[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Clearly this programme is biased.

I know, I was so convinced of how innocent he was straight after I watched it, then i started googling lots when i was done and started feeling like an idiot for letting that show manipulate me so much, now I don't know where I stand on the whole thing, it is an intriguing case though

[DemolitionRed]

One things for sure, this would never of been admissible in a British court and those detectives who interviewed Brenden certainly wouldn't be practising detectives any more. A confession doesn't make a person guilty unless there's proof to back that confession up. Brenden was a vulnerable teenager with intellectual impairment and its exactly this sort of person who will wrongly confess under pressure.

The entire conviction was unsafe because it lacked evidence and the evidence found pointed towards corruption.
The police officer who called in the Toyota registration 2 days before the car was found.
The key thob turning up and found by one of the police officers who was about to be financially burdened by Stevens compensation claim.
The key thob having none of the murder victims DNA but had Steve's DNA on it.
The blood file that had been tampered with and clearly had a needle mark in the top.
No blood in the garage or blood or bodily fluids in the bedroom.
A spent bullet which had been contaminated.
Inconsistent witness statements, especially over the time of day.
Deleted messages on the murder victims mobile phone.
Important footage of Brendan's interviews missing in the court room.
Relatives not investigated. There could of been very good reasons for sibling murder but they didn't bother to find out.

It all screams of a set up so far but I should watch it all before sticking with that conclusion.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

One things for sure, this would never of been admissible in a British court and those detectives who interviewed Brenden certainly wouldn't be practising detectives any more. A confession doesn't make a person guilty unless there's proof to back that confession up. Brenden was a vulnerable teenager with intellectual impairment and its exactly this sort of person who will wrongly confess under pressure.

The entire conviction was unsafe because it lacked evidence and the evidence found pointed towards corruption.
The police officer who called in the Toyota registration 2 days before the car was found.
The key thob turning up and found by one of the police officers who was about to be financially burdened by Stevens compensation claim.
The key thob having none of the murder victims DNA but had Steve's DNA on it.
The blood file that had been tampered with and clearly had a needle mark in the top.
No blood in the garage or blood or bodily fluids in the bedroom.
A spent bullet which had been contaminated.
Inconsistent witness statements, especially over the time of day.
Deleted messages on the murder victims mobile phone.
Important footage of Brendan's interviews missing in the court room.
Relatives not investigated. There could of been very good reasons for sibling murder but they didn't bother to find out.

It all screams of a set up so far but I should watch it all before sticking with that conclusion.

Apparently those blood vials all have those needle marks in them, it's how they get the blood into the vials

[ChristmasNeeve]

Here DR, this is about the Blood Vial :

http://uproxx.com/tv/making-a-murder...-steven-avery/

[Ammi]

..just to say Josy, because you've posted about Kathleen Zellner taking up Stephen's case..?..I read a few days ago..(sorry I forgot to save the link..)...that she's building up her appeal now as she is saying there is proof that Teresa used her phone after she left the Avery's home, that she did actually leave there ...

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..just to say Josy, because you've posted about Kathleen Zellner taking up Stephen's case..?..I read a few days ago..(sorry I forgot to save the link..)...that she's building up her appeal now as she is saying there is proof that Teresa used her phone after she left the Avery's home, that she did actually leave there ...

Oh wow, really? I wonder where that evidence came from? that would have been vital in his case

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Oh wow, really? I wonder where that evidence came from? that would have been vital in his case

..I'm not sure this was the exact link but...

http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/la...-avery-/401759

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..I'm not sure this was the exact link but...

http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/la...-avery-/401759

should she be tweeting evidence and stuff like that though before a case?

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..just to say Josy, because you've posted about Kathleen Zellner taking up Stephen's case..?..I read a few days ago..(sorry I forgot to save the link..)...that she's building up her appeal now as she is saying there is proof that Teresa used her phone after she left the Avery's home, that she did actually leave there ...

or someone used her phone.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by parmnion

or someone used her phone.

yep, that phone was found in the burn pit with her body so there's no reason why Steve couldn't have used it somewhere else and then brought it back to burn unless they actually have a person who she personally spoke to afterwards

[ChristmasNeeve]

Have a look at this too DR

http://www.esquire.com/entertainment...w-revelations/

[DemolitionRed]

Thanks Niamh, I wondered why that wasn't brought up in court.

I also just read here http://mic.com/articles/131662/steve...rer#.GYyKZIPSJ that he covered the cat in gasoline before throwing it on the fire. My sympathies wane for his imprisonment, (guilty or not) when I read stuff like that.

I'm not sure about his ex. There was something odd about her and I got the strong impression that she was likely a socipath. She appeared devoid of any emotion and when Steve mentioned getting her child back she said, "lets get you sorted out first". Most mothers wouldn't be able to think about anything other that bringing their child home but to date, it doesn't look like she's attempted to do that. I also got the impression that she didn't seem to care about him being guilty or not. If she believed he could of been guilty during the trial, why on earth would she of stood by him for as long as she did?.

So were they both sociopaths? they say that sociopaths often relate to other sociopaths and are more likely to have successful relationships with each other.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Thanks Niamh, I wondered why that wasn't brought up in court.

I also just read here http://mic.com/articles/131662/steve...rer#.GYyKZIPSJ that he covered the cat in gasoline before throwing it on the fire. My sympathies wane for his imprisonment, (guilty or not) when I read stuff like that.

I'm not sure about his ex. There was something odd about her and I got the strong impression that she was likely a socipath. She appeared devoid of any emotion and when Steve mentioned getting her child back she said, "lets get you sorted out first". Most mothers wouldn't be able to think about anything other that bringing their child home but to date, it doesn't look like she's attempted to do that. I also got the impression that she didn't seem to care about him being guilty or not. If she believed he could of been guilty during the trial, why on earth would she of stood by him for as long as she did?.

So were they both sociopaths? they say that sociopaths often relate to other sociopaths and are more likely to have successful relationships with each other.

Yeah, he did that to the cat and also, I found that while watching the Documentary they made you feel sorry for and almost like Steve was the victim in the incident where he ran his cousin off the road and pulled a gun on her just because he said that she was making up stories about him? hhhmmmm i don't know. Also, 6 years of the 18 he spent in prison originally were justified and were for that crime that he definitely committed. I read somewhere too that he was trying to get his cousin into his car that day but let her go when he realised her child was in her car.

Not sure about his ex Jodi but his first wife was threatened by him too and none of his kids have anything to do with him. Weird though that she ended up marrying Brendans dad, I think they're all just a really strange bunch

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah, he did that to the cat and also, I found that while watching the Documentary they made you feel sorry for and almost like Steve was the victim in the incident where he ran his cousin off the road and pulled a gun on her just because he said that she was making up stories about him? hhhmmmm i don't know. Also, 6 years of the 18 he spent in prison originally were justified and were for that crime that he definitely committed. I read somewhere too that he was trying to get his cousin into his car that day but let her go when he realised her child was in her car.

Not sure about his ex Jodi but his first wife was threatened by him too and none of his kids have anything to do with him. Weird though that she ended up marrying Brendans dad, I think they're all just a really strange bunch

..also a gun again and what we know for sure from her remains is that Teresa was shot in the head..all of the other stuff/rape/torture etc are things we don't know ever took place....

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Thanks Niamh, I wondered why that wasn't brought up in court.

I also just read here http://mic.com/articles/131662/steve...rer#.GYyKZIPSJ that he covered the cat in gasoline before throwing it on the fire. My sympathies wane for his imprisonment, (guilty or not) when I read stuff like that.

I'm not sure about his ex. There was something odd about her and I got the strong impression that she was likely a socipath. She appeared devoid of any emotion and when Steve mentioned getting her child back she said, "lets get you sorted out first". Most mothers wouldn't be able to think about anything other that bringing their child home but to date, it doesn't look like she's attempted to do that. I also got the impression that she didn't seem to care about him being guilty or not. If she believed he could of been guilty during the trial, why on earth would she of stood by him for as long as she did?.

So were they both sociopaths? they say that sociopaths often relate to other sociopaths and are more likely to have successful relationships with each other.

..I don't think there's a label tbh, I just think that they're a very creepy 'inbred' family in many ways..but I think Steven has a very unhealthy and disturbed mind and he got a taste of something he liked in his 18yrs of 'innocent', he stopped becoming a creep and became a full on focus of positive attention...from inside the family and from a public...

[Josy]

I started reading the court transcripts, haven't even got any further than the first day yet though, reading it is a bit of a chore because all the 'umming' 'ahhing' etc was annoying to read through

The documentary does come across as biased but then the Manitowoc Sheriffs office, Teresa's family/friends and the prosecution team were asked to take part but refused so it was never gonna come across any other way tbh.

Also whether people think he's guilty or not I'm just glad the show has blew the whole thing wide open and the corruption from the Sheriffs department and throughout the court case has came to light, they both do really deserve a new fair trial.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Josy

I started reading the court transcripts, haven't even got any further than the first day yet though, reading it is a bit of a chore because all the 'umming' 'ahhing' etc was annoying to read through

The documentary does come across as biased but then the Manitowoc Sheriffs office, Teresa's family/friends and the prosecution team were asked to take part but refused so it was never gonna come across any other way tbh.

Also whether people think he's guilty or not I'm just glad the show has blew the whole thing wide open and the corruption from the Sheriffs department and throughout the court case has came to light, they both do really deserve a new fair trial.

Yeah absolutely and for me Brendans part in all this has been much more upsetting to watch and who I'd most feel sorry for. I mean there is no doubt in my mind that his confession should have been inadmissible based solely on the behaviour of his first lawyer, that was truly disgusting

[Ammi]

..yeah I started to read them as well Josy, I thought right I'll get this small section done now but OMG, what is that um/em/urr stuff..I've never actually noticed witnesses or lawyers doing it when we see it but it takes up 50% of court time it seems...(so I didn't get very far..)...I do agree though totally, a fair trial is everyone's entitlement....

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Josy

Also whether people think he's guilty or not I'm just glad the show has blew the whole thing wide open and the corruption from the Sheriffs department and throughout the court case has came to light, they both do really deserve a new fair trial.

Absolutely. Regardless of whether they were guilty or not, it wasn't a fair trial. Brendan's defence lawyer was moronic and should of been struck off for breaking every rule in the book.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Absolutely. Regardless of whether they were guilty or not, it wasn't a fair trial. Brendan's defence lawyer was moronic and should of been struck off for breaking every rule in the book.

..he was a failed politician apparently (the first one..)...and only took the case on for the 'fame and fortune' as it were/the publicity...he had no interest in his client, I think I read that he had admitted that...I'm not sure if he's still practicing law or not actually...

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..he was a failed politician apparently (the first one..)...and only took the case on for the 'fame and fortune' as it were/the publicity...he had no interest in his client, I think I read that he had admitted that...I'm not sure if he's still practicing law or not actually...

Surely he isn't if he actually came out and admitted that? Disgraceful

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Surely he isn't if he actually came out and admitted that? Disgraceful

..I'll try to find the link but I have so many links stored and looked at so many sites and articles that specific ones are impossible to bookmark...but he had apparently just run for a State office or something and lost ..and felt that involvement in this case would help with a law career instead.../such a high profile case...he always looked in interviews as though he was preening himself for the cameras and it was all about him, not Brendan...I never liked the look of him...

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..he was a failed politician apparently (the first one..)...and only took the case on for the 'fame and fortune' as it were/the publicity...he had no interest in his client, I think I read that he had admitted that...I'm not sure if he's still practicing law or not actually...

Plus he was a court appointed lawyer so Brendan didn't get to choose.
I wanted to throw things at my tv when the judge asked Brendan if he thought
Kachinsky was doing a good job.

[In the Drunk Tank]

He is still practising law according to this 'where are they now' article: http://bgr.com/2016/01/21/making-a-m...-lenk-colborn/

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by MTVN

He is still practising law according to this 'where are they now' article: http://bgr.com/2016/01/21/making-a-m...-lenk-colborn/

:/