For Those Who Do Not Think Avery was Framed & Evidence Planted - Discuss

[Limaes]

Not sure what time it is wherever you live but Happy New Year from Sydney, Down Under

Here's to hoping 2017 brings closure to Teresa's family & friends.

 

[Madeleine74]

You're 16 hrs ahead from East Coast US Standard Time.

Happy New Year to you too! Beautiful fireworks!

 

[Limaes]

16hrs? Didn't think there was that much difference. Have a great night! Bed time for me 😪

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[Madeleine74]

It's 9:42am Saturday Dec 31 US EST.

Enjoy the start of your new year!

 

[Limaes]

Just been going back through this thread from the beginning. Some very insightful posts. Enjoying the read [emoji1]

 

[Deleted member 39678]

It's a new year but no new evidence yet showing Steven Avery was framed.

I see a lot of "what if's" and "could be" and "maybe's". In fact the "ifs",
could be" and "maybe's" are multiplying every day on this forum.

The many scenarios are troubling to me. They all can't be true.

I look forward to seeing any evidence that backs up the contention that Steven Avery was framed. I will then get off of the fence I sit on.

JMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Can anyone post some new evidence showing LE planted evidence in this case.

 

[Limaes]

From reading different websites, it all seems to originate from a certain pro Avery online community at another website. It is troubling to me that innocent people are having their names and reputations dragged over the coals there without having to provide anything more than malicious gossip.

It reminds me of the JBR case as far as online discussions and politics go. It has died down a lot over the years but there was this one woman who started her own online discussion board and called it Webbsleuths lol. She allowed her members to throw anyone and everyone under the bus so long as it wasn't a Ramsey. She was a nasty woman. Her board was referred to as The Swamp and she was referred to as Swamp Hag. That is how I see the MaM pro Avery board at the other website. It is a swamp with 100% accusations and zero evidence because no one is held accountable.

Hopefully the decision makers in this case will read all documents without prejudice and full knowledge of the law. All my opinion of course.

 

[dexter75]

From reading different websites, it all seems to originate from a certain pro Avery online community at another website. It is troubling to me that innocent people are having their names and reputations dragged over the coals there without having to provide anything more than malicious gossip.

It reminds me of the JBR case as far as online discussions and politics go. It has died down a lot over the years but there was this one woman who started her own online discussion board and called it Webbsleuths lol. She allowed her members to throw anyone and everyone under the bus so long as it wasn't a Ramsey. She was a nasty woman. Her board was referred to as The Swamp and she was referred to as Swamp Hag. That is how I see the MaM pro Avery board at the other website. It is a swamp with 100% accusations and zero evidence because no one is held accountable.

Hopefully the decision makers in this case will read all documents without prejudice and full knowledge of the law. All my opinion of course.

I have never heard of such a sight? If it's allowed, will someone please throw the name out here please? I don't want to go there for " information " I think sites like that are comical😀😉
Personally, I've never " went looking " for information anywhere and everywhere I could find it. Now that I think about it, here & one other fb page is really all I BELONG to & tbh..I take what's said on the fb page with a grain of salt.
Feel kinda sorry for those who take such things so seriously..fb, articles written using shoddy references, MaM only, etc.
JMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[proudfootz]

Oops! Double post.

 

[proudfootz]

Can anyone post some new evidence showing LE planted evidence in this case.

This thread is for people who don't think there was any evidence planted.

You should ask this question in a thread about the planting of evidence.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

This thread is for people who don't think there was any evidence planted.

You should ask this question in a thread about the planting of evidence.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[proudfootz]

Oh. Carry on!

 

[Limaes]

Can anyone post some new evidence showing LE planted evidence in this case.

No sorry, still waiting on the sprinter to reach the finish line. Apparently all the evidence will be revealed in March.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Perhaps Avery would have prevailed at appeal with an ineffective assistance of counsel claim if not for this.

The point of Strickland is that even extremely incompetent performance of counsel does not support a finding of ineffective assistance, if there was also independent and substantial evidence of the defendant's guilt—or if the end result would have probably been the same in the specific case, even with a competent counsel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel

 

[IDK]

Perhaps Avery would have prevailed at appeal with an ineffective assistance of counsel claim if not for this.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel

"The point of Strickland is that even extremely incompetent performance of counsel does not support a finding of ineffective assistance, if there was also independent and substantial evidence of the defendant's guilt—or if the end result would have probably been the same in the specific case, even with a competent counsel."

My question related to the bolded above: since an individual is innocent until proven guilty, how do they stand a chance of proving their innocence with incompetent counsel? Who is the individual making the judgment that the evidence shows substantial evidence of guilt? The whole point of a defense attorney is to show how the evidence may be wrong, misleading and to show evidence of innocence.

All IMO, of course, as everyone's posts are.

 

[dexter75]

"The point of Strickland is that even extremely incompetent performance of counsel does not support a finding of ineffective assistance, if there was also independent and substantial evidence of the defendant's guilt—or if the end result would have probably been the same in the specific case, even with a competent counsel."

My question related to the bolded above: since an individual is innocent until proven guilty, how do they stand a chance of proving their innocence with incompetent counsel? Who is the individual making the judgment that the evidence shows substantial evidence of guilt? The whole point of a defense attorney is to show how the evidence may be wrong, misleading and to show evidence of innocence.

All IMO, of course, as everyone's posts are.

My thoughts as well..the way some of these laws are written ( and YES, I COMPREHEND them 100% ) leave me smh thinking " this makes no sense at all "
JMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[iluvmua]

I for one, think SA is guilty.

Does anyone know what the motive was?

Jmo

 

[Saul Vesalot]

I for one, think SA is guilty.

Does anyone know what the motive was?

Jmo

The going theory is sexual assault. Many people who think he is guilty seem to think he hit on Teresa and she turned him down and he snapped. But unless he confesses, I doubt we'll ever have anything except guesses.

 

[Limaes]

I for one, think SA is guilty.

Does anyone know what the motive was?

Jmo

Only he knows. My thinking is that he is just evil.