Yeah that's some unreal stuff he's put out there. That Edwards guy sure sounded like a SK though.
Steven Avery: Guilty of Teresa Halbach's Murder?
- Thread starter Tawny
- Start date
New Posts
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #192
- Latest: photographer4
-
- Status
Yeah that's some unreal stuff he's put out there. That Edwards guy sure sounded like a SK though.
Having read a fair bit on this case and without watching the Netflix series i still believe this case is full of some very serious holes though. It will be interesting to see where it all goes with Zellner on the case atm.
Jasper52
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 3,256
- Reaction score
- 10,759
LifeCitizen
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2016
- Messages
- 215
- Reaction score
- 174
lol.
According to him there's only one murderer in the world responsible for all murders.
Hoosen_Fenger
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2014
- Messages
- 180
- Reaction score
- 5
I have spent 10 months of my life, checking the court records, listening to the interviews & reading up on the facts of this case. Whilst I appreciate there are other cases around the world that are equally as thought provoking, this one has me gripped due to the fact many people have not put the hard yards in, and assume Avery was framed because of MaM.
There are three people who know exactly what happened that dreadful day in October. One of them is dead. The other two, have lied and tried to avoid punishment. Don't forget, Avery, the "I have nothing to hide man,' decided not to go on the witness stand to protest his innocence. What did he have to hide? I'll call B/S on anyone that says it was his right to do so. If he had nothing to hide, why would he not defend himself in the place where he could prove his innocence. No, he took the advice of his lawyers who basically said, 'If you get up on that stand mate, your lies will be exposed. It is our job to keep you out of prison, despite the fact you are a mudering b*st*rd.
If either of them gets out of prison, it will be a travesty of Justice.
There are three people who know exactly what happened that dreadful day in October. One of them is dead. The other two, have lied and tried to avoid punishment. Don't forget, Avery, the "I have nothing to hide man,' decided not to go on the witness stand to protest his innocence. What did he have to hide? I'll call B/S on anyone that says it was his right to do so. If he had nothing to hide, why would he not defend himself in the place where he could prove his innocence. No, he took the advice of his lawyers who basically said, 'If you get up on that stand mate, your lies will be exposed. It is our job to keep you out of prison, despite the fact you are a mudering b*st*rd.
If either of them gets out of prison, it will be a travesty of Justice.
BBM, Is what you stated and bolded by me actually what SA's lawyer said or what you are assuming was said?
If SA was advised by his lawyer to not testify in his defense, it was probably what SA believed was in his best interests at the time per his legal advice. A defendant is well within his rights to get up on the stand if that is really what they want to do, but their defense attorney can also request that the court relieves them of representing their client. And a FYI most all attorney's advise against their clients getting up on the stand in their defense for good reason in criminal cases.
Hoosen_Fenger
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2014
- Messages
- 180
- Reaction score
- 5
Hi Karinna,
I am just watching episode 9 again, Dassey in court. I am bloody furious. He is clearly lying.
But back to our debate, my point was mainly around the fact that if you are innocent, you say to your lawyer, 'Hey, ****** what people are saying about me, I can be tested in front of anyone.'
I get that most attorneys advise to not take the stand. But you and I are a couple of innocent people who have nothing to hide. I guess, like me, you would not sit there and let your fate be decided without getting involved?
missy1974
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 10,142
- Reaction score
- 31,356
Really? So if you were accused of a crime, and knowing you were innocent but a suspect, you would speak to LE? And after speaking to them, you were subsequently charged and hauled off to jail, you would still continue to speak to LE? and when that doesn't present a 'get out of jail free' card......when it went to trial, you would insist on testifying?
So when I tell my kids to not talk to LE EVER, no matter what, innocent or not, I guess I'm wrong? Interesting. And I hope for your sake you are never accused of any crime that you did not commit. JMO
Hoosen_Fenger
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2014
- Messages
- 180
- Reaction score
- 5
Hi Missy,
I would always speak to LE if I was innocent of a crime. It would be the perfect way to get out of Jail. And for the record, i have told my kids never to speak to LE unless there is a lawyer present. This means I have years of experience, but ultimately, if my kids did not use my advice and found themselves in a Rabbit hole? Tell the truth. If you tell the truth you have nothing to hide. Unfortunately, Avery is a liar and because of that, Teresa Halbach's family are still suffering.....
missy1974
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 10,142
- Reaction score
- 31,356
Unfortunately, you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. Maybe we should ask Ryan Fergusson how that worked out for him? How about the other 16 that just KZ herself has helped to exonerate? or wait, ask SA how that worked out for him the first time when he was accused of assaulting PB, we KNOW he was innocent of that crime, did his innocence or speaking to LE get him anywhere? Nope. And how many other very innocent people thought the way you did, spoke to LE, because they had nothing to hide, and were still charged and convicted for crimes they did not commit. Personally, this case has opened my eyes and no way would I speak to LE without a lawyer present, and I don't think there are any lawyer's, or good one's, that would advise speaking to LE even if you are innocent. JMO
dexter75
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2015
- Messages
- 2,209
- Reaction score
- 71
NOT AFTER THIS CASE!!!:bang:
No way, no how, would I even answer a KNOCK at the door, if I thought LE suspected me of a crime.:snooty:
And it's PATHETIC, really!!
I was RAISED around MANY levels of LAW ENFORCEMENT. Never did I think a day would come when the " TRUTH " would bite a person in the arse! :notgood:
JMO
dexter75
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2015
- Messages
- 2,209
- Reaction score
- 71
Didn't answer Karrinas question:blushing:
dexter75
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2015
- Messages
- 2,209
- Reaction score
- 71
Even if they are proven innocent?
Hoosen_Fenger
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2014
- Messages
- 180
- Reaction score
- 5
I think all three of you have done what I did, which is read & listen to everything. That we have different views, is just the norm in situations like this. To answer Karinna's question, I was not there, so cannot say without asking one of the protagonists. However, Buting & Strang have a responsibility to defend, at all costs, even if presented with overwhelming evidence. My view, is that even they looked at the case against Avery, and thought that the only way to get him off was to suggest foul play by Authorities. There really was no other defence.
It is preposterous that so many people, with nothing to gain, might get involved in a career ending, prison embracing, stitch up. MaM did a great job of presenting this as a $36m reason to stitch up Avery. He was not stitched up. He murdered Teresa Haibach. He involved his nephew to a certain degree, which as I said above, the involvement is known to just three people. One of whom cannot tell their story.
I am on my fourth watch of MaM. I also, am on my 10th/15th listen of the first two interviews given by Dassey & Avery, in the immediate days after Teresa being reported missing. They are both clearly lying. From those interviews, the Police knew this too, but it took months to get to the bottom of the story. For MaM to suggest there were disingenuous LE officers, is disgraceful. Lenk & Colborn were not in any danger of being held up as corrupt officers, if anything, Colborn would have helped Avery with his law suit.
I am enjoying this debate with you all, but I cannot agree that anyone else other than the correct people, are in prison where they belong on this one.
Peace & Love. x
It is preposterous that so many people, with nothing to gain, might get involved in a career ending, prison embracing, stitch up. MaM did a great job of presenting this as a $36m reason to stitch up Avery. He was not stitched up. He murdered Teresa Haibach. He involved his nephew to a certain degree, which as I said above, the involvement is known to just three people. One of whom cannot tell their story.
I am on my fourth watch of MaM. I also, am on my 10th/15th listen of the first two interviews given by Dassey & Avery, in the immediate days after Teresa being reported missing. They are both clearly lying. From those interviews, the Police knew this too, but it took months to get to the bottom of the story. For MaM to suggest there were disingenuous LE officers, is disgraceful. Lenk & Colborn were not in any danger of being held up as corrupt officers, if anything, Colborn would have helped Avery with his law suit.
I am enjoying this debate with you all, but I cannot agree that anyone else other than the correct people, are in prison where they belong on this one.
Peace & Love. x
missy1974
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 10,142
- Reaction score
- 31,356
Ya know, it's funny how we can watch, read, or hear things and have such different views. I don't think I could watch MaM again and come away with a different opinion than I already have.... I also don't think I can read or watch the interviews and come out with a different opinion now. I have only watched MaM the one time. I have read and listened to the interviews numerous times and I have been through those documents, some more than I can count LOL I think most of us that are informed, have our opinions, and at this point, I doubt we will change our minds with the information that we have. I really do hope that KZ doing some additional testing and investigating will help provide some answers to the questions that a lot of us have.
JMO
JMO
But there are some excellent reasons why even innocent defendants might remain silent at trial:
If the defendant has previously been convicted of a felony, the prosecutor may be able to attack the defendant's credibility as a witness by offering evidence of the conviction. Jurors may infer from a defendant's previous conviction that the defendant has committed the charged crime, though a judge instructs them not to. By choosing not to testify, a defendant can prevent jurors from finding out about previous convictions.
A defendant may have a poor demeanor when speaking in public. A judge or jury may not believe a defendant who, though telling the truth, is a nervous witness and makes a bad impression.
By presenting a defense case, defendants run the risk that jurors will find them guilty simply because they are not convinced that the defendants evidence is accurate. Yet in reality, it is the prosecution that has the burden of convincing jurors of the defendants guilt.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/criminal-procedure-faq-29146-6.html
If the defendant has previously been convicted of a felony, the prosecutor may be able to attack the defendant's credibility as a witness by offering evidence of the conviction. Jurors may infer from a defendant's previous conviction that the defendant has committed the charged crime, though a judge instructs them not to. By choosing not to testify, a defendant can prevent jurors from finding out about previous convictions.
A defendant may have a poor demeanor when speaking in public. A judge or jury may not believe a defendant who, though telling the truth, is a nervous witness and makes a bad impression.
By presenting a defense case, defendants run the risk that jurors will find them guilty simply because they are not convinced that the defendants evidence is accurate. Yet in reality, it is the prosecution that has the burden of convincing jurors of the defendants guilt.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/criminal-procedure-faq-29146-6.html
Hoosen_Fenger
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2014
- Messages
- 180
- Reaction score
- 5
Steven Avery did not serve 18 years for a crime he did not commit. He served 12 years. The other 6 years were for a crime that if it happened to a female relative of mine, I would have killed him with my bare hands.
He is one horrific *advertiser censored*.
I know we are disagreeing on this. I respect your views that you feel he may be innocent. However, there is no other evidence to show that anyone else killed Teresa. If you have some? Then please, share it so we can discuss it.
Peace & Love x
He is one horrific *advertiser censored*.
I know we are disagreeing on this. I respect your views that you feel he may be innocent. However, there is no other evidence to show that anyone else killed Teresa. If you have some? Then please, share it so we can discuss it.
Peace & Love x
BBM, What crime was that, do you have a link please? Are you talking about the cat?
missy1974
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 10,142
- Reaction score
- 31,356
I know you haven't watched Making a Murder and it gave an overview of that incident, and IMO how it all tied into the PB case, and the subsequent law suit SA filed against MCSO.
Here are a few documents to start off with
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...SO-Report-on-Avery-Indecent-Exposure-1984.pdf
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...ort-on-Avery-as-Suspect-in-Abduction-1985.pdf
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/S-Morris-Incident.pdf
SM is a cousin of SA's.
- Status