Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

[chaleigh26]

If anyone hasn't made up their mind about Brendan's "confessions" yet, when you have time, you mind want to go back and read Stephsb unbiased post on how they think Brendan was coerced.

 

[TheDuchess]

I am the person that told the story about my son. I really didn't think it would come across as sweet, but ok. However, I had no intention of drawing a parallel between the seriousness of the crimes of playing ding dong ditch and throwing a cat in a fire, nor between knocking down a mailbox vs. murdering someone. My point was that I learned firsthand that day about the unfairness of being accused of a crime simply because it might seem like something this person might do. My story was merely a metaphor. My point was that it is not only unfair to assume one from the other, it also quite likely to be FACTUALLY incorrect.

Our Constitution guarantees that citizens cannot be convicted on hunches, or that it seems like something this person is capable. It has to be proven in a court of law based on evidence. And also that evidence must follow the letter of the law. If not, we are honestly all screwed. I think it is clear that there were many ways that violated the rights of due process to both men in this case, especially Brendan. I believe the cops actually planted evidence to support their theory and prove their case....TWICE!!! No 3 times. Twice for SA and then again for Brendan.

 

[RainCheck]

Yes, I know it was fed to him by the investigators. My point is that there is no evidence to suggest a sexually motivated crime. The people who benefit from the inclusion of a sexually motivated charge are the prosecutors, as this reinforces public opinion to believe that Kratz and co. were right all along about Steven Avery.



I'm not really following your reasoning regarding lack of evidence. Lack of evidence is one of the most common reasons for acquittal. To explain away lack of evidence because 'it could have happened somewhere else' serves no purpose in determining guilt. The onus is on the prosecution to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. The defendant doesn't need to provide an alternate theory nor does he have to do the prosecutor's job.

If we remove the investigators suggestion of a sexual motive (latterly included in Brendan's confession) from Steven Avery's alleged crime, what we are left with is a murder of a female - there is nothing which suggest she was sexually assaulted at all. We can't just include that in there because it may have happened. Everything and anything may and could have happened, but that isn't what the jury is meant to deliberate. Even if the jury think he is capable of murder and/or sexual assault, that is not the question they are being asked to decide. They're being asked to decide, based on the evidence, whether certain events took place.

Regardless of who introduced the idea of sexual abuse, I think they should have addressed it in the documentary. They covered plenty of other things investigators suggested. I wish they had addressed all the pertinent evidence they left out. None of it paints Avery in a good light and it makes me wonder if it was too difficult to refute OR if even mentioning it in the film would have made people have a slightly different view of Avery. In other words, it just didn't fit their narrative. If that's true, they manipulated the audience big time.

 

[SCHMAE]

I am the person that told the story about my son. I really didn't think it would come across as sweet, but ok. However, I had no intention of drawing a parallel between the seriousness of the crimes of playing ding dong ditch and throwing a cat in a fire, nor between knocking down a mailbox vs. murdering someone. My point was that I learned firsthand that day about the unfairness of being accused of a crime simply because it might seem like something this person might do. My story was merely a metaphor. My point was that it is not only unfair to assume one from the other, it also quite likely to be FACTUALLY incorrect.

Our Constitution guarantees that citizens cannot be convicted on hunches, or that it seems like something this person is capable. It has to be proven in a court of law based on evidence. And also that evidence must follow the letter of the law. If not, we are honestly all screwed. I think it is clear that there were many ways that violated the rights of due process to both men in this case, especially Brendan. I believe the cops actually planted evidence to support their theory and prove their case....TWICE!!! No 3 times. Twice for SA and then again for Brendan.

I'm sorry Duchess. I made the comment about it not being as serious. I see your point now. Sorry if you felt I was belittling your theory. You are right.

 

[GigiG]

I'm reading the comments from this NY Times article, which asks for a discussion on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/a...king-a-murderer-spoilers-discussion.html?_r=0

Especially interesting to me is that the comments are from people from all over the map, and they're mostly quite articulate and well-thought-out.

I have grown weary of reading comments by (mostly) Wisconsans defending the guilty verdicts. I understand that Steven Avery -- indeed, the whole Avery family -- might seem unsavory -- even embarrassingly so -- but it seems as if the locals truly can't see past their own biases. In most cases, they state something to the effect of, "I think/believe/know that Steven Avery did it." They then go on to cite tainted, questionable and discounted evidence.

Well, it was never about what anyone thinks or believes (and no one really knows). It's about whether or not the prosecution proved their case(s) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Due to the flagrant abuses of power and misconduct by the prosecutor, Brendan's first defense attorney, and the Manitowoc County PD, I can't see how the mountain of Reasonable Doubt was something a fair jury could ever realistically climb over. IMO, those biases followed (at least some) jurors right into the deliberation room.

One more thing: Of all the "players" in the docu-series, who would you most like to have on your side? Strang and Buting, or the Manitowoc County PD, Kratz, et al?

It seems to me there is a clear line of distinction between the integrity of some and the lack of it among others. JMO

 

[stephsb]

One thing I'm not sure if anyone can help me with, in the documentary they say that Steven ended up receiving $400,000 as a settlement for the false conviction. Now, they also say that his legal costs for his trial were $140,000 I think...so what happened to the rest?

The Averys are requesting financial donations for Steven & Brendan's legal fund on Facebook etc, so that must mean the remaining cash has gone. I'd be interested to know which one(s) of the Averys received that if that's where it went.

I'm assuming towards his appeals. The appellate process is extremely costly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LemonMousse]

Bothers me hugely that Steven is being convicted of crimes on this thread that never even saw the inside of a courthouse.

Surely we are not so naive here, are we, to assume that a complaint = factually proven event?

No one, least of all me, is minimising the cat on the bonfire incident....it's unspeakably cruel. But to say, "Well the FBI came up with a TRIAD of behaviours which, when taken in conjunction, predict future homicidal behaviour" and then present just ONE of those behaviours and claim that therefore Steven fits the profile! That's ridiculous.

I think someone who has hurt an animal like that is more likely to hurt a human being than someone who hasn't or wouldn't - but to lift it to the degree that murderous behaviour was predictable is an unwarranted leap.

Either he fits the FBI profile or he doesn't. He doesn't. So the point is non-existent.

Steven was never tried for the rape allegation(s). Using this against him is therefore no better than the ignorant prejudicial way he was treated by his community.

I don't believe, having read the conversation AND the police interview immediately beforehand, that Steven molested Brendan. I don't think that even Brendan thinks that. It is yet another incident of police feeding Brendan lines.

Much more worrying is Brendan's description of coming into a room and finding Steven "touching" a girl...but this was not pursued or questioned.

I don't understand the notion that the documentary makers should have "addressed" all this? Addressed what? There were no formal complaints, no charges, no one kicking up a stink about it. They were documenting information about the court case. They were never suggesting that Steven was a precious angel who wouldn't hurt a fly. They were promoting neither innocence nor guilt, just the way that information regarding the TRIAL was mishandled.

It's interesting to me that people are doing a pretty credible job of proving the documentary makers point....bringing in "evidence" that was never proven or tested to make judgements about Steven and decide whether he may have committed this crime.

Steveml is right....without Brendan's "confession" there is not the slightest, merest hint that the crime against Theresa was sexually motivated. Therefore, trying to decide whether he (Steven) was the type of guy to sexually abuse someone and basing that determination on untested claims that may or may not have been true is blatantly unfair and exactly the kind of prejudgement that stops the justice system working as it should.

 

[GigiG]

I'm assuming towards his appeals. The appellate process is extremely costly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The lawyers who worked on his lawsuit (which eventuated in a rather meager settlement) were due money for their work. That came off the top. The remainder didn't even cover his (criminal defense) attorney's fees. They wound up paying their own expenses towards the end.

Also, please consider the fact that Avery was liable for taxes on that "windfall"...

 

[TheDuchess]

I'm reading the comments from this NY Times article, which asks for a discussion on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/a...king-a-murderer-spoilers-discussion.html?_r=0

Especially interesting to me is that the comments are from people from all over the map, and they're mostly quite articulate and well-thought-out.

I have grown weary of reading comments by (mostly) Wisconsans defending the guilty verdicts. I understand that Steven Avery -- indeed, the whole Avery family -- might seem unsavory -- even embarrassingly so -- but it seems as if the locals truly can't see past their own biases. In most cases, they state something to the effect of, "I think/believe/know that Steven Avery did it." They then go on to cite tainted, questionable and discounted evidence.

Well, it was never about what anyone thinks or believes (and no one really knows). It's about whether or not the prosecution proved their case(s) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Due to the flagrant abuses of power and misconduct by the prosecutor, Brendan's first defense attorney, and the Manitowoc County PD, I can't see how the mountain of Reasonable Doubt was something a fair jury could ever realistically climb over. IMO, those biases followed (at least some) jurors right into the deliberation room.

One more thing: Of all the "players" in the docu-series, who would you most like to have on your side? Strang and Buting, or the Manitowoc County PD, Kratz, et al?

It seems to me there is a clear line of distinction between the integrity of some and the lack of it among others. JMO

BBM - how sad is it that I would rather have Strang and Buting!!! What does that tell you about Minitowoc County!!!

 

[Tawny]

BBM - how sad is it that I would rather have Strang and Buting!!! What does that tell you about Minitowoc County!!!

Yeah I'd take Strang and Buting over ANY of those ding dongs in Manitowoc. I'd also take them over Fassbender and Wiegert. BTW where the heck are Fassbender's eyebrows?!?!

 

[Random-me]

I watched the documentary not seeing it as guilt or innocence but as to the flaws in the system when obvious bias takes over. I watched it with the view that it highlighted how an investigation could be tainted and incomplete.

 

[stephsb]

I'm reading the comments from this NY Times article, which asks for a discussion on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/a...king-a-murderer-spoilers-discussion.html?_r=0

Especially interesting to me is that the comments are from people from all over the map, and they're mostly quite articulate and well-thought-out.

I have grown weary of reading comments by (mostly) Wisconsans defending the guilty verdicts. I understand that Steven Avery -- indeed, the whole Avery family -- might seem unsavory -- even embarrassingly so -- but it seems as if the locals truly can't see past their own biases. In most cases, they state something to the effect of, "I think/believe/know that Steven Avery did it." They then go on to cite tainted, questionable and discounted evidence.

Well, it was never about what anyone thinks or believes (and no one really knows). It's about whether or not the prosecution proved their case(s) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Due to the flagrant abuses of power and misconduct by the prosecutor, Brendan's first defense attorney, and the Manitowoc County PD, I can't see how the mountain of Reasonable Doubt was something a fair jury could ever realistically climb over. IMO, those biases followed (at least some) jurors right into the deliberation room.

One more thing: Of all the "players" in the docu-series, who would you most like to have on your side? Strang and Buting, or the Manitowoc County PD, Kratz, et al?

It seems to me there is a clear line of distinction between the integrity of some and the lack of it among others. JMO

For the record, plenty of the locals you say defend the guilty verdicts and can't see past their own biases questioned Dassey and Avery's verdicts long before this documentary came out. As for carrying their bias into the deliberation room, the found Avery not guilty on the mutilation charge, and the initial polling of the jury had jurors voting not guilty on the murder charge. Avery's jury clearly was willing to consider the charges, they deliberated 21 hours.

I can't and won't defend the Dassey verdict, the only reason I can see him being found guilty is because many people unfortunately believe that people won't confess to a crime they didn't commit. This isn't just a WI problem, but a problem throughout the U.S. The Innocence project is one organization that has really helped the public understand how false confessions can happen. I don't know if this is why Brendan was convicted, but I can say I have yet to talk to someone in Wisconsin who feels Brendan deserved life in prison.

I have attempted to explain a few times on here why local opinion of the Avery family is the way it is, and have always said plenty of it is rumors, but a lot of it is because a lot of people have had interactions w. Members of the Avery family that did not sit well with them or made them feel uneasy/uncomfortable. Since I've been back in Sheboygan County over holiday break (I'm attending law school in Chicago) I've tried to talk to as many people as I can about their impressions, and it doesn't take much prompting in most cases- its obviously a huge topic of discussion. I can't speak for every local resident, but I have heard more people say they think Avery is innocent than guilty. Almost all of those people, however, believe someone on the Avery property was responsible. As I said earlier, a lot of negative opinion about the Avery's is because of rumor, but a lot of it is because of their own interactions with members of the family- mostly EA and especially CA.

Since the documentary came out, I think a lot of of Wisconsinites have questioned their beliefs about Avery's guilt, far more than I expected tbh. I will say, however, other than papers out of Milwaukee or Madison, a lot of local press has been reluctant to criticize the Manitowoc PD as much as they deserve (IMO). Sheboygan is a pretty conservative county, Manitowoc and Calumet even more so, and I assume that may be part of the reason.

I will say, i think a lot of frustration from Wisconsinites stems from listening to people who watched a pro-defense documentary act like experts, when most of us watched, read, and followed the Avery trial for 5 weeks in realtime. I want to be clear I'm NOT talking about any of the posters on this site- I think it's great how much effort and interest a lot of the people on here have put into learning about and researching this case after watching the documentary.

Gigi, to answer your question about who id rather have on my side, Strang is one of the best attorneys money can buy in WI. I was beyond impressed with what I saw from him in the documentary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

:loveyou:
AGAIN!!
Thank you!!
I TRY to stay neutral, AND open minded. ( learned the hard way I suppose, judging too harshly, not my place )

Having said that, I DO realize we discuss things here also... BUT man!!

All of this STUFF that seems to be coming out of the woodwork now?! Proof?
To be accused, :notgood:
Just the THOUGHT of being accused of something I didn't do, something SERIOUS.
I thought long and hard about this too. My past? My PERFECT family? My word against a BADGE? I'm not loaded$. I'm not hurting but crap, I wouldn't want to spend our life savings on a DEFENSE team? And do you KNOW how many people I KNOW or know ME in this town???
I'm being SO serious here =(
A bit sleep deprived & my posts are always full of typos because I am in the dark next to my sleeping child however I hope my ramblings make SOME sense or can be decoded SOME of the time! ( I'm typically a missing/unidentified persons junkie )

Bothers me hugely that Steven is being convicted of crimes on this thread that never even saw the inside of a courthouse.

Surely we are not so naive here, are we, to assume that a complaint = factually proven event?

No one, least of all me, is minimising the cat on the bonfire incident....it's unspeakably cruel. But to say, "Well the FBI came up with a TRIAD of behaviours which, when taken in conjunction, predict future homicidal behaviour" and then present just ONE of those behaviours and claim that therefore Steven fits the profile! That's ridiculous.

I think someone who has hurt an animal like that is more likely to hurt a human being than someone who hasn't or wouldn't - but to lift it to the degree that murderous behaviour was predictable is an unwarranted leap.

Either he fits the FBI profile or he doesn't. He doesn't. So the point is non-existent.

Steven was never tried for the rape allegation(s). Using this against him is therefore no better than the ignorant prejudicial way he was treated by his community.

I don't believe, having read the conversation AND the police interview immediately beforehand, that Steven molested Brendan. I don't think that even Brendan thinks that. It is yet another incident of police feeding Brendan lines.

Much more worrying is Brendan's description of coming into a room and finding Steven "touching" a girl...but this was not pursued or questioned.

I don't understand the notion that the documentary makers should have "addressed" all this? Addressed what? There were no formal complaints, no charges, no one kicking up a stink about it. They were documenting information about the court case. They were never suggesting that Steven was a precious angel who wouldn't hurt a fly. They were promoting neither innocence nor guilt, just the way that information regarding the TRIAL was mishandled.

It's interesting to me that people are doing a pretty credible job of proving the documentary makers point....bringing in "evidence" that was never proven or tested to make judgements about Steven and decide whether he may have committed this crime.

Steveml is right....without Brendan's "confession" there is not the slightest, merest hint that the crime against Theresa was sexually motivated. Therefore, trying to decide whether he (Steven) was the type of guy to sexually abuse someone and basing that determination on untested claims that may or may not have been true is blatantly unfair and exactly the kind of prejudgement that stops the justice system working as it should.

 

[stephsb]

The lawyers who worked on his lawsuit (which eventuated in a rather meager settlement) were due money for their work. That came off the top. The remainder didn't even cover his (criminal defense) attorney's fees. They wound up paying their own expenses towards the end.

Also, please consider the fact that Avery was liable for taxes on that "windfall"...

I wasn't the original poster on this question, tbh I was a bit surprised when the person who posted the original question said there was money left over after his defense lol. It surprises me not at all that all 400,000 was used on attorney fees.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LemonMousse]

Also worth remembering that Strang & Buting both had full access to all interviews and evidence regarding the case. They obviously know far, far more about everything than we lot ever will...and Buting is certain he's innocent, while Strang just doesn't know.

Now...obviously we can't expect them to come out and say, "We reckon he's guilty" but I get the impression that these positions are their real thoughts, not just diplomatic lawyer speak.

If there was ever any really suspicious evidence implicating Steven....why haven't they been persuaded by it?

And actually, the more I read from people who do think he's guilty (from elsewhere online) the more convinced I become that he's probably innocent. Their reasons aren't that compelling, tbh.

EDIT: Should add that Buting said on his Twitter that he remains convinced of Steven's innocence in response to someone's question. That's where I got that nugget from, in case anyone's wondering.

 

[stephsb]

Also worth remembering that Strang & Buting both had full access to all interviews and evidence regarding the case. They obviously know far, far more about everything than we lot ever will...and Buting is certain he's innocent, while Strang just doesn't know.

Now...obviously we can't expect them to come out and say, "We reckon he's guilty" but I get the impression that these positions are their real thoughts, not just diplomatic lawyer speak.

If there was ever any really suspicious evidence implicating Steven....why haven't they been persuaded by it?

And actually, the more I read from people who do think he's guilty (from elsewhere online) the more convinced I become that he's probably innocent. Their reasons aren't that compelling, tbh.

Where does Strang say he doesn't know about Steven's guilt, I thought they both said on the doc they were convinced he was innocent? Regardless, I got the same impression you did- I think they genuinely believe/believed in Steven's innocence. I think the documentary portrayed them extremely well, especially compared to hacks like Kachinksky and Kratz. Avery certainly couldn't have asked for better attorneys..these guys really were exceptional, IMO.

I brought up the 4 suspects they mentioned in the appeal docs, and I think that is a good look into why they haven't been persuaded. In sure they got the pleasure of interacting with some of the residents of the Avery property first hand, and when you look at their actions, and lack of alibis, Steven starts to seem less and less like the killer.

Have you read anywhere if the defense had their own investigators? Most do, and that could also be a reason they believe he's innocent- they have evidence we don't have and that the Court wouldn't allow pointing strongly to another party's guilt




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GigiG]

[B]For the record, plenty of the locals you say defend the guilty verdicts and can't see past their own biases questioned Dassey and Avery's verdicts long before this documentary came out. [/B]As for carrying their bias into the deliberation room, the found Avery not guilty on the mutilation charge, and the initial polling of the jury had jurors voting not guilty on the murder charge. Avery's jury clearly was willing to consider the charges, they deliberated 21 hours.

I can't and won't defend the Dassey verdict, the only reason I can see him being found guilty is because many people unfortunately believe that people won't confess to a crime they didn't commit. This isn't just a WI problem, but a problem throughout the U.S. The Innocence project is one organization that has really helped the public understand how false confessions can happen. I don't know if this is why Brendan was convicted, but I can say I have yet to talk to someone in Wisconsin who feels Brendan deserved life in prison.

I have attempted to explain a few times on here why local opinion of the Avery family is the way it is, and have always said plenty of it is rumors, but a lot of it is because a lot of people have had interactions w. Members of the Avery family that did not sit well with them or made them feel uneasy/uncomfortable. Since I've been back in Sheboygan County over holiday break (I'm attending law school in Chicago) I've tried to talk to as many people as I can about their impressions, and it doesn't take much prompting in most cases- its obviously a huge topic of discussion. I can't speak for every local resident, but I have heard more people say they think Avery is innocent than guilty. Almost all of those people, however, believe someone on the Avery property was responsible. As I said earlier, a lot of negative opinion about the Avery's is because of rumor, but a lot of it is because of their own interactions with members of the family- mostly EA and especially CA.

Since the documentary came out, I think a lot of of Wisconsinites have questioned their beliefs about Avery's guilt, far more than I expected tbh. I will say, however, other than papers out of Milwaukee or Madison, a lot of local press has been reluctant to criticize the Manitowoc PD as much as they deserve (IMO). Sheboygan is a pretty conservative county, Manitowoc and Calumet even more so, and I assume that may be part of the reason.

I will say, i think a lot of frustration from Wisconsinites stems from listening to people who watched a pro-defense documentary act like experts, when most of us watched, read, and followed the Avery trial for 5 weeks in realtime. I want to be clear I'm NOT talking about any of the posters on this site- I think it's great how much effort and interest a lot of the people on here have put into learning about and researching this case after watching the documentary.

Gigi, to answer your question about who id rather have on my side, Strang is one of the best attorneys money can buy in WI. I was beyond impressed with what I saw from him in the documentary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First off, my apologies for referring to Wisconsin citizens as Wisconsans. I now see that the term is "Wisconsonites." Thanks for that.

BBM1: You yourself encouraged people on this forum to look up stuff on Reddit.

BBM2: Yeah, okay. But that was also weird. I don't think that shows that the jury was honest in considering the charges against SA. It looks like more of a compromise verdict.

Also, though I understand that you're in the process of embarking on a career in law, I would hope that you learn how to employ more strenuous thinking in your endeavors as you go forward. On this forum, you have blatantly said that: 1) You think Steve Avery is guilty, but: 2) You would have found reasonable doubt. I know, I know, there is a difference. But your reasons for thinking SA guilty seem really questionable (subjective).

As to Dean Strang, aside from being a great attorney, he's also a great human being (IMO). Not to take anything away from Buting, who's also remarkable. Regarding both of them, I consider their honor to be almost above reproach. Especially when Manitowoc County is the counterpoint.

Again, if you want to be a successful lawyer, please don't measure things in terms of W/L columns. I hope and pray that you look to Strang and Buting as role models.

 

[dexter75]

When he ROBBED the bar. What was it that he took, exactly?

I mention the cat because unfortunately I've found that people today often have more sympathy for animals being killed than human beings. It is a shocking crime, although I find him assaulting the woman to be much,much worse.

Although the jury didn't hear about his past convictions, past criminal acts are considered by the court when sentencing people. So, the criminal justice system does consider them relevant.

I don't assume he was escalating, he was. Killing the cat was more serious than robbing the bar and assaulting the woman was more serious than both of his previous crimes.

Are you blaming the assault victim saying she brought that on herself? It was an empty gun? How much would it matter to you if after someone ran you off the road and brandished a rifle at you and only let you go because you had a baby in the car to find out the gun wasn't loaded? It's not about if the gun was loaded, it's about the fear the victim has and also that he was a convicted felon at this point and not allowed to possess a gun at all, loaded or unloaded.

I do use the same logic with his brothers and Tadych but that doesn't preclude me from thinking Steven killed Teresa. Often times crimes seem motiveless to us, it doesn't mean killing the person didn't satisfy some sick need of the murderer. The motive can be as simple as some people have a strong desire to hurt others or use violence as a way to get out their anger and rage at others.

I'm just saying that even if you believe he didn't kill Teresa he won't be wrongfully serving any time in prison until after 2017. That gives him some time to keep working on his appeals before he can claim he's in prison for something he didn't do. I don't think his appeals will get too far but I guess you just never know. Recently in Wisconsin a man convicted of killing his wife with anti-freeze was granted habeas relief and will be getting a new trial so it does happen.

 

[stephsb]

First off, my apologies for referring to Wisconsin citizens as Wisconsans. I now see that the term is "Wisconsonites." Thanks for that.

BBM1: You yourself encouraged people on this forum to look up stuff on Reddit.

BBM2: Yeah, okay. But that was also weird. I don't think that shows that the jury was honest in considering the charges against SA. It looks like more of a compromise verdict.

Also, though I understand that you're in the process of embarking on a career in law, I would hope that you learn how to employ more strenuous thinking in your endeavors as you go forward. On this forum, you have blatantly said that: 1) You think Steve Avery is guilty, but: 2) You would have found reasonable doubt. I know, I know, there is a difference. But your reasons for thinking SA guilty seem really questionable (subjective).

As to Dean Strang, aside from being a great attorney, he's also a great human being (IMO). Not to take anything from Buting. Regarding both of them, I consider their honor to be almost above reproach. Especially when Manitowoc County is the counterpoint.

Again, if you want to be a successful lawyer, please don't measure things in terms of W/L columns. I hope and pray that you look to Strang and Buting as role models.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was encouraging people to go to Reddit, just last night I was criticizing theories that I have seen posted on Reddit, and found offense. If my words were poorly stated, i apologize. I find most of what is posted on Reddit trash, and that is part of the reason I comment and stay on here.

I believed Avery was guilty at the time, I still believe he could be guilty (although I do not agree with the prosecution's theory of the murder) but since watching the documentary, reading posts and theories on here, reading back through archived news articles, current news articles, trial transcripts and day by day trial summaries, Brendan's statements, and talking to people who are local and have interacted w. The Avery's, I think there should have been a better investigation done from the beginning, and that investigation should have led to very good suspects other than Steven. I'm sorry my thinking isn't "strenuous" enough for you and you don't agree with my opinions, that is no need to make personal attacks about my career path. I don't need you to hope or pray that I use Strang and Buting and role models, I am well aware of what exceptional attorneys they are, and have expressed that repeatedly. If I said anything to offend you, I apologize. I have never intended to make personal attacks towards anyone on this site, or criticize anything other than someone's ideas. I have no problem with you criticizing my ideas, but there is no need to be patronizing about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sleuther87]

I know we're in the basement here but do you have links on where you read about his prior sexual cases pending and about the allegations of assaulting a family member ? TIA I was thinking about his brothers and their cases and thinking the family has a big problem of a sexual nature.

http://archive.htrnews.com/article/99999999/MAN0101/60420064/Avery-assault-charges-delayed