This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I still can't say he didn't do it, but I feel pretty good in saying if he did do it, it didn't happen the way they laid out in the trial. And there's no way you can convince me otherwise that there wasn't evidence planted by the police whether he did it or not.
Saw this on Facebook today:
Challenge accepted: Brother is real killer and planted the key after the initial searches.
You mean when the entire family was taken off the compound so it could be searched for 10 days?
The somehow would be pretty important. Somehow as in I have concrete proof that I was threatened by police or somehow as in I felt uncomfortable and saw in the policeman's eyes that he was willing to hurt me.
bigmarc27 said:
There were two women he allegedly raped in the past, but didn't or wouldn't press charges. There were 2(?) signed affidavits - one from an alleged rape victim and one from the mother of a different alleged rape victim. There were also some domestic violence issues with him and his fiance.General Malaise said:
Oh no.....what? Nothing the White House can do.
Uh, no way. The guys interviewing Brandon?Maurile Tremblay said:
It's also worth noting that they went after Brendan shortly after they gave up on Lori somehow ratting Avery out. This is like 5 months after the crime. They didn't find some piece of evidence that made them say, "Hey, we better bring in that kid again"... they targeted him. They obviously felt they didn't have enough against Avery (even with all the evidence they planted), so they needed a witness. So they ruined this kid's life so they'd have a witness against Avery... and then didn't even call him or use his confession against Steven. So fk'd up.SIDA! said:
Let's assume that the blood and other DNA evidence was planted. There wouldn't have even been a trial in the first place. So the fact he was on trial was an unfair trial. At best, it would be reasonable to assume a crime occurred there, but there is no evidence linking anyone specific to the crime.
That is probably why his appeals have been denied. The trial itself was fair. It's all of the evidence against him that is seriously questionable. But if the jury bought it, I'm not sure there's anything that can be done.
They have no proof or even a bit of supporting evidence that the evidence was planted though. I would think the courts would need something that supports that concept before they could consider an appeal. Common sense screams that the cops planted evidence. But if the jury bought it, and there is no new information, I'm not sure the legal system has a path to a new trial for him.
It was only the two of them at the bonfire. Sketchy.So Brendan mentioned going to the "bombfire" that night several times. I imagine a bunch of people were there for that. Did no one notice a dead body in there?
My POV is pretty much the same as yours through that post. Especially regarding the bolded. I hate Kratz and Kachinski... but that Sheriff Peterson is just the worst to me somehow.
Hmm, interesting.It was only the two of them at the bonfire. Sketchy.So Brendan mentioned going to the "bombfire" that night several times. I imagine a bunch of people were there for that. Did no one notice a dead body in there?
The proof/evidence is that they were discovered by people who were determined to have a conflict of interest, who have suppressed/tampered with evidence in the past that would exonerate the defendant and should have been nowhere near the crime scene to begin with. That's 3 strikes.
I agree there is some suspicious stuff, but she knew full well she was going to the Avery property, if she was so skeeved out i'm sure her employer would have been fine with her rejecting the assignment.Hmm, interesting.It was only the two of them at the bonfire. Sketchy.So Brendan mentioned going to the "bombfire" that night several times. I imagine a bunch of people were there for that. Did no one notice a dead body in there?
That, the purchasing of the handcuffs and leg irons, creeping the victim out previously by answering the door in a towel, then getting her onto the compound by hiding his identity is pretty suspect to me.
Last time he called her he didn't hide his number.Hmm, interesting.That, the purchasing of the handcuffs and leg irons, creeping the victim out previously by answering the door in a towel, then getting her onto the compound by hiding his identity is pretty suspect to me.It was only the two of them at the bonfire. Sketchy.So Brendan mentioned going to the "bombfire" that night several times. I imagine a bunch of people were there for that. Did no one notice a dead body in there?
That was for the jury to decide though. There was no legal sanction against them being on the crime scene and finding evidence. They voluntarily removed themselves from the investigation, but then didn't. I am the farthest thing from a lawyer, but what I am trying to say, is that even though to us it looks like there was impropriety, from a legal perspective there wasn't any. The defense had the opportunity to impeach the testimony and the evidence presented to the jury, which they did, and they failed at convincing them. From an appeals perspective, there has to be either new information or evidence of impropriety within the trial itself.
I haven't seen verification of those 2 claims yet either.
*67 is (was?) free and I remember it being a standard process in my dialing procedure for a long time. I think it was before the cellphone age and was mainly to keep my location anonymous... but I really don't remember a reason, just always doing it.I agree there is some suspicious stuff, but she knew full well she was going to the Avery property, if she was so skeeved out i'm sure her employer would have been fine with her rejecting the assignment.Hmm, interesting.It was only the two of them at the bonfire. Sketchy.So Brendan mentioned going to the "bombfire" that night several times. I imagine a bunch of people were there for that. Did no one notice a dead body in there?
That, the purchasing of the handcuffs and leg irons, creeping the victim out previously by answering the door in a towel, then getting her onto the compound by hiding his identity is pretty suspect to me.
The *67 is a bit odd too, but he was somewhat of a local celebrity and i can see a reason why he might want to hide his caller ID at times. Basically everyone in the area knew his name and many had judgements about him.
I'm not saying i believe those explanations, but don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities,
The last time he called her without the *67 was several hours after she was already off the grid.Last time he called her he didn't hide his number.Hmm, interesting.That, the purchasing of the handcuffs and leg irons, creeping the victim out previously by answering the door in a towel, then getting her onto the compound by hiding his identity is pretty suspect to me.It was only the two of them at the bonfire. Sketchy.So Brendan mentioned going to the "bombfire" that night several times. I imagine a bunch of people were there for that. Did no one notice a dead body in there?
According to Kratz the leg irons was evidence that was presented in the trial and left out of the documentary.
I guess a reason he might not have used it after was that she was already there and met him at the property, so no need to hide it at that stage. Or maybe he just forgot. Guess i just don't see the *67 as some smoking gun. As you said many people used that option back in those days.*67 is (was?) free and I remember it being a standard process in my dialing procedure for a long time. I think it was before the cellphone age and was mainly to keep my location anonymous... but I really don't remember a reason, just always doing it.I agree there is some suspicious stuff, but she knew full well she was going to the Avery property, if she was so skeeved out i'm sure her employer would have been fine with her rejecting the assignment.Hmm, interesting.It was only the two of them at the bonfire. Sketchy.So Brendan mentioned going to the "bombfire" that night several times. I imagine a bunch of people were there for that. Did no one notice a dead body in there?
That, the purchasing of the handcuffs and leg irons, creeping the victim out previously by answering the door in a towel, then getting her onto the compound by hiding his identity is pretty suspect to me.
The *67 is a bit odd too, but he was somewhat of a local celebrity and i can see a reason why he might want to hide his caller ID at times. Basically everyone in the area knew his name and many had judgements about him.
I'm not saying i believe those explanations, but don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities,
The fact that he doesn't use *67 on the later call was what was more suspicious to me. But not nearly as suspicious as deleting calls after her disappearance or knowing her codes in the first place. WTF there.
Yea, no appeals left.
1. Leg irons and handcuffs were found in Avery's residence and in Dassey'sThe criminal complaint contended that authorities "located items of restraints within Steven Avery's residence including hand cuffs and leg irons."
Fruit of the poisonous tree.
