jv2000 wrote: » Agree although I do think that between this documentary and MaM we may actually fall somewhere close to the real facts (or 2 vastly biased accounts at either end of the spectrum). I do think Part 2 of MaM is somewhat more balanced than Part 1 though because they went with a more theoretical/teaching approach and could not do this for Brendan's story at least. The additional scientific tests for SA could be a bit more biased however, I am actually a scientist (not forensic) and the approach they took of knowing the outcome they wanted and working backwards is not generally supported in the scientific community, I will admit however that Zellner's desire to find out what actually happened has lead to some more conventional investigative tests that could be a lot more beneficial in any potential appeal.
Mountainsandh wrote: » But did you see in MAM2 ? Zellner herself dispells that, it's one of the first things to be tackled. Not saying the doc is not biased, the family footage pretty much ensures that we feel sorry for the Averys throughout, but the evidence side is pretty factual.
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Thanks for the link. Kratz is involved so that’s something that would put me off. He’s a gobshyte and a slimeball. His press conference after Dasseys confession was a disgrace.
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Practically everyone who posted in here acknowledge the documentary is biased. I even posted about the blood vial as evidence of bias.
jv2000 wrote: » Seems like there is an alternative documentary in the works that will focus on the other side of things:https://deadline.com/2018/02/convicting-a-murderer-steven-avery-follow-up-documentary-filmmaker-shawn-rech-1202298462/
Drumpot wrote: » That is worth seeing. . The people saying "hes guilty" are coming across like Trump, effectively saying MAM was "fake news" with no actual information to back it up.
Drumpot wrote: » One thing I can’t understand is why the police, Kratz or the family don’t actually employ some sort of PR group to balance things out. I understand the family not wanting to get involved but any of the above three publically stating “you don’t know the full story, he’s guilty” is not really adding anything to the evidence. If anything it actually adds to the narrative that they all believed Avery was guilty and made the evidence and story fit to have him convicted. Again, I don’t think MAM proves Avery and/or Dassey weren’t involved but they showed that there was most likely incompetence, corruption and non due diligence in this case that leaves many many questions unclear. Saying “but you have to understand he’s guilty” does your own beliefs an injustice to be honest. Better off saying nothing if you aren’t going to at least challange or respond directly to very questionable things about this case.
runningbuddy wrote: » There are a lot of accusations of sexual abuse from younger Averys (male and female) by SA. Most of it dismissed as "rough housing"
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Nice. It’s lucky he never confided in you.
Mountainsandh wrote: » He is, imo. Avery molested him is not in THAT narrative, but it's well in the family psyche for years.They're all accusing each other of molesting each other in that family.
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Nope the poster is talking about the confessions creating a narrative in Brendan’s head which he believed. So when he’s talking to his mother or on the stand he’s following that narrative. He’s not and he’s also admitting Avery molosted him, which isn’t in the narrative.
Maxpfizer wrote: » To be fair here I think the poster is talking about the full confession that got him sent to prison for life. OK, you've got the trial testimony and that sounds fine but looking at the police interview it's clear that the cops are basically just taking advantage of a vulnerable person in order to get at Avery. Then when Brendan tries to go back on that story they throw the book at him. The prosecution f-d up when they had that press conference because they couldn't publicly go back on that. So they wouldn't be able to just dial it back to "Brendan helped Steven clean up some blood in the garage on the night that TH went missing". So you end up with a 17 year old going to prison because they cops forced him to tell a made up story that the prosecution then presented as truth on national TV and they can't go back on that because maybe then they don't get Avery. Almost every aspect of this case has some kind of red flag associated with it and it's almost always something that points to corruption within the system.
Maxpfizer wrote: » Yeah, I tend to agree that he is being honest here too and in the trial testimony. I mean, with the testimony you are removing a lot of the crazy elements and it's just like a regular day where he happened to help clean up some spillage or something in the garage. To try and look at it another way, if the story here was that Brendan was saying these things about Bobby and saying Bobby made him clean up a mess in the garage then for sure we would be saying that Bobby is the one who really did it. Then I don't really understand why the state went after Brendan like they did and won't go back on that even now. It's clear as day that his confession is a bunch of made up nonsense.What would the charge be if literally the only thing he was being charged with was cleaning up blood that his abusive uncle told him was some other spillage (oil, or whatever)?
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » He wasn’t a child, he was a teenager who was a little slow. I’m sure there are children who have gone through terrible mental/physical/sexual/emotional abuse who have creative a narrative to block it all out. Actually he claims he was sexually abused, by his uncle Steven. Would this sexual abuse be Avery’s way of controlling Brendan and using him to help clean up after Avery killed Teresa?
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » http://jenniferjslate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/DasseyBarbPhoneCall_5.13.06.pdf Ive just listened to Brendan’s trial testimony. I honestly believe he is telling the truth. Have you listened to it?
Commanchie wrote: » A 2.2 bullet.
G1032 wrote: » OK. Looks like he asked him to help clean up the garage but Brendan also said it was not unusual for Steven to ask him to clean up a mess in the garage.......
Mountainsandh wrote: » Do you treat children as you do adults in your own life tipsy ? My job entails communicating with children at age appropriate level. I don't see that as an excuse, it's a simple fact. The person you are dealing with has not reached the physiological or mental age you have, and you simply have to ajust your expectations accordingly. That is a legal requirement too so really not excuses. Not only was he a child when first interviewed, but also a child with special needs. How you can turn an understanding of that into a list of excuses is your prerogative.
G1032 wrote: » Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Mountainsandh wrote: » Any link to the conversation with Barb ? http://jenniferjslate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/DasseyBarbPhoneCall_5.13.06.pdf Ive just listened to Brendan’s trial testimony. I honestly believe he is telling the truth. Have you listened to it? Did Steven tell Brendan to clean up the reddish-black stuff in the garage?
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Mountainsandh wrote: » Any link to the conversation with Barb ? http://jenniferjslate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/DasseyBarbPhoneCall_5.13.06.pdf Ive just listened to Brendan’s trial testimony. I honestly believe he is telling the truth. Have you listened to it?
Mountainsandh wrote: » Any link to the conversation with Barb ?
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » You’re just making excuses now. The child excuse is pathetic tbh.
Mountainsandh wrote: » Probably have, can't remember much of it tbh. I'll watch it again some time. Thing is, with a child who is that easy to influence, once a narrative is planted in his head and he's told that will help him get out of jail sooner, you can't really trust that he'll go against it, even under oath. From the moment he's taken out to that interview in his High School, the child just seems completely confused, and he's simply not able to articulate that. I have been in my job for the past 17 years and met children like Brendan, and I have absolutely no doubt a large proportion of them would be just as docile and easy to script. (the ones that wouldn't are the more defiant ones)
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » They don’t watch or have anything to do with the show. They sat through both trials so I would respect there beliefs. Having said that I would like them to soften up on Dassey, he’s a victim too. I know I keep saying it (he’s a victim) but that phone call from Avery at 7pm on Oct 31st ruined his life. You should listen to his trial testimony, no coercion, no I don’t knows, just the truth of what he did that night.
Drumpot wrote: » I don’t want to imagine what that family has been through. I can understand why they would want to believe that Avery and Dassey are guilty. The police gave them quick justice that allowed them to move on by feeling that her attacker’s were caught. Avery getting released opens up a terrible wound and could do as much damage as the initial crime. But that’s not a reason to not want to see all the evidence in court and Avery convicted when everything has been done properly and honestly. Any objective observer of that show should be disturbed at how the authorities conducted themselves and what they did to get a conviction. I would hazzard a guess that some of The family have their own doubts after watching that even if they don’t express it publicly. Doubt doesn’t presume innocence but that’s the way the justice system is supposed to work. Beyond reasonable doubt.
