or may only involve one or two other people. This didn't have to be some huge cabal. Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
I don't know how people can operate without some sort of suspicion of what the government is doing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
I'm only on episode 4 now but my favorite part so far is at about the 12:25 mark. A reporter is asking the victims brother if he's seen the teenage nephew's confession video. Her reaction is exactly the same as mine but done unintentionally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:In my fictional movie adaptation, Ken Kratz will be played by High Pitch Erik Who's High Pitch?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
jury couldve easily been planted
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Yudo posted:I hope at this point you are trolling: God loving damnit
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
precision posted:Even if you honestly believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Avery did it - first of all, congratulations on being a moron - I simply cannot fathom how anyone could believe the crime occurred the way the police presented it, with Brendan being involved and all. I feel like it's OK for me to think both that there was clearly reasonable doubt in Avrey's case and also that he probably killed her and he belongs where he is currently...
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I feel like it's OK for me to think both that there was clearly reasonable doubt in Avrey's case and also that he probably killed her and he belongs where he is currently... are u from Manitowoc
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I feel like it's OK for me to think both that there was clearly reasonable doubt in Avrey's case and also that he probably killed her and he belongs where he is currently... Except for the fact that the standard to convict is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You want guilt and reasonable doubt to exist at the same time. This is the only time I've ever been able to use this saying correctly: you want to have your cake and eat it, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:
Exactly! And don't forget that this is exactly what happened to OJ Simpson, which is mentioned in passing in this documentary. One lazy racist piece of poo poo cop planted blood on his clothes to frame him. The blood had been taken from a lab sample and had EDTA in it. It's not like this hasn't happened before. If there was a conspiracy to frame Steven, you'd only need Lenk and Colburn to be in on it. Colburn made that really weird call to dispatch about Teresa's plates. They found the key and the magic bullet, which no other cop could find. Both had a lot to lose from the lawsuit. When the defense put the Calumet cops on the stand, I understood that there was no need for a larger conspiracy. They looked like Brendan's intellectual peers. Even if they did their best, how could one of them keep watch over two bent cops planting tiny objects? And remember when they "found" the key? Lenk and Colburn said "we immediately knew this was the smoking gun, so we didn't want to taint the evidence" or something similar. They saw a car key in a junk yard with thousands of cars, and knew that this car key was relevant? I'm not saying Steven is innocent, but that the entire case against him is horribly prosecuted. If we believe Brendan's "confession", they stabbed her, cut her hair, slit her throat, carried her (living and bleeding) through the trailer to the garage, shot her eleven times there, and then burned her. Without a single microscopic speck of blood or hair ending up at any of those places. Murderers with an IQ well above 70 have tried to clean tiled bathrooms of blood, and failed. Here, we have two literal retards who somehow have Dexter-ish abilities to fool the CSI. But they also missed the huge smears of her blood in her car. Which they put her in. Because....why? Why did they put her in the car? Why didn't they crush the car in the crusher, or smelt it in the smelter? Why did they place it so close to the entrance that it was found by that moronic jesus freak after less than 30 minutes of stumbling around randomly? Why not at least clean it? Why remove the key and disable the car (battery terminals were removed). Did he plan to keep this massively incriminating piece of evidence there forever, while at the same time burning everything else? I think someone else suggested this theory or part of it somewhere, but one reasonable explanation for Colburn's license plate check could have been this: 1. Teresa is murdered by Steven. Her car is placed at the yard, possibly awaiting destruction. 2. Teresa is reported missing, Colburn and Lenk sets out to either find evidence or "find evidence". 3. Colburn sneaks onto the yard, finds her car, calls in the plates, gets confirmation ("99 Toyota?"). 4. They don't have a search warrant, so they can't report it, as it would be inadmissible. They also know it would look bad if they were the ones who found the car. 5. (possible, but not necessary) They take Avery's blood from the evidence locker and drip it inside the car, to tie him to it with DNA. 6. They collude with the awful brother and ex-boyfriend (who got special permission to move through cordoned-off areas for some reason). 7. Brother and ex are either told flat out where to look or gently steered there. They could have been shown exactly where the car is, which explains their ultra weird stuttering when asked if they had been to the junk yard before, and why they sent someone else there to insulate themselves from the shenanigans. 8. Lenk and Colburn can't place evidence inside the trailer due to the decision to put Calumet in charge, which is why the key and the bullet is only "discovered" as they gain access to it far later. Outside the trailer, however, is an abundance of evidence. Lenk and Colburn also don't know that there will be a need for DNA evidence inside the trailer, as they have no control over what Riegert makes Brendan say. If Lenk and Colburn forced a confession out of him, they could have steered him away from the indoors blood-letting, and placed the rape and murder outside instead. As Riegert isn't in on the frame job, he honestly thinks he's doing a great job. You could modify step 1 if you like, and the rest will still hold up. For example: 1. Scott Tadych (possibly aided by Bobby) stops Teresa as she's driving away, rapekills her, puts her in the trunk of her own car (explains her blood in the car), drives to the quarry and burns her, then puts the car on the lot to frame Steven, and puts the charred bones in the pit. Scott and Bobby alibi each other. This fits with Scott's glee over Steven's conviction. or 1. Lenk pulls Teresa over, kills her, puts body in trunk, burns her at the quarry, plants everything at the yard. Colburn is unaware of this. or 1. A drifter* kills Teresa. Lenk finds her, puts body in trunk, burns her at the quarry, plants everything at the yard. Colburn is unaware of this. or 1. Aliens incinerate Teresa with ray guns. Lenk is also an alien. Etc etc. *Ya, I still think it was a drifter! Leave Avery alone, he's been through a lot dontyaknow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
Kampfbereit posted:1. Lenk pulls Teresa over, kills her, puts body in trunk, burns her at the quarry, plants everything at the yard. Colburn is unaware of this. As much as I think Avery is not guilty, I just can't wrap my head around the police murdering a young girl for the sake of framing Avery. Fully believe the cops planted the key, blood, and bullet to strengthen their case against Avery. They may have even moved the bones from the quarry to outside his house. No idea how/where she was murdered and the motive for doing so. She obviously was transported in her trunk. No idea how the car got to Avery's or why her body was burned on his property. They said Steven Avery's IQ was 70. That's almost two full standard deviations away from average. He is smarter than only 2.2% of the population. Is that really a man who could kidnap/rape/murder a girl while leaving no evidence in his house and garage? The only way for this to happen is if this were premeditated and he Dexter'd his kill site or if he meticulously cleaned immediately afterwards (contrast this clean job with the living state of his house). If he had all that foresight to not leave any evidence at his house, why would he be so lazy with disposing of the evidence? Why wouldn't you scrap/crush her SUV? Why wouldn't you incinerate her instead of using trash barrels? How could he be so well trained on the front-end, but completely gently caress up the back?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
TheZissou posted:Among all the other things people have already mentioned, one thing really got to me that hasn't been brought up. When the judge was sentencing Steve in ep. 8 he mentions how Steve's past crimes are a clear indicator he murdered Theresa. He says that his crimes have been building over time in their severity, so it's no wonder he raped and killed Theresa, clearly implying that he believes Steve was guilty of the 1985 sexual assault. It's insane this guy was allowed to preside over this case and then shot down all the appeals that followed afterwards. Steve was guilty from day one in this guy's eyes. Not necessarily. As the doc mentioned, there were a string of escalating alleged crimes prior to the 1985 rape he didn't commit--first the bar burglary, then the animal abuse, then threatening a woman with a gun. After his release, there was also at least one "altercation" with Jodi Stachowski that necessitated the police getting called--he wasn't charged with domestic violence, but he was charged with disorderly conduct toward the police. I don't know if the judge was aware of the domestic violence since Avery was never officially charged with a crime, but if he was, I can understand how armed robbery > animal abuse > violent threats toward a woman > domestic abuse > rape and murder could demonstrate an escalating pattern of violence. If people are really interested in this case, they should do some research independent of the documentary--although I liked it (and am probably leaning towards Avery being falsely accused, and certainly toward Dassey being falsely accused), it was definitely biased in Avery's favor, and they left out several things that muddied the waters a bit. Which is strange, because I don't think any of the things they left out would seriously affect the public's perception of Avery's innocence--leaving them out lends them more weight than putting them in would have. It's worth doing your own reading in order to get a fuller picture. One of the interesting things that wasn't mentioned in the documentary was that both of Avery's brothers had been charged with violent/sexual crimes, and Scott Tadych (Brendan's stepdad, the one who seemed to be trying to throw Avery under the bus) had been convicted of various violent crimes and stalking. Which makes the police's decision to immediately disregard everyone except Avery as a suspect all the more puzzling*--even if they absolutely could have proved that she disappeared on the Avery property (which of course they couldn't), Steven's record still placed him towards the bottom of the list of men on the property who had committed serious violent/sexual offenses against women and thus should've been higher on the suspect list. *By which I mean "depressingly unsurprising." Side note: The Halbach brother is so obnoxiously smug, but keep in mind that the Manitowoc area was absolutely wallpapered with coverage of the crime leading up to the trial, and long before it ever started, what the Halbach family saw and heard (and what the entire surrounding area saw and heard) was that the nephew had made a full confession to a very violent crime and that there was physical evidence to support that confession. They didn't get to hear him talk in any significant way until his trial had already started, and even then they didn't get to see everything we heard in the documentary. (Like Brendan telling his mom that the cops "got to his head" or that he was "guessing" at the story they wanted like he did in school, or that neither he nor his mother understood the meaning of "inconsistent" and so on.) The extent of his cognitive disabilities was underplayed, and the guys who interviewed him specifically argued that they didn't exist in the first place. With that in mind, it's worth considering how different the exact same piece of evidence can play, depending on the spin--for example, when Brendan's mom told him to tell his lawyer that the cops made him give that confession, for us it was obviously painted as a mom who's panicked that her developmentally disabled son was about to unknowingly write his ticket to a lifelong sentence in prison . . . but the other side could (and did!) use it as evidence that the family was pressuring him to recant. The information that the Halbach family (and the rest of the local area) got prior to the trial was heavily twisted by law enforcement and then the media, and that absolutely colored their interpretation of the case well before the trial even started. How could it not? (Honestly, just finding an entire jury who were willing to entertain the possibility that these guys were innocent was a minor miracle in and of itself.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
MrCodeDude posted:As much as I think Avery is not guilty, I just can't wrap my head around the police murdering a young girl for the sake of framing Avery. Yeah, and if they had some of what they did just wouldn't make sense (like calling in the vehicle before it was discovered). What most likely happened is that the killer got to Teresa, burned her in the quarry, knew that Avery was on the police's poo poo list, moved the car & bones to his property, and then tipped off the cops about the evidence there. The cops then filled in bits of it, like with the key and the blood stains. As to who actually killed her, I don't really know. No one really has a clear motive, but it seems like the ex-boyfriend might have the most incentive and he did insert himself into the investigation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
The first obvious tip off that the Avery family was being singled out as the lazy excuse to pin crimes the police didn't want to work was that every single member of the family pronounces "supposedly" with a B instead of a D. Its very, very clear these aren't bright people and easy pickings, and every attempt by them to figure out what's really happening is met with the brick to the head that is the Wisconsin rural school system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
Speaking of doing independent research, here's some fun data and estimates about DNA evidence exonerees and wrongful conviction from the Innocence Project:
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah, and if they had some of what they did just wouldn't make sense (like calling in the vehicle before it was discovered). Tadych and Bobby have literally nothing to gain by killing Teresa, unless it was a random act. They actually have a lot to lose because if Avery's getting even a fraction of that $36m settlement, that money goes a long way in rural Wisconsin. If the murderer knew of the police's hostility towards Avery AND Teresa's schedule, that narrows the suspect list considerably (eliminates the drifter theory). Let's say it was one (or more) of the brother/ex-boyfriend/roommate combo. They know from Teresa that she was going to Avery's property. They follow her, wait for her to leave Avery's, murder her in a random field. Transport the body to the quarry, burn it, wait for the barrels to cool off, bury bones outside of Avery's property, ditch the SUV on the edge of the salvage yard, hide the license plate in another salvaged vehicle. Then the killer(s) have to bet that the police will be so tunnel-visioned on Avery, that the police not only ignore any evidence that Avery isn't the killer, but also plant evidence on the killer's behalf to strengthen the case against Avery. That sounds just as crazy as the police murdering her. e: I guess the police could have moved the bones, too. MrCodeDude fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
Effort post incoming: To expand on my earlier comment about the rural school system in Wisconsin, and to help explain how all these people could become cops and jurors, I'll tell you about my time there in 1995-1996. My graduating class at Crandon High School was 87. Of that, only 42 attended school; the rest were GEDs, most in their twenties. Why they got to attend my high school graduation I'll never know. I started in WI public schools in April of my junior year after moving north from suburban Chicago. I met with the guidance counselor there and not only did he tell me that I already met nearly all the requirements for graduation, he also didn't understand what a logic class taught, so disregarded it as an elective. (I'd already completed calculus which was above the scope of this school.) For the final month of my junior year, I spent all day as a remedial math tutor tasked with getting the athletes to pass their exams and remain eligible. My brother, who was a freshman, closed out his year in junior level classes. My senior year, I was told that I needed to take a freshman level course on the US constitution since it was required for graduation and nobody understood what the word "civics" meant on my transcript. That was first period. The rest of my morning would be again tutoring athletes in math. After lunch, they made up a 3 hour course for my brother and me called "science magic" (seriously) that had no instructor, and we were given unsupervised access to the entire science lab. We built a telescope out of random lenses and PVC piping, saw how high we could make the caps to Pringles cans fly by filling the cans with gas and setting them on fire, then got bored and started just leaving school after lunch. Nobody noticed. My constitution course was so bad that at around this time, I asked if I could just take the final. I got an A on it and never showed up to school again. I graduated without any issues. My brother met all his requirements by the end of his sophomore year. He moved back to Chicago and stayed with me for the next two years, allowed to enroll in zero classes and still be considered an attending student. He graduated on the honor roll and was immediately accepted to UW Madison at resident tuition. Of the 42 kids that graduated with me, most of them had the last name of either Kinkade or Sinclair, and they were all cousins of some kind and lived in the same general part of town. Almost all of the kids stayed in town after graduation. Most got married, had too many kids, bought a trailer and lived on their parents' land, either working for the family business or in the ladies' cases attending beauty school. Some decided to join the army, some decided to become cops. Only about 4 or 5 of them left town to attend college. The least surprising thing about this show was the makeup of the police force and the jury. I knew the minute that trial started that that was the weakest link in the chain. I'm sure things there have changed for the better since then, especially with the NCLB Act, but this was Wisconsin public schools in the 90s, and the education level that nearly everybody tasked with making decisions in this case went through.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I feel like it's OK for me to think both that there was clearly reasonable doubt in Avrey's case and also that he probably killed her and he belongs where he is currently... what are you basing your judgement on if not by the evidence presented/argued by the people who want to put him away? do you know something we don't
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
You know, I have been going through and rewatching episodes, and I just... I have to laugh at times at how un-loving-believably absurd things would get. I was watching episode 10, and that absolute human pustule Michael O'Kelly who was Len Kachinsky's private investigator was testifying. He's the guy other than Wiegert/Fassbender who coerced a confession out of Brendan with the big setup of Teresa's pictures and whatnot and the form to fill out which was a really sad and pathetic variation of that old "Does your mom know you're gay?" joke where you're admitting to the accusation whether you say yes or no. Anyway it's like 2009 or 2010 and this sack of poo poo is testifying, and when they go over all the insanely coercive things on the table, they get to the blue ribbon and a picture of a blue ribbon tied to a tree. And O'Kelly offers up, "Yes, I believe that... *SNIFFLE SNIFFLE* I believe that was Teresa's church in the background... " *proceeds to fake cry* "I'm sorry, your honor, it's just... *SNIFFLE SNIFFLE SNIFFLE*" And this testimony is about how he committed some insanely unethical poo poo that is all on the record. He's reading an e-mail he wrote about how all of the Averys are "pure evil" and that "this is a one-branch family tree that should be cut off entirely" and all kinds of incredibly nasty poo poo he sent in an e-mail to Kachinsky. And while he is reading this e-mail he wrote where he condones the cold-blooded murder of all the Averys, he starts sniffling again and interrups with "I'm sorry, that Blue Ribbon in front of the church, I just can't get it out of my head..." And he pretends to dab his eyes. It's just SO transparent and SUCH a lie that... Words fail me. On a totally different note, I feel somewhat obliged to mention this, though I am NOT condoning it in any way. Most if not all the people in this documentary, their contact info isn't exactly difficult to get, and many got 'doxxed' or whatever, inundated with all sorts of crap from various Anonymous-type internet folk. I did look up Ken Kratz and found the site for his private law practise, but just seeing the reality of it freaked me out too much. The only thing I've done is google "Dean Strang e-mail" to find his e-mail address and send him something thanking him because I felt like he was the only sort of "representative" I had in the film who was reacting how I would react, was driven by empathy like I am, and felt like the lone voice of reason in the wilderness of this horror story. So I sent him a nice probably over-long e-mail thanking him for that and so on. A lot of less scrupulous individuals have probably been inundating all sorts of people with crap though, I am sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
Arms_Akimbo posted:Effort post incoming: That all sounds pretty lovely, but I grew up in Two Rivers and I can tell you it was...not like that. For one thing, Manitowoc has something like 30,000 people so it really isn't rural at all, especially for Wisconsin. Two Rivers is a about 1/3 that size, which is still 10x the typical little Wisconsin village. The public school system was award-winning in the 80s (and thanks to your story, I now understand why). Resources for bright or ambitious students were non-existent but we had quite a few competent, dedicated teachers. My understanding is that the support for slow and special ed kids was pretty decent. I'm just on episode 6 now, when they talked about turning jurisdiction over to Calumet County for some reason I thought that would mean Appleton, i.e. an area with a more urban, (hopefully) professional sheriff's department and sufficient manpower to really run the investigation. It wasn't until the news clip talked about busing jurors to Chilton that I looked up what Calumet County actually entails; it's far smaller than Manitowoc County and really had no business managing a major crime investigation like this. No wonder the Manitowoc County deputies kept ending up back at the Avery property; it's probably SOP in Calumet County to call Manitowoc for help even on less intensive projects. Juror selection is a toughie because I'm not sure there were untainted jurors available in the United States. I know I have a special interest in the area as an "ex-pat" but I was well aware of Avery's arrest and the allegations based on Brendan's testimony even here in California. Probably the best case scenario would have been to relocate the trial to Milwaukee and hope the real city folk just don't give a gently caress about hick news. Short of that, I'm not sure any change of venue would have helped because all of northeastern Wisconsin tends to be pretty interrelated. Carew posted:what are you basing your judgement on if not by the evidence presented/argued by the people who want to put him away? do you know something we don't Because I don't have dozens of cousins dotting the landscape like my peers I don't have as much of the local low-down as I might otherwise, but the impression I get (mostly via Facebook) is that there are quite a few people who strongly feel the guy is guilty because they've met him and found him to be a dirtbag. I am totally willing to believe he is indeed a dirtbag, but I would like to live in a country where even dirtbags receive a fair trial. kaworu posted:A lot of less scrupulous individuals have probably been inundating all sorts of people with crap though, I am sure. No doubt. Even the Manitowoc PD seems to be getting poo poo on, and they didn't even have jurisdiction over any part of this story whatsoever. Pinky Artichoke fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
Alastor_the_Stylish posted:Except for the fact that the standard to convict is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You want guilt and reasonable doubt to exist at the same time. He didn't say anything about the "standard to convict." He just said that he thinks Avery committed the crime, and if so, the right place for him to be is in prison. There are two issues here, which are interrelated but separate: Did the accused receive a fair and unbiased trial? Absolutely not, and there was plenty of lying and corruption presented. Did an innocent man go to prison? If Avery committed the murder, then he certainly deserves to be there. Whether or not the prosecution screwed up the case doesn't have any bearing here, except insofar as its impossible for anyone to be truly certain who did the crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
NowonSA posted:Every episode of Law and Order I've seen made it seem like proposing an alternate theory to the crime, or alternate killer, is a cornerstone of many defense strategies. Why the hell would they not be allowed to do that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOtZjYECna4 To keep things relatively brief, this is a quick watch about the case I'm about to discuss. Sensationalist true crime TV bullshit aside, they get all the facts right. But they wisely don't interview the co-lead on the case. To make things clear: I was never arrested - officially - but because the co-lead had a theory that Dustin didn't act alone because Dustin has an IQ of around 80, they were chomping at the bit to try and support that theory. Unfortunately, I fit the bill of what they were looking for. I was considered "bright but troubled". I had undiagnosed PTSD at the time, and I was pulled out of school to be placed in homeschooling in 8th grade because I was fighting every day and had a huge truancy record. I was known to teachers and other students for writing edgelord stories about murder, death, and mayhem. My family has a reputation with law enforcement as hell raisers. And most damning of all: I'd had run ins with police starting with two arrests in fifth grade. Both were post-Colombine. The first was because I got caught selling Nerf guns and realistic plastic gun keychains on school grounds. The second was for saying "I'll kill you" to a kid I caught going through my locker, which he was apparently told by our teacher to do. Perfect storm of what they wanted. How'd they get me in? Because I made a phone call. After seeing the news report about Dustin be arrested, I called a mutual friend of ours to tell him. We weren't shocked he killed someone and said something along the lines of "he's too stupid to have done it and got away with it for months, wtf?" and I thought that was the end of it. I was wrong. That same friend calls me to tell me that they're questioning all of Dustin's social circle now. He says it wasn't too bad, his mom was there with him, etc. I get a call from them next that they want to speak to me, and since I know I had nothing to do with this, I wasn't too worried. Except it's different for me when I get there. They take me to the interrogation room alone - I was only being "questioned" so my they could legally exclude my mom from sitting in - and that's where the real fun begins. They start asking me really weird questions. They want me to "imagine" that Dustin didn't act alone and since I was smart and creative, they knew I could imagine what I'd see the crime scene. They want to know what kind of sexual stuff he talked about with me when we were still friends - he's the reason I have PTSD and I'd stopped hanging out with or talking to him years previously - and what kind of sexual stuff I DID with him. And was that the reason I didn't have a girlfriend, that I didn't seem interested in women and "hated" them so much? Why did I call my friend two days BEFORE the news broke and say "Dustin is going to get arrested"? They try to tell me I can't have a lawyer because I'm not under arrest, and they'd have to place me under arrest. Since I've had previous run ins and my lawyer from them coached me on what police can and can't do, I just kept asking for a lawyer or my mom. They eventually relent and let my mom in. My mom is unfortunately very slow and they try to intimidate her, saying I'm in very serious trouble and poo poo like that. She says she has to call her dad to get a lawyer, and two hours later I'm finally out of there. My public defender came right away with copies of the phone bill that I never placed a call when they tried to say I did and basically their entire case against me disintegrated, because they never requested or checked the phone records themselves. Like I said: they only want validation, not justice or facts. If I'd had no encounters with police previously, I could very well be sitting in jail right now for something I didn't even have a dubious part in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:11 |
|
|
Onto episode 5 with Bobby Dassey's testimony-Ken Kratz is the biggest shitbag I've ever seen and the fact that the judge didn't declare a mistrial there is probably the biggest what the gently caress I've seen so far in the show. God drat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 19:08
|
|
