User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 6:14:36 PM EST
[#1]
It wasn't an amazingly done well coverup, frame up.
It was pretty shitty actually. Control the crime scene for ever and be there when you're not supposed to, and put keys where they've already searched and force a retarded kid to say what you want him to say while on video. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 6:18:38 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It wasn't an amazingly done well coverup, frame up. It was pretty shitty actually. Control the crime scene for ever and be there when you're not supposed to, and put keys where they've already searched and force a retarded kid to say what you want him to say while on video. If that is all you believe they did then Avery still killed the girl. His defense attorneys alleged much more of a conspiracy than that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 6:22:05 PM EST
[#3]
Who knows if he did or did not.
There was reasonable doubt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 6:25:39 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who knows if he did or did not. There was reasonable doubt. If they jury was given a 10 hour documentary edited by filmmakers that were clearly sympathetic to the defense, yeah, they might think there was reasonable doubt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 6:42:04 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What does "hundreds of doubts" mean? And not "finding" DNA on a piece of evidence rarely means much. Most of the items they seized were probably never tested at all. edit: The police motive seemed pretty weak. On one hand, they are bumfuck 80s cops that put the wrong guy away on a pre-dna case. Next, you want us to believe they've orchestrated an amazing coverup/frame job? Nah. A slight hyperbole on 'hundreds', but reading back through the thread will show multiple contentions against Avery's guilt. I hear you on your statement, but how about not finding dna evidence where hey say she had her throat cut, none in the garage except a single bullet months later (by Lenk...that amazingly gifted detective), the car with ZERO prints but apparently found blood, and the key with ZERO Halbach dna (by that Holmes-esque detective Lenk again...damn he's good!)? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 6:47:06 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they jury was given a 10 hour documentary edited by filmmakers that were clearly sympathetic to the defense, yeah, they might think there was reasonable doubt. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Who knows if he did or did not. There was reasonable doubt. If they jury was given a 10 hour documentary edited by filmmakers that were clearly sympathetic to the defense, yeah, they might think there was reasonable doubt. Nope. You have to prove the MAJOR contentious points as faulty for me to vote guilty. I don't care if the documentary had Snow White and Cinderella running around to make me love Disney, biased or not, the multitude of absolute egregious gaps in the case must be accounted for to warrant a guilty verdict. 18 years of his life taken. 36 million on the line with cops having me. Let me kill someone. B to the f'ing S case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 6:53:16 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A slight hyperbole on 'hundreds', but reading back through the thread will show multiple contentions against Avery's guilt. I hear you on your statement, but how about not finding dna evidence where hey say she had her throat cut, none in the garage except a single bullet months later (by Lenk...that amazingly gifted detective), the car with ZERO prints but apparently found blood, and the key with ZERO Halbach dna (by that Holmes-esque detective Lenk again...damn he's good!)? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What does "hundreds of doubts" mean? And not "finding" DNA on a piece of evidence rarely means much. Most of the items they seized were probably never tested at all. edit: The police motive seemed pretty weak. On one hand, they are bumfuck 80s cops that put the wrong guy away on a pre-dna case. Next, you want us to believe they've orchestrated an amazing coverup/frame job? Nah. A slight hyperbole on 'hundreds', but reading back through the thread will show multiple contentions against Avery's guilt. I hear you on your statement, but how about not finding dna evidence where hey say she had her throat cut, none in the garage except a single bullet months later (by Lenk...that amazingly gifted detective), the car with ZERO prints but apparently found blood, and the key with ZERO Halbach dna (by that Holmes-esque detective Lenk again...damn he's good!)? It seems unlikely that her throat was cut in his bedroom. But an important fact that wasn't really emphasized was that she was killed on 10/31, and that story about the crime happening in his bedroom did not come out until next march. We don't know how much effort was put into searching his bedroom (beyond looking for a body) in early November. The bullet thing didn't strike me as very odd. There was a ton of trash in that garage and it would have been easy to overlook/not find evidence like that early on. Not finding prints where they found blood means nothing. If you swab an area for DNA you don't process it for prints afterwards. Non-issue. Non-issue that her DNA was not on the key. She wasn't the last person to handle it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 6:55:32 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. You have to prove the MAJOR contentious points as faulty for me to vote guilty. I don't care if the documentary had Snow White and Cinderella running around to make me love Disney, biased or not, the multitude of absolute egregious gaps in the case must be accounted for to warrant a guilty verdict. 18 years of his life taken. 36 million on the line with cops having me. Let me kill someone. B to the f'ing S case. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who knows if he did or did not. There was reasonable doubt. If they jury was given a 10 hour documentary edited by filmmakers that were clearly sympathetic to the defense, yeah, they might think there was reasonable doubt. Nope. You have to prove the MAJOR contentious points as faulty for me to vote guilty. I don't care if the documentary had Snow White and Cinderella running around to make me love Disney, biased or not, the multitude of absolute egregious gaps in the case must be accounted for to warrant a guilty verdict. 18 years of his life taken. 36 million on the line with cops having me. Let me kill someone. B to the f'ing S case. lol I don't care what you vote. Spend a weekend with the case file and not a slick, edited (and entertaining) documentary and your view on these "MAJOR" contentious points may change. ps. even before the murder, he wasn't getting anywhere close to 36 million. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 7:04:41 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol I don't care what you vote. Spend a weekend with the case file and not a slick, edited (and entertaining) documentary and your view on these "MAJOR" contentious points may change. ps. even before the murder, he wasn't getting anywhere close to 36 million. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who knows if he did or did not. There was reasonable doubt. If they jury was given a 10 hour documentary edited by filmmakers that were clearly sympathetic to the defense, yeah, they might think there was reasonable doubt. Nope. You have to prove the MAJOR contentious points as faulty for me to vote guilty. I don't care if the documentary had Snow White and Cinderella running around to make me love Disney, biased or not, the multitude of absolute egregious gaps in the case must be accounted for to warrant a guilty verdict. 18 years of his life taken. 36 million on the line with cops having me. Let me kill someone. B to the f'ing S case. lol I don't care what you vote. Spend a weekend with the case file and not a slick, edited (and entertaining) documentary and your view on these "MAJOR" contentious points may change. ps. even before the murder, he wasn't getting anywhere close to 36 million. Since the insurance company wasn't going to help at all for whatever fraction of 36 million was going to happen, it was still going to devastate the town and anyone involved in the original frame job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 7:29:10 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since the insurance company wasn't going to help at all for whatever fraction of 36 million was going to happen, it was still going to devastate the town and anyone involved in the original frame job. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who knows if he did or did not. There was reasonable doubt. If they jury was given a 10 hour documentary edited by filmmakers that were clearly sympathetic to the defense, yeah, they might think there was reasonable doubt. Nope. You have to prove the MAJOR contentious points as faulty for me to vote guilty. I don't care if the documentary had Snow White and Cinderella running around to make me love Disney, biased or not, the multitude of absolute egregious gaps in the case must be accounted for to warrant a guilty verdict. 18 years of his life taken. 36 million on the line with cops having me. Let me kill someone. B to the f'ing S case. lol I don't care what you vote. Spend a weekend with the case file and not a slick, edited (and entertaining) documentary and your view on these "MAJOR" contentious points may change. ps. even before the murder, he wasn't getting anywhere close to 36 million. Since the insurance company wasn't going to help at all for whatever fraction of 36 million was going to happen, it was still going to devastate the town and anyone involved in the original frame job. They weren't gonna get a bunch of money from lenk or coburn on that. The phone call in 95 was another non issue |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 7:33:11 PM EST
[#11]
I tried to watch the show and just could not get into it. Boring as hell. Fucked up story yes, but extremely boring to watch.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 8:10:01 PM EST
[#12]
Throw out all the tainted evidence, nothing collected by manatoc should ever have been admitted anyway, move trial to somewhere else and retry.... See who wins but you can't use a jury from anywhere around there, probably should move out of state....
Not sure if he is innocent or not but any evidence collected or found by that so should be excluded and no testing by the same chick who f'ed him the first time on the rape, should have been used... Maybe they didn't frame him but none of those people even remotely involved in the lawsuit or first trial should been anywhere near this case, they had means motive and this case gave them opportunity to frame him. It was idiotic just flat stupid for them to have been anywhere near the case and you can't dilute that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 8:16:42 PM EST
[#13]
Once again. From the one juror that spoke to the media, 98% of what they saw at the trial was shown in the documentary. The rest has been posted in this thread numerous times. To allege there is some "smoking gun" that the jury saw that we didn't is total bs...so stop it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 8:52:18 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It seems unlikely that her throat was cut in his bedroom. But an important fact that wasn't really emphasized was that she was killed on 10/31, and that story about the crime happening in his bedroom did not come out until next march. We don't know how much effort was put into searching his bedroom (beyond looking for a body) in early November. The bullet thing didn't strike me as very odd. There was a ton of trash in that garage and it would have been easy to overlook/not find evidence like that early on. Not finding prints where they found blood means nothing. If you swab an area for DNA you don't process it for prints afterwards. Non-issue. Non-issue that her DNA was not on the key. She wasn't the last person to handle it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What does "hundreds of doubts" mean? And not "finding" DNA on a piece of evidence rarely means much. Most of the items they seized were probably never tested at all. edit: The police motive seemed pretty weak. On one hand, they are bumfuck 80s cops that put the wrong guy away on a pre-dna case. Next, you want us to believe they've orchestrated an amazing coverup/frame job? Nah. A slight hyperbole on 'hundreds', but reading back through the thread will show multiple contentions against Avery's guilt. I hear you on your statement, but how about not finding dna evidence where hey say she had her throat cut, none in the garage except a single bullet months later (by Lenk...that amazingly gifted detective), the car with ZERO prints but apparently found blood, and the key with ZERO Halbach dna (by that Holmes-esque detective Lenk again...damn he's good!)? It seems unlikely that her throat was cut in his bedroom. But an important fact that wasn't really emphasized was that she was killed on 10/31, and that story about the crime happening in his bedroom did not come out until next march. We don't know how much effort was put into searching his bedroom (beyond looking for a body) in early November. The bullet thing didn't strike me as very odd. There was a ton of trash in that garage and it would have been easy to overlook/not find evidence like that early on. Not finding prints where they found blood means nothing. If you swab an area for DNA you don't process it for prints afterwards. Non-issue. Non-issue that her DNA was not on the key. She wasn't the last person to handle it. What are your thoughts on Colburn calling dispatch to run the plates 2 days prior to finding the car? Serious question |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 9:08:55 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What are your thoughts on Colburn calling dispatch to run the plates 2 days prior to finding the car? Serious question Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What does "hundreds of doubts" mean? And not "finding" DNA on a piece of evidence rarely means much. Most of the items they seized were probably never tested at all. edit: The police motive seemed pretty weak. On one hand, they are bumfuck 80s cops that put the wrong guy away on a pre-dna case. Next, you want us to believe they've orchestrated an amazing coverup/frame job? Nah. A slight hyperbole on 'hundreds', but reading back through the thread will show multiple contentions against Avery's guilt. I hear you on your statement, but how about not finding dna evidence where hey say she had her throat cut, none in the garage except a single bullet months later (by Lenk...that amazingly gifted detective), the car with ZERO prints but apparently found blood, and the key with ZERO Halbach dna (by that Holmes-esque detective Lenk again...damn he's good!)? It seems unlikely that her throat was cut in his bedroom. But an important fact that wasn't really emphasized was that she was killed on 10/31, and that story about the crime happening in his bedroom did not come out until next march. We don't know how much effort was put into searching his bedroom (beyond looking for a body) in early November. The bullet thing didn't strike me as very odd. There was a ton of trash in that garage and it would have been easy to overlook/not find evidence like that early on. Not finding prints where they found blood means nothing. If you swab an area for DNA you don't process it for prints afterwards. Non-issue. Non-issue that her DNA was not on the key. She wasn't the last person to handle it. What are your thoughts on Colburn calling dispatch to run the plates 2 days prior to finding the car? Serious question They really needed to give more context to know if that meant anything. I can think of a number of reasons why that wasn't suspicious. If I remember right they didn't ask coburn about that on the stand which tells you all there is to know about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 9:18:52 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Once again. From the one juror that spoke to the media, 98% of what they saw at the trial was shown in the documentary. The rest has been posted in this thread numerous times. To allege there is some "smoking gun" that the jury saw that we didn't is total bs...so stop it. that one juror that had to leave b/c of 'personal reasons?' what about the other 12 who found him guilty? you think they'd have something different to say? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 9:19:30 PM EST
[#17]
can anyone find the length of the trial?
what date did it start and what date did it end?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 9:20:13 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They really needed to give more context to know if that meant anything. I can think of a number of reasons why that wasn't suspicious. If I remember right they didn't ask coburn about that on the stand which tells you all there is to know about that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What does "hundreds of doubts" mean? And not "finding" DNA on a piece of evidence rarely means much. Most of the items they seized were probably never tested at all. edit: The police motive seemed pretty weak. On one hand, they are bumfuck 80s cops that put the wrong guy away on a pre-dna case. Next, you want us to believe they've orchestrated an amazing coverup/frame job? Nah. A slight hyperbole on 'hundreds', but reading back through the thread will show multiple contentions against Avery's guilt. I hear you on your statement, but how about not finding dna evidence where hey say she had her throat cut, none in the garage except a single bullet months later (by Lenk...that amazingly gifted detective), the car with ZERO prints but apparently found blood, and the key with ZERO Halbach dna (by that Holmes-esque detective Lenk again...damn he's good!)? It seems unlikely that her throat was cut in his bedroom. But an important fact that wasn't really emphasized was that she was killed on 10/31, and that story about the crime happening in his bedroom did not come out until next march. We don't know how much effort was put into searching his bedroom (beyond looking for a body) in early November. The bullet thing didn't strike me as very odd. There was a ton of trash in that garage and it would have been easy to overlook/not find evidence like that early on. Not finding prints where they found blood means nothing. If you swab an area for DNA you don't process it for prints afterwards. Non-issue. Non-issue that her DNA was not on the key. She wasn't the last person to handle it. What are your thoughts on Colburn calling dispatch to run the plates 2 days prior to finding the car? Serious question They really needed to give more context to know if that meant anything. I can think of a number of reasons why that wasn't suspicious. If I remember right they didn't ask coburn about that on the stand which tells you all there is to know about that. Actually they did and he didn't have an answer. If the shackles were used as they claim why wasn't her DNA on it??? It without a doubt should have had skin and sweat... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 9:23:33 PM EST
[#19]
I manage a lease in west Tx, we're out here doing some work this weekend, I'm setting here drinking with a judge and his son a da from Dallas. I will ask if they have any thoughts on the case.. That should be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 9:34:47 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They really needed to give more context to know if that meant anything. I can think of a number of reasons why that wasn't suspicious. If I remember right they didn't ask coburn about that on the stand which tells you all there is to know about that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What are your thoughts on Colburn calling dispatch to run the plates 2 days prior to finding the car? Serious question They really needed to give more context to know if that meant anything. I can think of a number of reasons why that wasn't suspicious. If I remember right they didn't ask coburn about that on the stand which tells you all there is to know about that. They did ask him, he didn't have an answer and just had a dumb look on his face. I can't come to any conclusion other then he was looking at the back of her rav4. What are your reasons that wouldn't be suspicious? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 10:30:49 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They did ask him, he didn't have an answer and just had a dumb look on his face. I can't come to any conclusion other then he was looking at the back of her rav4. What are your reasons that wouldn't be suspicious? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What are your thoughts on Colburn calling dispatch to run the plates 2 days prior to finding the car? Serious question They really needed to give more context to know if that meant anything. I can think of a number of reasons why that wasn't suspicious. If I remember right they didn't ask coburn about that on the stand which tells you all there is to know about that. They did ask him, he didn't have an answer and just had a dumb look on his face. I can't come to any conclusion other then he was looking at the back of her rav4. What are your reasons that wouldn't be suspicious? It really depends on what info Wisconsin dmv gives you when you ask for a plate, and what you were doing at the time. In CA you get year and make, but not model. I'd have to listen to the exchange again but I remember thinking at the time when watching it that it didn't seem that weird. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 10:47:09 PM EST
[#22]
You believe the story about the key?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 10:48:28 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It really depends on what info Wisconsin dmv gives you when you ask for a plate, and what you were doing at the time. In CA you get year and make, but not model. I'd have to listen to the exchange again but I remember thinking at the time when watching it that it didn't seem that weird. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What are your thoughts on Colburn calling dispatch to run the plates 2 days prior to finding the car? Serious question They really needed to give more context to know if that meant anything. I can think of a number of reasons why that wasn't suspicious. If I remember right they didn't ask coburn about that on the stand which tells you all there is to know about that. They did ask him, he didn't have an answer and just had a dumb look on his face. I can't come to any conclusion other then he was looking at the back of her rav4. What are your reasons that wouldn't be suspicious? It really depends on what info Wisconsin dmv gives you when you ask for a plate, and what you were doing at the time. In CA you get year and make, but not model. I'd have to listen to the exchange again but I remember thinking at the time when watching it that it didn't seem that weird. So his dodgy expressions and slow-to-declarative comments had no impact on you? Okay I guess... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 11:30:56 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You believe the story about the key? It was weird. But the conspiracy theory is weirder. Weird shit happens |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2016 11:39:01 PM EST
[#25]
the trial itself, not the pretrial, not from the date of his arrest, but from the day his trial started to the day he was found guilty was just over a month long, 2/12-3/18...
so a month long plus trial was whittled down to less than 7 hours, and that's being generous. You take away the first and last two episodes which weren't so much about the trial itself, you're left with 7 episodes, and less than half that footage is of the trial itself... that's a month long trial in FOUR HOURS. there's NO WAY us as viewers saw the same trial the jurors did.. it's impossible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 12:26:25 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was weird. But the conspiracy theory is weirder. Weird shit happens Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You believe the story about the key? It was weird. But the conspiracy theory is weirder. Weird shit happens Nah. I've read every post you have and now you're clearly blinded by bias. Keep posting but there's simply little weight. Yeah, it's way crazier to believe the key happened to be found by Lenk after multiple no-go searches than planted by him. 
ETA- Lenk found the bullet too. Everyone searching and he finds it...after multiple no-go prior searches. What are those odds? Didn't you win powerball twice last week? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 12:29:43 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the trial itself, not the pretrial, not from the date of his arrest, but from the day his trial started to the day he was found guilty was just over a month long, 2/12-3/18... so a month long plus trial was whittled down to less than 7 hours, and that's being generous. You take away the first and last two episodes which weren't so much about the trial itself, you're left with 7 episodes, and less than half that footage is of the trial itself... that's a month long trial in FOUR HOURS. there's NO WAY us as viewers saw the same trial the jurors did.. it's impossible. Read again. Many state that most everything was covered. And either way, short of a video catching him doing it, way too much bs already stated to make anything 'new' or 'not covered' any relevant. The cops had it in for him. They planted evidence. They may have even been involved in the killing or known. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 12:32:14 AM EST
[#28]
You would think a 6 year old car key would show some wear
 t |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 12:39:11 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You would think a 6 year old car key would show some wear <a href="http://s99.photobucket.com/user/rgb03/media/image.jpg1_zps24lsf6gc.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l302/rgb03/image.jpg1_zps24lsf6gc.jpg</a>t Most folks will tell you this is the Valet key. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 12:42:40 AM EST
[#30]
If he had OJ's lawyer, he'd be free.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 12:50:13 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If he had OJ's lawyer, he'd be free. Not with that jury in that town |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 12:52:02 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not with that jury in that town Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If he had OJ's lawyer, he'd be free. Not with that jury in that town Bingo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 1:00:13 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read again. Many state that most everything was covered. And either way, short of a video catching him doing it, way too much bs already stated to make anything 'new' or 'not covered' any relevant. The cops had it in for him. They planted evidence. They may have even been involved in the killing or known. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
the trial itself, not the pretrial, not from the date of his arrest, but from the day his trial started to the day he was found guilty was just over a month long, 2/12-3/18... so a month long plus trial was whittled down to less than 7 hours, and that's being generous. You take away the first and last two episodes which weren't so much about the trial itself, you're left with 7 episodes, and less than half that footage is of the trial itself... that's a month long trial in FOUR HOURS. there's NO WAY us as viewers saw the same trial the jurors did.. it's impossible. Read again. Many state that most everything was covered. And either way, short of a video catching him doing it, way too much bs already stated to make anything 'new' or 'not covered' any relevant. The cops had it in for him. They planted evidence. They may have even been involved in the killing or known. Read what again, this thread of opinions? Just bc people who think Avery is innocent agree with the portrayal of evidence in the doc doesn't mean he's not guilty. What other juror besides the one with 'issues' has confessed to wrongfully convicting Avery? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 1:55:19 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
that one juror that had to leave b/c of 'personal reasons?' what about the other 12 who found him guilty? you think they'd have something different to say? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Once again. From the one juror that spoke to the media, 98% of what they saw at the trial was shown in the documentary. The rest has been posted in this thread numerous times. To allege there is some "smoking gun" that the jury saw that we didn't is total bs...so stop it. that one juror that had to leave b/c of 'personal reasons?' what about the other 12 who found him guilty? you think they'd have something different to say? Personal reasons being that his daughter was in a serious car accident and he was being threatened by the deputy's father and the "we don't need no evidence think of what he did when he was younger" woman. Since he's the only one to come out and actually give an interview to any media we pretty much have to take his word for what went down. All of the others have had their chance to dispute his version of events and they haven't. He doesn't appear to have any skin in the game, unlike other members of the jury who voted guilty. Like I said, I'm pretty sure Avery raped and murdered that woman. I'm also pretty sure he should be a free man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 4:23:51 AM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nah. I've read every post you have and now you're clearly blinded by bias. Keep posting but there's simply little weight. Yeah, it's way crazier to believe the key happened to be found by Lenk after multiple no-go searches than planted by him.
ETA- Lenk found the bullet too. Everyone searching and he finds it...after multiple no-go prior searches. What are those odds? Didn't you win powerball twice last week? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You believe the story about the key? It was weird. But the conspiracy theory is weirder. Weird shit happens Nah. I've read every post you have and now you're clearly blinded by bias. Keep posting but there's simply little weight. Yeah, it's way crazier to believe the key happened to be found by Lenk after multiple no-go searches than planted by him.
ETA- Lenk found the bullet too. Everyone searching and he finds it...after multiple no-go prior searches. What are those odds? Didn't you win powerball twice last week? Odds of Lenk being on a search are pretty good. How many detectives does the SO have? The Lieutenant in charge of Investigations at my department is at every search we went out on. I'd image it was the same for Lenk's department. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 7:12:18 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Odds of Lenk being on a search are pretty good. How many detectives does the SO have? The Lieutenant in charge of Investigations at my department is at every search we went out on. I'd image it was the same for Lenk's department. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You believe the story about the key? It was weird. But the conspiracy theory is weirder. Weird shit happens Nah. I've read every post you have and now you're clearly blinded by bias. Keep posting but there's simply little weight. Yeah, it's way crazier to believe the key happened to be found by Lenk after multiple no-go searches than planted by him.
ETA- Lenk found the bullet too. Everyone searching and he finds it...after multiple no-go prior searches. What are those odds? Didn't you win powerball twice last week? Odds of Lenk being on a search are pretty good. How many detectives does the SO have? The Lieutenant in charge of Investigations at my department is at every search we went out on. I'd image it was the same for Lenk's department. Except for the whole conflict of interest thing and the fact he wasn't supposed to be there. Calumet county was handling the investigation, and only after they didn't find anything after multiple searches is when Lenk shows up and magically finds all the evidence. So convenient |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 8:56:58 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read what again, this thread of opinions? Just bc people who think Avery is innocent agree with the portrayal of evidence in the doc doesn't mean he's not guilty. What other juror besides the one with 'issues' has confessed to wrongfully convicting Avery? Just because you feel the show is biased, doesn't mean it presented false information. So, when did they lie? Which evidence produced by the defense was found to be false? The other jurors have remained anonymous. They stated they feared for their safety, since the Manitowoc sheriffs department clearly can get away with destroying people's lives. Also a volunteer for the sheriff and a father of a current deputy served on the jury. The trial should have never been allowed to occur in Manitowoc county. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 9:19:33 AM EST
[#38]
I'm no expert, or even a novice at incinerating bodies......but I don't buy that a body was reduced to near crematory quality remains from a burn barrel.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 10:48:58 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read what again, this thread of opinions? Just bc people who think Avery is innocent agree with the portrayal of evidence in the doc doesn't mean he's not guilty. What other juror besides the one with 'issues' has confessed to wrongfully convicting Avery? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the trial itself, not the pretrial, not from the date of his arrest, but from the day his trial started to the day he was found guilty was just over a month long, 2/12-3/18... so a month long plus trial was whittled down to less than 7 hours, and that's being generous. You take away the first and last two episodes which weren't so much about the trial itself, you're left with 7 episodes, and less than half that footage is of the trial itself... that's a month long trial in FOUR HOURS. there's NO WAY us as viewers saw the same trial the jurors did.. it's impossible. Read again. Many state that most everything was covered. And either way, short of a video catching him doing it, way too much bs already stated to make anything 'new' or 'not covered' any relevant. The cops had it in for him. They planted evidence. They may have even been involved in the killing or known. Read what again, this thread of opinions? Just bc people who think Avery is innocent agree with the portrayal of evidence in the doc doesn't mean he's not guilty. What other juror besides the one with 'issues' has confessed to wrongfully convicting Avery? 1. There are links with details on omitted evidence. Some reposted those. Read them. 2. Wrongful doesn't mean overt. They got it wrong sitting in the bias of their seats, with that judge, in that town. They may not state such, but they did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 10:51:19 AM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Odds of Lenk being on a search are pretty good. How many detectives does the SO have? The Lieutenant in charge of Investigations at my department is at every search we went out on. I'd image it was the same for Lenk's department. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You believe the story about the key? It was weird. But the conspiracy theory is weirder. Weird shit happens Nah. I've read every post you have and now you're clearly blinded by bias. Keep posting but there's simply little weight. Yeah, it's way crazier to believe the key happened to be found by Lenk after multiple no-go searches than planted by him.
ETA- Lenk found the bullet too. Everyone searching and he finds it...after multiple no-go prior searches. What are those odds? Didn't you win powerball twice last week? Odds of Lenk being on a search are pretty good. How many detectives does the SO have? The Lieutenant in charge of Investigations at my department is at every search we went out on. I'd image it was the same for Lenk's department. Pretty good? Thought they were supposed to be zero for that whole department...can only lieutenants find clues sitting on floors? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 11:08:39 AM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fivepoint Odds of Lenk being on a search are pretty good. How many detectives does the SO have? The Lieutenant in charge of Investigations at my department is at every search we went out on. I'd image it was the same for Lenk's department. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 12:13:32 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except for the whole conflict of interest thing and the fact he wasn't supposed to be there. Calumet county was handling the investigation, and only after they didn't find anything after multiple searches is when Lenk shows up and magically finds all the evidence. So convenient Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You believe the story about the key? It was weird. But the conspiracy theory is weirder. Weird shit happens Nah. I've read every post you have and now you're clearly blinded by bias. Keep posting but there's simply little weight. Yeah, it's way crazier to believe the key happened to be found by Lenk after multiple no-go searches than planted by him.
ETA- Lenk found the bullet too. Everyone searching and he finds it...after multiple no-go prior searches. What are those odds? Didn't you win powerball twice last week? Odds of Lenk being on a search are pretty good. How many detectives does the SO have? The Lieutenant in charge of Investigations at my department is at every search we went out on. I'd image it was the same for Lenk's department. Except for the whole conflict of interest thing and the fact he wasn't supposed to be there. Calumet county was handling the investigation, and only after they didn't find anything after multiple searches is when Lenk shows up and magically finds all the evidence. So convenient He showed up day 1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 12:14:48 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty good? Thought they were supposed to be zero for that whole department...can only lieutenants find clues sitting on floors? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You believe the story about the key? It was weird. But the conspiracy theory is weirder. Weird shit happens Nah. I've read every post you have and now you're clearly blinded by bias. Keep posting but there's simply little weight. Yeah, it's way crazier to believe the key happened to be found by Lenk after multiple no-go searches than planted by him.
ETA- Lenk found the bullet too. Everyone searching and he finds it...after multiple no-go prior searches. What are those odds? Didn't you win powerball twice last week? Odds of Lenk being on a search are pretty good. How many detectives does the SO have? The Lieutenant in charge of Investigations at my department is at every search we went out on. I'd image it was the same for Lenk's department. Pretty good? Thought they were supposed to be zero for that whole department...can only lieutenants find clues sitting on floors? Obviously the whole department was involved, not just Lenk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 1:45:21 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Obviously the whole department was involved, not just Lenk. The issue is they were not supposed to be, due to conflcts of interest, because others didn't think it preposterous for tampering or any other devious scenario... Now the whole dept is in violation, and Sherlock Lenk is the only one finding DNA evidence on floors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 5:02:39 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The issue is they were not supposed to be, due to conflcts of interest, because others didn't think it preposterous for tampering or any other devious scenario... Now the whole dept is in violation, and Sherlock Lenk is the only one finding DNA evidence on floors. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Obviously the whole department was involved, not just Lenk. The issue is they were not supposed to be, due to conflcts of interest, because others didn't think it preposterous for tampering or any other devious scenario... Now the whole dept is in violation, and Sherlock Lenk is the only one finding DNA evidence on floors. In violation of what? There is no "conflict of interest law". The reason they passed off the investigation was so Avery could not use it as a defense in his trial. They ended up participating, so he ended up using it in his defense. That's it. There was other DNA, and other significant evidence, found by other people in the case, but the documentary didn't really focus on that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 5:41:27 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In violation of what? There is no "conflict of interest law". The reason they passed off the investigation was so Avery could not use it as a defense in his trial. They ended up participating, so he ended up using it in his defense. That's it. There was other DNA, and other significant evidence, found by other people in the case, but the documentary didn't really focus on that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Obviously the whole department was involved, not just Lenk. The issue is they were not supposed to be, due to conflcts of interest, because others didn't think it preposterous for tampering or any other devious scenario... Now the whole dept is in violation, and Sherlock Lenk is the only one finding DNA evidence on floors. In violation of what? There is no "conflict of interest law". The reason they passed off the investigation was so Avery could not use it as a defense in his trial. They ended up participating, so he ended up using it in his defense. That's it. There was other DNA, and other significant evidence, found by other people in the case, but the documentary didn't really focus on that. I didn't say law, but there were specific directives broken by the Manitowoc police. You cannot ignore that. And the DNA not found was more telling than any DNA evidence 'discovered'. I especially like the touch where the lady went right to the spot in the junkyard where the car was. She also just so happened to be given the only camera for anyone involved in the search. Nice. Speaking of, would you have pursued the ex or roommate further? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 7:31:08 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't say law, but there were specific directives broken by the Manitowoc police. You cannot ignore that. And the DNA not found was more telling than any DNA evidence 'discovered'. I especially like the touch where the lady went right to the spot in the junkyard where the car was. She also just so happened to be given the only camera for anyone involved in the search. Nice. Speaking of, would you have pursued the ex or roommate further? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Obviously the whole department was involved, not just Lenk. The issue is they were not supposed to be, due to conflcts of interest, because others didn't think it preposterous for tampering or any other devious scenario... Now the whole dept is in violation, and Sherlock Lenk is the only one finding DNA evidence on floors. In violation of what? There is no "conflict of interest law". The reason they passed off the investigation was so Avery could not use it as a defense in his trial. They ended up participating, so he ended up using it in his defense. That's it. There was other DNA, and other significant evidence, found by other people in the case, but the documentary didn't really focus on that. I didn't say law, but there were specific directives broken by the Manitowoc police. You cannot ignore that. And the DNA not found was more telling than any DNA evidence 'discovered'. I especially like the touch where the lady went right to the spot in the junkyard where the car was. She also just so happened to be given the only camera for anyone involved in the search. Nice. Speaking of, would you have pursued the ex or roommate further? Other than giving Avery's lawyer something resembling a defense, it doesn't matter what "directives" they broke. The court ignored it as well, because it is irrelevant. What are you talking about "went right to the spot"? They made it sound like a number of volunteers were doing a search over some time. I don't remember anything about the finder taking the photos of it in the yard, I'm sure those were from the cops. The doc doesn't talk at all about the ex-boyfriend and roomates alibi, so we don't know how much they were pursued. It sounded like they didn't live near the compound or were at all familiar with the Avery property, so it doesn't seem logical they would be involved anyways. Whoever killed the girl knew the Avery compound and could be there without alarm. They left out the part about the girl having creepy run-ins with Avery in the past and asking to not be sent out there again, and him calling her multiple times that day. That's huge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 8:35:00 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Other than giving Avery's lawyer something resembling a defense, it doesn't matter what "directives" they broke. The court ignored it as well, because it is irrelevant. What are you talking about "went right to the spot"? They made it sound like a number of volunteers were doing a search over some time. I don't remember anything about the finder taking the photos of it in the yard, I'm sure those were from the cops. The doc doesn't talk at all about the ex-boyfriend and roomates alibi, so we don't know how much they were pursued. It sounded like they didn't live near the compound or were at all familiar with the Avery property, so it doesn't seem logical they would be involved anyways. Whoever killed the girl knew the Avery compound and could be there without alarm. They left out the part about the girl having creepy run-ins with Avery in the past and asking to not be sent out there again, and him calling her multiple times that day. That's huge. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Obviously the whole department was involved, not just Lenk. The issue is they were not supposed to be, due to conflcts of interest, because others didn't think it preposterous for tampering or any other devious scenario... Now the whole dept is in violation, and Sherlock Lenk is the only one finding DNA evidence on floors. In violation of what? There is no "conflict of interest law". The reason they passed off the investigation was so Avery could not use it as a defense in his trial. They ended up participating, so he ended up using it in his defense. That's it. There was other DNA, and other significant evidence, found by other people in the case, but the documentary didn't really focus on that. I didn't say law, but there were specific directives broken by the Manitowoc police. You cannot ignore that. And the DNA not found was more telling than any DNA evidence 'discovered'. I especially like the touch where the lady went right to the spot in the junkyard where the car was. She also just so happened to be given the only camera for anyone involved in the search. Nice. Speaking of, would you have pursued the ex or roommate further? Other than giving Avery's lawyer something resembling a defense, it doesn't matter what "directives" they broke. The court ignored it as well, because it is irrelevant. What are you talking about "went right to the spot"? They made it sound like a number of volunteers were doing a search over some time. I don't remember anything about the finder taking the photos of it in the yard, I'm sure those were from the cops. The doc doesn't talk at all about the ex-boyfriend and roomates alibi, so we don't know how much they were pursued. It sounded like they didn't live near the compound or were at all familiar with the Avery property, so it doesn't seem logical they would be involved anyways. Whoever killed the girl knew the Avery compound and could be there without alarm. They left out the part about the girl having creepy run-ins with Avery in the past and asking to not be sent out there again, and him calling her multiple times that day. That's huge. Strongly disagree to its irrelevance. They had wrongly accused and convicted him in the past. They should have stayed away especially given what was on the line. How did the lady who found the car basically go right to where it was? She wasnt tipped in any way? I find that unlikely. Creepy run ins makes him a murderer? Give me 8 days on a property after a crime and I can make it look like aliens from Mars came and killed her. The whole case was a sham and your bias is showing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2016 9:44:52 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Other than giving Avery's lawyer something resembling a defense, it doesn't matter what "directives" they broke. The court ignored it as well, because it is irrelevant. What are you talking about "went right to the spot"? They made it sound like a number of volunteers were doing a search over some time. I don't remember anything about the finder taking the photos of it in the yard, I'm sure those were from the cops. The doc doesn't talk at all about the ex-boyfriend and roomates alibi, so we don't know how much they were pursued. It sounded like they didn't live near the compound or were at all familiar with the Avery property, so it doesn't seem logical they would be involved anyways. Whoever killed the girl knew the Avery compound and could be there without alarm. They left out the part about the girl having creepy run-ins with Avery in the past and asking to not be sent out there again, and him calling her multiple times that day. That's huge. At first I was generally interested in your point of view, now I'm just starting to wonder if you even watched the doc, and if you did it's questionable as to how much you payed attention. The lady that "found" the car was specifically told to go to the Avery lot (where she went right to it), she was the only person given a camera, and she was given a direct line to the sheriff. The ex-bf testified that he was never questioned nor asked for an alibi. The stuff that was left out of the doc has been addressed in here multiple times, and none of it is evidence of him murdering her. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2016 1:13:00 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At first I was generally interested in your point of view, now I'm just starting to wonder if you even watched the doc, and if you did it's questionable as to how much you payed attention. The lady that "found" the car was specifically told to go to the Avery lot (where she went right to it), she was the only person given a camera, and she was given a direct line to the sheriff. The ex-bf testified that he was never questioned nor asked for an alibi. The stuff that was left out of the doc has been addressed in here multiple times, and none of it is evidence of him murdering her. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Other than giving Avery's lawyer something resembling a defense, it doesn't matter what "directives" they broke. The court ignored it as well, because it is irrelevant. What are you talking about "went right to the spot"? They made it sound like a number of volunteers were doing a search over some time. I don't remember anything about the finder taking the photos of it in the yard, I'm sure those were from the cops. The doc doesn't talk at all about the ex-boyfriend and roomates alibi, so we don't know how much they were pursued. It sounded like they didn't live near the compound or were at all familiar with the Avery property, so it doesn't seem logical they would be involved anyways. Whoever killed the girl knew the Avery compound and could be there without alarm. They left out the part about the girl having creepy run-ins with Avery in the past and asking to not be sent out there again, and him calling her multiple times that day. That's huge. At first I was generally interested in your point of view, now I'm just starting to wonder if you even watched the doc, and if you did it's questionable as to how much you payed attention. The lady that "found" the car was specifically told to go to the Avery lot (where she went right to it), she was the only person given a camera, and she was given a direct line to the sheriff. The ex-bf testified that he was never questioned nor asked for an alibi. The stuff that was left out of the doc has been addressed in here multiple times, and none of it is evidence of him murdering her. This. Not to mention his raging I'm a detective boner. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
