- 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 1/4/16 at 7:22 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Kid has a mom dumber than him that cannot even help. Just got to the blood vial of Steven's blood. Holy shite at it being tampered with and haphazardly taped back up 
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 7:24 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 9:05 pm to ULSU
Does anyone have a link to the Reddit thread with theories etc?
I can only find episode commentary that is good, but doesn't have much information or speculation.
I can only find episode commentary that is good, but doesn't have much information or speculation.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 9:08 pm to ULSU
quote:
This shite with Brendan is so infuriating. I am more pissed off at his piece of shite lawyer and that "investigator" he brought in to craft Brendan's story than I am at the cops.
He had that shite smurk every time he talked to the media and I wanted to punch the TV
Posted on 1/5/16 at 8:50 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Is it just 20/20 hindsight, or do you think best practices would have reasonably expected the judge to issue a gag order in a case with so much baggage (as opposed to letting the DA have that tawdry press conference telling the horror story of Brendan's coerced confession - i.e. the rape, throat-cutting, etc.)?
Some of that is 20/20 hindsight. I mean, those press conferences happened long before there was even a case to present. You can't stuff the cat back in the bag, so to say. And banning lawyers from talking to the media is a pretty extreme step, and one that would be absolutely illegal in Texas due to the open courts provision (I can't comment on Wisconsin's constitution).
But a jury instruction would have been appropriate. And note how Kratz tries to hold the court hostage by only agreeing to drop the bogus charges IF the court does not issue a jury instruction.
Posted on 1/5/16 at 12:26 pm to Baloo
Avery was guilty, guilty, guilty.
It is defense attorney's job to create confusion and convince people of alternatives.
He never explained how who beside Avery killed the lady, who put the car on the Avery property but Avery, who but Avery obsessed with the lady, how Avery's FRESH blood got in the car, who the bones of the lady ended up in Avery's bon fire, why Avery did not come to the defense of his nephew, why Avery was such a psychopath that he burned cats and messed with his cousin. None of that. The entire defense was they cops were out to get Avery.
Does anyone buy into the ultimate thing that had to have happened for the defense to be right---the cops would have had to committed the murder.
It is defense attorney's job to create confusion and convince people of alternatives.
He never explained how who beside Avery killed the lady, who put the car on the Avery property but Avery, who but Avery obsessed with the lady, how Avery's FRESH blood got in the car, who the bones of the lady ended up in Avery's bon fire, why Avery did not come to the defense of his nephew, why Avery was such a psychopath that he burned cats and messed with his cousin. None of that. The entire defense was they cops were out to get Avery.
Does anyone buy into the ultimate thing that had to have happened for the defense to be right---the cops would have had to committed the murder.
This post was edited on 1/5/16 at 12:27 pm
Posted on 1/5/16 at 12:55 pm to I B Freeman
quote:The judge specifically told the defense they couldn't propose alternatives culpable of the crime. This was in the documentary.
He never explained how who beside Avery killed the lady
quote:It's the defenses job to show reasonable doubt. The documentary highlights that reasonable doubt.
It is defense attorney's job to create confusion and convince people of alternatives.
Posted on 1/5/16 at 1:30 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
-the cops would have had to committed the murder
Are you insinuating that cops don't murder people?
Posted on 1/5/16 at 1:58 pm to LanierSpots
Didn't read the whole thread yet, so my question was probably answered but:
Did they say the place of the actual murder was different for the two trials (Steve was in bedroom and Brenden was in garage?)If he stabbed and slit her throat while she was on the bed, I have a hard time believing those fellas could cover up all that blood. Overall I enjoyed the doc, got me hooked and I didn't want to stop watching.
Steve might be guilty but defense created a reasonable doubt, Brenden got a raw deal. Also never trust a lawyer that has a tie with short sleeve shirt, high water pants and looks like Rick Moranis/William H Macy combo. Dark haired reporter with glasses was
Did they say the place of the actual murder was different for the two trials (Steve was in bedroom and Brenden was in garage?)If he stabbed and slit her throat while she was on the bed, I have a hard time believing those fellas could cover up all that blood. Overall I enjoyed the doc, got me hooked and I didn't want to stop watching.
Steve might be guilty but defense created a reasonable doubt, Brenden got a raw deal. Also never trust a lawyer that has a tie with short sleeve shirt, high water pants and looks like Rick Moranis/William H Macy combo. Dark haired reporter with glasses was
Posted on 1/5/16 at 1:58 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
the cops would have had to committed the murder.
She could have overdosed on heroin on a rural street. She could've been murdered by the ex-boyfriend or roommate. Why were they logging into her phone and probably deleting voice mails anyway? Once the cops had Avery as the immediate suspect and kicked him off his property for 8 days, it became a perfect opportunity for someone to go put that evidence in.
Posted on 1/5/16 at 2:06 pm to LasVegasTiger
quote:
Did they say the place of the actual murder was different for the two trials
Yes. One could argue according to several parameters that the 2 guilty verdicts should have been mutually impossible.
Posted on 1/5/16 at 2:10 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
He never explained how who beside Avery killed the lady
Not really his job, but he was not permitted to name other suspects anyway.
quote:
who put the car on the Avery property but Avery
It was a big lot. Anyone could have put her car there.
quote:
who but Avery obsessed with the lady
It was never established that Avery was obsessed with the lady.
quote:
how Avery's FRESH blood got in the car
This was certainly never established.
quote:
who the bones of the lady ended up in Avery's bon fire,
That was not the only place the (burnt) bones were found. They were moved without a doubt.
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News