nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Steven Avery (making a murderer) Guilty or innocent?

timthumbni

Having watched this 10 part documentary on Netflix regarding the trial of Steven Avery in some hick state (Wisconsin) in America I'm interested in other boardsies thoughts on the case/outcome.

I really don't know what to think. If I was on that jury after a local girl was murdered would I have also found him guilty?? Possibly...

His nephews interrogations were very hard to watch. Painful. His legal advisor/solicitor Len kazinsky was dodgy as feck. He appeared to me to be like a character from Fargo.

In summary I am not sure if Avery is innocent. But equally I'm not sure he is guilty. And considering that the law is supposed to presume innocent until proven guilty then should Avery be in jail?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

The Raptor

smash wrote: »

May 31st is the deadline for Kathleen Zellner's brief to be submitted to court. https://wscca.wicourts.gov/appealHistory.xsl;jsessionid=2D0B9943AF1266FA501512235342FF5B?caseNo=2015AP002489&cacheId=8600BA3B7F7342E65209A814D01D2D2F&recordCount=4&offset=0&linkOnlyToForm=false&sortDirection=DESC

If she has the evidence she says she has then it's going to get very interesting!

Does this mean we have to wait until June for any kind of an update?

DEFTLEFTHAND

I've heard Avery's legal team are planning to enter new evidence. Triangulation mobile phone records apparently tracked the victims vehicle arriving and leaving the Avery property. The last contact was picked up 10 miles from their property at 5.30pm. Averys phone stays situated at his home all night.

Apparently his original defense team had this information in 2007 but were not permitted to use it in court at the time.

I'm still on the fence about Stephen Avery but it certainly is a fascinating case. It's interesting to note that this technology is what snared Joe O'Reilly here in Ireland.

mewe

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I've heard Avery's legal team are planning to enter new evidence. Triangulation mobile phone records apparently tracked the victims vehicle arriving and leaving the Avery property. The last contact was picked up 10 miles from their property at 5.30pm. Averys phone stays situated at his home all night.

Apparently his original defense team had this information in 2007 but were not permitted to use it in court at the time.

I'm still on the fence about Stephen Avery but it certainly is a fascinating case. It's interesting to note that this technology is what snared Joe O'Reilly here in Ireland.

I can't quite understand why people are still on the fence about Steven Avery. I'm not singling you out or anything, you've given an honest assessment but whatever you think about his character with regard to his past, the murder conviction is just ridiculous and such a blatant set up. After what happened before with him and the previous miscarriage, it's like a horror story.

mikeym

Any updates on Brendan Dassey?

He deserves a retrial.

Noahboah2014

mikeym wrote: »

Any updates on Brendan Dassey?

He deserves a retrial.

Would also love to hear an update. Have seen a few links on Fb recently but nothing solid

mewe

It's so sad. We're dealing with peoples lives being taken away from them by these sick bastards.

[Deleted User]

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I've heard Avery's legal team are planning to enter new evidence. Triangulation mobile phone records apparently tracked the victims vehicle arriving and leaving the Avery property.

Mobile phone records do not track the victims vehicle. They track the victims phone.
Which anyone could have.
Doesn't really prove anything other than that phone was where the triangulation showed it to be.

I think he is guilty btw, if not just him, someone on his property with his knowledge.
I'm just pointing out that tracking a moveable object, without proving the victim had it , means nothing.

mewe

bubblypop wrote: »

Mobile phone records do not track the victims vehicle. They track the victims phone.
Which anyone could have.
Doesn't really prove anything other than that phone was where the triangulation showed it to be.

I think he is guilty btw, if not just him, someone on his property with his knowledge.
I'm just pointing out that tracking a moveable object, without proving the victim had it , means nothing.

Can I ask, why do you think he's guilty?

Tipsy McSwagger

mewe wrote: »

I can't quite understand why people are still on the fence about Steven Avery. I'm not singling you out or anything, you've given an honest assessment but whatever you think about his character with regard to his past, the murder conviction is just ridiculous and such a blatant set up. After what happened before with him and the previous miscarriage, it's like a horror story.

Not everyone is lazy enough to just to watch a one sided documentary.

[Deleted User]

mewe wrote: »

Can I ask, why do you think he's guilty?

Because I don't just go on a one sided documentary to decide.
There's a lot more to the case.

mewe

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Not everyone is lazy enough to just to watch a one sided documentary.

That's won the argument for you right there.

Two Tone

I understand people not being sure (I was like that for a while) but being convinced of his guilt... not sure there, I mean... why? So much allegations were debunked. What is there that is solid which points to his guilt?

mewe

bubblypop wrote: »

Because I don't just go on a one sided documentary to decide.
There's a lot more to the case.

As above. Unless you can present something credible to argue why he's guilty, just saying the documentary is one sided is lazy in my opinion.

Atlantic Dawn

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I'm still on the fence about Stephen Avery but it certainly is a fascinating case. It's interesting to note that this technology is what snared Joe O'Reilly here in Ireland.

There was a recent case in Ireland which cast doubt on the reliability of phone mast data, apparently some are powered down and no official log is kept of which are down and which are active so triangulation of the location of the phone may not be reliable, I'd expect some people will get off where they were convicted relying on phone evidence.

More here...
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0614/795620-court-of-appeal-mobile-phones/

[Deleted User]

mewe wrote: »

As above. Unless you can present something credible to argue why he's guilty, just saying the documentary is one sided is lazy in my opinion.

Just watching it showed it was one sided, now I'm not saying everything in it was wrong but it was obviously one sided.
Anyone watching could see that!

I believe he had something to do with it/ did it himself/ knows who did.
Whatever involvement he had, I don't believe that documentary was unbiased, which shows by the way his defence are giving interviews based on the show.

Tipsy McSwagger

Two Tone wrote: »

I understand people not being sure (I was like that for a while) but being convinced of his guilt... not sure there, I mean... why? So much allegations were debunked. What is there that is solid which points to his guilt?

He admitted she was at his house the day she disappeared.
She was never seen again after he admitted talking to her.
He made 3 calls to her phone that day but hid his number.
She was terrified of him.
Her belongings were found outside his house.
Her remains were on his property.
Her car was on his property.
The bullet that killed her was fired from his gun.
His DNA was on her car.
He had threatened females before with a gun.

mewe

bubblypop wrote: »

Just watching it showed it was one sided, now I'm not saying everything in it was wrong but it was obviously one sided.
Anyone watching could see that!

I believe he had something to do with it/ did it himself/ knows who did.
Whatever involvement he had, I don't believe that documentary was unbiased, which shows by the way his defence are giving interviews based on the show.

You've just basically said again, the documentary is one sided. I give up with people saying he's guilty but not providing credible reasons as to why.

mewe

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

He admitted she was at his house the day she disappeared.
She was never seen again after he admitted talking to her.
He made 3 calls to her phone that day but hid his number.
She was terrified of him.
Her belongings were found outside his house.
Her remains were on his property.
Her car was on his property.
The bullet that killed her was fired from his gun.
His DNA was on her car.
He had threatened females before with a gun.

Are you basing the bullet from his gun on the bullet that mysteriously appeared all of a sudden on his property? Also, he threatened that lunatic that had a vendetta against him with a gun to stop spreading rumours against him = clearly, guilty as sin. Case closed.

[Deleted User]

mewe wrote: »

You've just basically said again, the documentary is one sided. I give up with people saying he's guilty but not providing credible reasons as to why.

I don't need to provide any evidence.
I've stated that I'm not gullible to believe a one sided documentary, I need more information.
Which I got for myself.
And I'm not saying he is guilty, merely that I believe he had something to do with it. He either did it himself/ knows who did etc etc

El Chapo

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

He admitted she was at his house the day she disappeared.
She was never seen again after he admitted talking to her.
He made 3 calls to her phone that day but hid his number.
She was terrified of him.
Her belongings were found outside his house.
Her remains were on his property.
Her car was on his property.
The bullet that killed her was fired from his gun.
His DNA was on her car.
He had threatened females before with a gun.

Of course he was, he was waiting for her to take pictures to sell cars.
Any evidence of that?
Lots of people withhold their number.
Hearsay.
Planted, IMO.
Planted, IMO.
Did you expect her to park out on the road and walk into the property to take pictures?
No, it wasn't.
Planted, IMO.
Hearsay.

Don't give up the day job.

mewe

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't need to provide any evidence.
I've stated that I'm not gullible to believe a one sided documentary, I need more information.
Which I got for myself.
And I'm not saying he is guilty, merely that I believe he had something to do with it. He either did it himself/ knows who did etc etc

Sure tell us the information you got for yourself.

[Deleted User]

mewe wrote: »

Sure tell us the information you got for yourself.

If you were interested you would do some investigating yourself.

But maybe your happy to believe anything your told

Tipsy McSwagger

El Chapo wrote: »

Of course he was, he was waiting for her to take pictures to sell cars.
Any evidence of that?
Lots of people withhold their number.
Hearsay.
Planted, IMO.
Planted, IMO.
No, it wasn't.
Planted, IMO.
Hearsay.

Don't give up the day job/

Well if someone had seen her after she left the property now that would be a big deal wouldn't it?

mewe

bubblypop wrote: »

If you were interested you would do some investigating yourself.

But maybe your happy to believe anything your told

Don't dodge the question. I'm confident in my opinion. You clearly are not.

El Chapo

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Well if someone had seen her after she left the property now that would be a big deal wouldn't it?

Maybe the next person to see her was her killer. They're hardy going to be shouting it from the roof tops are they?

Tipsy McSwagger

bubblypop wrote: »

If you were interested you would do some investigating yourself.

But maybe your happy to believe anything your told

There's 2 types of people. The lazy arses that watch a documentary and believe everything in it, sign petitions and rant on Facebook. The other side are people who actually bother to research cases and come to their own opinion based on facts and evidence.

El Chapo

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

There's 2 types of people. The lazy arses that watch a documentary and believe everything in it, sign petitions and rant on Facebook. The other side are people who actually bother to research cases and come to their own opinion based on facts and evidence.

I hope you didn't do research because going by your posts on here, you haven't a breeze.

"she was terrified of him"

So terrified she agreed to go to his property to take photos?

Seriously? :rolleyes:

mewe

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

There's 2 types of people. The lazy arses that watch a documentary and believe everything in it, sign petitions and rant on Facebook. The other side are people who actually bother to research cases and come to their own opinion based on facts and evidence.

Show us lazy arses your evidence so Columbo.

Tipsy McSwagger

El Chapo wrote: »

Maybe the next person to see her was her killer. They're hardy going to be shouting it from the roof tops are they?

Ye the cops were waiting down the road, seen Theresa and decided to kill an innocent woman to get back at a man suing the police department.

Two Tone

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

There's 2 types of people. The lazy arses that watch a documentary and believe everything in it, sign petitions and rant on Facebook. The other side are people who actually bother to research cases and come to their own opinion based on facts and evidence.

And the second group includes people who believe he is innocent also.

I don't think people are saying the police killed Teresa.