- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/30/16 at 8:50 am to Argonaut
Finally getting to Episode 4. Brendan says to his mom "My lawyer said my statements were inconsistent." I then sarcastically start thinking to myself "What does inconsistent mean?" and then he actually asks that. He makes Avery look like Thomas Edison in comparison. The kid can't have an IQ above 60.
This post was edited on 1/30/16 at 8:52 am
Posted on 1/30/16 at 8:59 am to OMLandshark
quote:
The kid can't have an IQ above 60.
Meh. He was in school. He was different. I mean, the Avery gene pool is pretty shallow to begin with. But, a 60 (or lower) would suggest he is well within the range of intellectual disability and I don't see that. I think 70 to 75 is about right, which puts him in the borderline range. FTR, I'm no expert.
He is unlikely to develop a cure for cancer, I'll grant you that.
This post was edited on 1/30/16 at 8:59 am
Posted on 1/30/16 at 9:09 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Meh. He was in school. He was different. I mean, the Avery gene pool is pretty shallow to begin with. But, a 60 (or lower) would suggest he is well within the range of intellectual disability and I don't see that. I think 70 to 75 is about right, which puts him in the borderline range. FTR, I'm no expert.
He is unlikely to develop a cure for cancer, I'll grant you that.
High Pitch Erik got a 66 on the IQ test. While he's no prize himself, he's capable of manipulating others to get thousands of dollars of free shite. There's no way Erik is dumber than he is.
Posted on 1/30/16 at 9:35 am to OMLandshark
quote:
There's no way Erik is dumber than he is.
There's something else going on with Brendan, though. He's all over the place. He seems to understand at times (of course that could be his effort to comply/conform) and completely oblivious at others.
I would suspect some form of autism or some other developmental or social obstacle. I mean, brilliant people can be deceived, misled, coerced and manipulated.
And even Avery supporters should recognize that despite his subaverage general intelligence, he (Avery) has demonstrated the ability to manipulate and coerce those around him and possesses a cunning that belies his IQ score.
Brendan is just in a bad spot - he's slow, almost certainly borderline functioning and might be at the higher range of intellectual disability - PLUS it appears he has some social deficits as well.
This post was edited on 1/30/16 at 9:36 am
Posted on 1/30/16 at 10:11 am to OMLandshark
Brendan is the worst part of this, I think, regardless of what you think of Avery. I don't believe at all the Brendan was involved, and certainly not to the extent that he was convicted.
Posted on 1/30/16 at 10:19 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I don't believe at all the Brendan was involved, and certainly not to the extent that he was convicted.
I absolutely believe that Brendan helped Avery "clean up the yard" and bring items to the burn pit. Beyond that, I have no idea if he knew they were disposing of a body or anything like that.
Maybe he did. Maybe he was going to keep her palm pilot and phone, but got scared and dumped them in the burn barrel behind his house. Just not sure.
That is the piece of evidence that, maybe, points to Tadych and/or Bobby - they did the deed then kept the electronics for some period of time. Felt it was too risky to go back to Steven's burn pit, so they dropped it in their barrel. Cleaning up the crime scene - regardless of who did it - was apparently a decent-sized operation. This also suggests more than 1 person. Whether that means Brendan and Steven did it together, Steven had other accomplices, OR the Scott/Bobby (or Steven's brothers) theories hold any weight - I simply can't say.
I'm speculating between the gaps in credible, reliable objective evidence.
Posted on 1/30/16 at 10:32 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
I absolutely believe that Brendan helped Avery "clean up the yard" and bring items to the burn pit. Beyond that, I have no idea if he knew they were disposing of a body or anything like that.
I guess I just wouldn't define that as "involved", not in regard to any crime.
Posted on 1/30/16 at 10:41 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I guess I just wouldn't define that as "involved", not in regard to any crime.
Could have been accessory after the fact. Depends on what he knew and when he knew it.
The problem with the contradictions is that Brendan's body language can be interpreted several ways - it is suggestive of guilt and, if we didn't know anything else about him. In combination with the contradictions, I can see how a jury reasonably concluded he did it. Maybe I wouldn't have voted that way, but it is not beyond imagination they thoughtfully reached this verdict.
It is more complicated as we analyze further. However, his cognitive difficulties do not mean, necessarily, that he didn't know the difference between right and wrong. His cognitive difficulties do not preclude his participation in the crime.
Posted on 1/30/16 at 10:52 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Could have been accessory after the fact. Depends on what he knew and when he knew it.
Could have been, but there is no physical evidence conclusively tying him to anything. His uncle asked him to help pick up stuff from the yard and clean the garage up. Certainly not unreasonable.
quote:
His cognitive difficulties do not preclude his participation in the crime.
Nope, but I don't see that as the issue with regard to those difficulties.
Posted on 1/30/16 at 2:35 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Just finished. Jesus I have a lot to catch up on in here 
A few initial thoughts..
I still can't believe what they did to that kid.
Why the hell didn't Steven get up on the stand?
A few initial thoughts..
I still can't believe what they did to that kid.
Why the hell didn't Steven get up on the stand?
This post was edited on 1/30/16 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 1/30/16 at 3:30 pm to Brettesaurus Rex
quote:
Why the hell didn't Steven get up on the stand?
Honestly, I think it's a combination of his lack of intelligence and because he's not really very likable. I don't see either helping him more than his attorneys could.
Posted on 1/30/16 at 3:30 pm to Brettesaurus Rex
quote:
Why the hell didn't Steven get up on the stand?
I hate to piss on the Kumbaya campfire here, but the guilty almost never take the stand.
It is our right under the 5th Amendment to refuse to do so and we should draw no inference.
Part of the problem is what goes on behind the scenes.
I'm you're lawyer. You tell me you did it. I look at their case. I tell you - "I don't think they can prove it." We shoot holes in the state's case all day long.
Now - we have to decide whether or not to call you.
I can't put you on the stand. Because when the prosecutor asks you if you did it and you lie, under oath, I've suborned perjury. I've violated my oath and in some places, I've broken the law.
Our conversation is still privileged. I can't reveal what you said without your permission (with a few exceptions.) But, if I benefit from it or represent it as truth to the tribunal when I know, for a fact, that it isn't, I'm in deep doo doo.
And the rules are rarely cut and dried.
Let's take a classic ethics hypo:
You kidnap a woman, torture her to death and stuff the body in a hollowed out stump. The cops pick you up for questioning in her disappearance and some other stuff. You clam up and ask for a lawyer. I'm appointed. You tell me all of that and exactly where.
Hell, I drive out there. I go look in the stump. SHE'S STILL ALIVE.
If I call 9/11, I've broken my oath, because there is a high likelihood my client is going to get linked with the crime. Now, I can try to argue, "Hey - I saved him from a murder beef." The bar will say, "She was the only evidence linking him to the crime."
So, I can do:
1. The right thing
2. Save a life
3. Save my client from a murder charge,
and yet still face (potentially - this is an extreme example - public outcry might save me here) sanction from my credentialing authority.
So, before you judge a lawyer too harshly - keep in mind this ethical operating environment.
And this is why guilty people don't take the stand. Also, because of notoriety and famous temper, they just felt he wouldn't be a good witness.
(But it probably is that he did it and he told them he did it - that's probably how they know the state's version is wrong - because Steven told them exactly how it went down - so they could obfuscate the real trail of evidence from the cops' "massaged" trail of evidence.)
This post was edited on 1/30/16 at 3:33 pm
Posted on 1/30/16 at 3:38 pm to Ace Midnight
All valid points. But he never confessed to his lawyers or anyone (that was recorded so who knows) and they never let on to that at any point in filming. Which again a good lawyer wouldn't ever let that slip...but there's never been a crack on any of their parts.
I'm to the point where I think he did it. I have no idea what the motivation is and I know some shady shite went on from the side of the prosecution...but I think I have a harder time believing someone else planned it so perfectly to frame him in just the right away.
I don't think Dasse had anything to do with it. They just caught the poor kid saying whatever they wanted and then bent him over a barrel.
I'm to the point where I think he did it. I have no idea what the motivation is and I know some shady shite went on from the side of the prosecution...but I think I have a harder time believing someone else planned it so perfectly to frame him in just the right away.
I don't think Dasse had anything to do with it. They just caught the poor kid saying whatever they wanted and then bent him over a barrel.
This post was edited on 1/30/16 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 1/30/16 at 3:45 pm to Brettesaurus Rex
quote:
I have no idea what the motivation is
He felt they "owed" him one. I honestly think that was his thinking. "I can kidnap and kill someone if I want to. No one will believe the sheriff's office about me again."
I don't think he's any more complicated a person than that. "Free Avery" people play up the "dumb" angle with him. They downplay the cunning, conniving, scheming guy - plus the disturbing incidents before he went to prison.
I'm weighing all of it. I'm still not 100% sure he was able to do the crime AND the cover-up without some help. And the most likely person to help was Brendan. The case is much weaker against Brendan, though.
Posted on 1/30/16 at 3:54 pm to Brettesaurus Rex
quote:He was obsessed with the girl. Go back and read the thread. He felt rejected and he felt he was "owed". I also believe he was a sexual predator.
I have no idea what the motivation is
Posted on 1/30/16 at 4:09 pm to abellsujr
No proof what so ever he was obsessed with her.
Posted on 1/30/16 at 4:14 pm to Rhames
quote:There's not much solid proof of anything thanks to the sheriffs department. I'm just giving my opinion. "Obsessed"or not, I believe there was enough evidence to show he requested and wanted her and that he was rejected (she filed a complaint). If you don't want to call it obsessed, that's your opinion. If I believe he killed her, then it's not much of a stretch to say he was very likely obsessed with her.
No proof what so ever he was obsessed with her.
Posted on 1/30/16 at 4:20 pm to Ace Midnight
I haven't made it through yet, but I see no motive to kill someone when a guy is about to be given a 30 million dollar settlement, and probably the people who put him away going to jail in return. It just doesn't make sense.
Posted on 1/30/16 at 4:21 pm to OMLandshark
quote:And you won't in that documentary.
I haven't made it through yet, but I see no motive to kill someone
Page 78 of 84
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News