51 replies to this topic

[tennOsfan]

This news came out after the documentary was released. Not sure if you heard, but the case keeps getting weierder. Curious about your thoughts on it...

http://www.people.co...trial?v=desktop

 

That could be true. The verdicts weren't consistent - convict him of murder but not abusing the corpse? Really? And by having the jurors come from the county where the crime occurred, it can make it difficult for them to make an unpopular decision. I'm confused as to Wisconsin's standards about getting a different venire since it's not a topic discussed on the series and there's no appeal of a denial included in the appellate decision.

 

And then again, sometimes I don't believe what individual jurors say about the case. They can often tell you what you want to hear. Thus I don't get caught up in tracking them down and talking to them.

[BSLChrisStoner]

So finished this... was certainly interesting.

At the absolute minimum, the nephew was railroaded, and his initial representation should be disbarred.

"Will I be done by 1:29? I have to get to 6th period."

[You Play to Win the Game]

I can't stop thinking about this. Finished it during the snow storm and it is just fascinating on several levels. I really have no idea if he actually did it or not. What a story. Great job by the director, too. Incredibly captivating.

[tennOsfan]

So finished this... was certainly interesting.

At the absolute minimum, the nephew was railroaded, and his initial representation should be disbarred.

"Will I be done by 1:29? I have to get to 6th period."

 

I don't think the nephew was railroaded at all. The filmmakers included what they wanted to include when they wanted to, and they dwelled on certain issues over dwelling on issues more valuable to the prosecution. The stuff disclosed about the nephew's weight loss, mood changes and his cousin's statement were pretty important facts that the filmmakers run by without explanation.

 

Two of my friends who are defense attorneys have watched the whole thing and think he's guilty.

 

But yeah, his first lawyer was a clown.

[NewMarketSean]

I have yet to watch the last episode, and I am undecided if Avery is guilty, but I came away from this whole thing with total hatred for that police department and the SA. For one, if they weren't involved with this case from the start, there may not have been ANY reasonable doubt as to whether Avery did it. Yet there they were, the entire time, despite Calumet County taking over the investigation. Christ, even when Brendan was having his verdict read to him, there's Colburn. When he's being taken to jail, Colburn is loading him into the car. Even after all of THAT, they still had to be front and center in this case. As for the SA, the interview when Brendan was arrested was appalling. I'm surprised he wasn't fired directly afterward. And his whole "the past has nothing to do with this case" opening remarks was complete bullshit. It had everything to do with it...it gave the police MOTIVE TO FRAME AVERY FOR THE MURDER. The thing that is making me feel Avery could have done it is Brendan and Kayla both coming out and saying what happened, and then both backing away from their initial statements on the stand. That's too fishy for me to believe that Brendan just made it all up. Sure he's dumber than a box of rocks and was basically told by the police what to say, but Brendan and Kayla's statements about what they saw in the fire were pretty much perfect matches. The stuff that Jodi has come out and said in interviews gets me thinking, too. I don't think she's a stable, reliable resource but you can't dismiss it either -- the whole Avery family are a bunch of woman-assaulting pieces of shit.

[BSLChrisStoner]

I don't think the nephew was railroaded at all. The filmmakers included what they wanted to include when they wanted to, and they dwelled on certain issues over dwelling on issues more valuable to the prosecution. The stuff disclosed about the nephew's weight loss, mood changes and his cousin's statement were pretty important facts that the filmmakers run by without explanation.

 

Two of my friends who are defense attorneys have watched the whole thing and think he's guilty.

 

But yeah, his first lawyer was a clown.

 

I don't know if he's innocent or not... but what were there... 4x this underage kid with an IQ of 70, was interviewed without a parent or representation present? Was just disgusted by that.

[tennOsfan]

In my state, and in Wisconsin, he doesn't have to have a parent or lawyer present. If it's a custodial interrogation, he gets his Miranda rights read to him and he has to show he understands the rights he's waiving.

 

But you stick a requirement that a parent has to be there, you're going to cause problems getting cases solved.

 

And if you require that a lawyer be present, you might as well throw out the criminal laws altogether.

[McNulty]

In my state, and in Wisconsin, he doesn't have to have a parent or lawyer present. If it's a custodial interrogation, he gets his Miranda rights read to him and he has to show he understands the rights he's waiving.
 
But you stick a requirement that a parent has to be there, you're going to cause problems getting cases solved.
 
And if you require that a lawyer be present, you might as well throw out the criminal laws altogether.

I read this three times and I still don't understand. You don't want a parent in there with a minor because what?

[NewMarketSean]

I'm surprised the state said he was fit to stand trial. He had no idea what was going on most of the time.

[tennOsfan]

I read this three times and I still don't understand. You don't want a parent in there with a minor because what?

 

Let's see:

1. Might not be able to find the parent(s). That delay could harm an investigation. Let's say there's a killing, and teen is found in vicinity. You want to interview him. You can't find parents. You can't have him sit around forever, so you let him go. Come to find out, he's the killer.

 

2. Parent(s) a criminal too. They tell kid to shut up or invoke Miranda themselves. Then you don't solve a home burglary or vandalism, etc.

 

Courts apply common sense to interviews of minors. In evaluating whether an interview is coerced or Miranda was violated, they apply the same factors to the analysis as they do when looking at adult subjects. But, whether or not there were parents/guardians present/involved goes into the analysis. The younger or dumber the child, the more important the parent thing can be. This court performed that analysis on this interview, watching the entirety of the interview, and ruled that the nephew knowing waived his right to silence and his right to a lawyer when he submitted to the interrogation.

[McNulty]

I guess I just don't believe that kids or minors have the awareness of their rights. If you can't find his parents, get the kid a lawyer. Just because he's not 18 doesn't mean he somehow waives the same rights afforded to everyone. If an adult is dumb enough to talk to cops, that's on them. But kids aren't old enough to know better.

[tennOsfan]

I guess I just don't believe that kids or minors have the awareness of their rights. If you can't find his parents, get the kid a lawyer. Just because he's not 18 doesn't mean he somehow waives the same rights afforded to everyone. If an adult is dumb enough to talk to cops, that's on them. But kids aren't old enough to know better.

 

That's why rights are read to people. Even dumb people can understand them.

[McNulty]

That's why rights are read to people. Even dumb people can understand them.

 

Cops tell you before an interview that you have the right to a lawyer?  Since when?

[BSLChrisStoner]

That's why rights are read to people. Even dumb people can understand them.

That kid who was asking if he would be done in time for 6th period understood what his rights were?

Even after being in jail for awhile, he's asking his Mom if he will be home for WrestleMania. To me, he clearly lacked the cognitive ability to understand his circumstances at all.

I'll defer to your legal expertise, but that was disturbing to me.

[NewMarketSean]

I finished it last night.

 

I'm probably in the 60/40, 70/30 range when it comes to believing his innocence. At any rate, whether or not he did it, I think the police/state's attorney/Brendan's lawyer botched the entire investigation and legal process and that was enough reasonable doubt to get both of them off. I mean, much less police interference got OJ off.

 

I feel really bad for the parents. A son back in jail after 18 years of a wrongful jail sentence and a grandson in jail for so long by the time he's eligible for parole they'll be long dead.

 

Such a sad, confusing and enraging case all the way around.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Dateline right now is about Avery.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Dateline right now is about Avery.

Worth watching?

[BSLChrisStoner]

Worth watching?

If you are home on a Friday night with nothing going on lol...  but haven't seen anything new presented yet.

[papasmurfbell]

I read in yesterdays NYTs that the county this happened in is getting bombarded from the sheriffs office to the tourism board for this case.  They are scrambling big time.

[tennOsfan]

Cops tell you before an interview that you have the right to a lawyer?  Since when?

 

Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miranda. At least if it's a custodial interrogation. If it's not custodial, they don't have to tell you, and you don't have to understand it.

 

You know, a judge reviewed the entirety of this statement and ruled he understood his rights, and a jury reviewed the whole thing and found him guilty. Weep not for him.