Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if he really did do it but then the cops planted evidence because they didn't have enough. But I'm only on episode 6. The one thing I found hilariously implausible was when the one cop said he wasn't sure the DNA evidence from the first conviction was legit. I mean, doesn't anyone think anyone associated with the Averys would have the ability to plant fake DNA evidence?

I have a friend who wrote a paper about this in law school. I guess a lot of evidence not shown here points to Avery and many people believe the cops planted evidence to seal the deal.

I could see that. It's kind of the only thing that makes sense.

How does that make sense at all? If there was enough evidence, the police wouldn't have to plant more. And planting evidence is grossly illegal and unethical in any case.

Well, of course none of us knows. And of course it's entirely possible that the documentary is not a fair representation of the evidence. But, as a viewer, I think it does make sense that he did it. I didn't say there was "enough evidence". I think it's very possible that he did it, and there wasn't enough evidence, and the cops wanted it to be a slam dunk conviction so they (or one of them) planted the key and/or the blood. So much of what the defense lawyers laid out points to planting evidence. Why would cops plant evidence if they really thought the guy was guilty? Because they wanted the conviction. Lots of guilty people aren't convicted.

And why did the cops so desperately want to convict Avery?? Because he was suing them! And insurance wasn't going to cover it so they were going to have to pay out of their own pockets. By Avery being convicted of a crime, they hit the jackpot with getting out of the $36 million lawsuit against them. There is a tremendous amount of motive for the cops to plant evidence. I'm not totally convinced they didn't have something to do with the murder either. Why couldn't they have seen Theresa driving off the Avery property, find a reason to pull her over, shoot her and then plant evidence? It's a bit hard to believe, but possible.

And for the life of me I cannot figure out why if Avery did do the murder he would park Theresa's car on his own property? He cannot possibly be that stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if he really did do it but then the cops planted evidence because they didn't have enough. But I'm only on episode 6. The one thing I found hilariously implausible was when the one cop said he wasn't sure the DNA evidence from the first conviction was legit. I mean, doesn't anyone think anyone associated with the Averys would have the ability to plant fake DNA evidence?

I have a friend who wrote a paper about this in law school. I guess a lot of evidence not shown here points to Avery and many people believe the cops planted evidence to seal the deal.

I could see that. It's kind of the only thing that makes sense.

How does that make sense at all? If there was enough evidence, the police wouldn't have to plant more. And planting evidence is grossly illegal and unethical in any case.

Well, of course none of us knows. And of course it's entirely possible that the documentary is not a fair representation of the evidence. But, as a viewer, I think it does make sense that he did it. I didn't say there was "enough evidence". I think it's very possible that he did it, and there wasn't enough evidence, and the cops wanted it to be a slam dunk conviction so they (or one of them) planted the key and/or the blood. So much of what the defense lawyers laid out points to planting evidence. Why would cops plant evidence if they really thought the guy was guilty? Because they wanted the conviction. Lots of guilty people aren't convicted.

Oh, and of course planting evidence is illegal/unethical. Did you think I was saying something to the contrary? That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Sure. So, for me and my DH, the show is as much about awareness of unethical & unfair law enforcement and prosecution practices as it is about the potential exoneration of a potentially innocent man. That's what we're angry about, and what makes us want to throw our shoes at the TV: people who are supposed to uphold justice getting away with these things.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone notice Colburn taking Brendan back into the courtroom for the verdict?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different poster here. 11:28 you raise good points but I think the reality is that Avery wasn't all that bright and he could have said some stupid things that would be used against him. That was clearly what happened with Brendan.

I'm 11:28. Poor Brendan. I thought the jury saw the tape of his "confession" how in the world could they not see him being spoon fed/force fed what to say. It may have been the jury only saw the final cut and his incompetent lawyer didn't show the rest. Did his mother testify at his trial?

I don't think they saw it. The prosecution showed part of it, but for reasons I do not understand, the defense did not show the parts we saw where clearly he was be fed what to say, where they told him he'd be fine if he told them what they wanted to hear. Does anybody know why they didn't show that to the jury? ???

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different poster here. 11:28 you raise good points but I think the reality is that Avery wasn't all that bright and he could have said some stupid things that would be used against him. That was clearly what happened with Brendan.

I'm 11:28. Poor Brendan. I thought the jury saw the tape of his "confession" how in the world could they not see him being spoon fed/force fed what to say. It may have been the jury only saw the final cut and his incompetent lawyer didn't show the rest. Did his mother testify at his trial?

Anonymous wrote:I am about 4-5 episodes in. I am horrified by every aspect. Even if the clips shown of Brendan's "confession" paint a different picture from what occurred during his interrogation (an assertion I've read in some articles but find hard to believe), as a lawyer, I cannot get over my absolute disgust with his lawyer. Disgust doesn't begin to capture my feelings. Knowing the outcome, I don't know if I can stomach watching the rest. But I will.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different poster here. 11:28 you raise good points but I think the reality is that Avery wasn't all that bright and he could have said some stupid things that would be used against him. That was clearly what happened with Brendan.

I'm 11:28. Poor Brendan. I thought the jury saw the tape of his "confession" how in the world could they not see him being spoon fed/force fed what to say. It may have been the jury only saw the final cut and his incompetent lawyer didn't show the rest. Did his mother testify at his trial?

No. She wasn't a witness to anything so she can't say or sure if he did it or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different poster here. 11:28 you raise good points but I think the reality is that Avery wasn't all that bright and he could have said some stupid things that would be used against him. That was clearly what happened with Brendan.

I'm 11:28. Poor Brendan. I thought the jury saw the tape of his "confession" how in the world could they not see him being spoon fed/force fed what to say. It may have been the jury only saw the final cut and his incompetent lawyer didn't show the rest. Did his mother testify at his trial?

Anonymous wrote:Different poster here. 11:28 you raise good points but I think the reality is that Avery wasn't all that bright and he could have said some stupid things that would be used against him. That was clearly what happened with Brendan.