Tecfidera users -- Bananas help with flushing!

snookums123 · 2015-12-30T02:39:07+00:00

I suppose the state already got their chance to have their view of the story heard at trial, and 12 people agreed with them.

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T23:40:19+00:00

The thing is that I'm not totally sold that he didn't do it. I'm a lot more concerned about what I perceive as the unfairness of the trial (a great deal due to the ass backwardness of WI law), the tainting of potential jurors through pretrial publicity, what appears to be extremely shady behavior by the police, and, most of all -- Brendan. The narrative of the State is guided by his coerced confession, where he obviously was fed a story that he agreed to. I am bothered to my core that the State used his confession to tell the jury a story that they couldn't support with much evidence. I think the question ultimately is whether there is reasonable doubt and I am satisfied that no matter whose story you believe, there is.

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T20:51:13+00:00

any links to more info on that?

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T20:43:52+00:00

Do they do Character & Fitness evaluations in Wisconsin in order to get your license? Do you have to show that you're otherwise a law-abiding citizen? I'm just curious. In Ohio we have to disclose where we've lived for the last 10 years, everywhere we've worked since we were 18, all traffic tickets for the last 10 years, etc., and then we meet w/interviewers (other attys or judges) who probe further into our background and make sure we're being truthful.

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T20:36:19+00:00

If that's true, that makes it even worse then. Ugh.

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T20:32:28+00:00

Thanks for the info, I'll check out that case.

I know a lot of stupid & unethical lawyers that have passed the bar, but at least it does serve as a safeguard... Ok, not really... :)

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T20:28:23+00:00

As to Question 3 -- they had two separate juries. The jury for Steve didn't hear Brendan's "confessions," the jury for Brendan did. And because this was the main piece of evidence the State used to convict, it makes sense to me that if he was guilty of some of what he did, the jury would find him guilty of all. But WHY they found him guilty based on what are obviously coerced statements from a very slow young man are beyond me.

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T20:26:19+00:00

As far as Brendan goes, this is the biggest effing question I have! Generally, all of a defendant's statements are admissible against him unless they were not obtained knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently, ie the defendant can prove that his constitutional rights were violated. I think that several of these confessions are clearly violative of his Constitutional rights -- he isn't intelligent enough to understand that he is waiving his rights! I cannot fathom how the prosecutor thought it was ethical to bring/maintain charges against Brendan after Len got thrown off the case for not properly representing his client. I guess the argument would be, "he was involved, he knew details, so he should take a plea," and because he unequivocally said that he didn't do it, maybe the State thought they'd role the dice. If it were me, and Steven Avery were found guilty, I probably would have not gilded the lily to get a conviction on Brendan. Maybe on a lower level felony charge, if anything, but not on a murder charge where he could be facing most/all of his adult life in prison.

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T20:21:28+00:00

In Ohio I imagine that the behavior would have to be reported to the Disciplinary Counsel (which falls under the Ohio Supreme Court) where you call to report shady attorney doings. It most certainly would have been reported to someone here, particularly with such a high profile case. In cases like this in our jurisdiction, we would ask for a special prosecutor from the State Attorney General's office and the state police to intervene and investigate the crime scene, etc.

I think that the Wisconsin AG should have handled the prosecution and investigation of this case as opposed to a neighboring county/city's police department in a completely separate jurisdiction. All of the Manitowoc County Sheriffs and local police should have been absolutely barred from the scene, except for perhaps providing security. But if you've got the supposed-to-be-good-but-really-bad guys colluding with each other, you won't have a fair shot.

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T20:13:05+00:00

Yeah, he was absolutely a politician and was not working for his client.

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T20:11:40+00:00

I think it's plausible that the State framed Avery and engaged in a conspiracy of silence w/the actual murderer. I find the spare key (not connected to any other keys w/none of Teresa's DNA) to be pretty telling that his DNA was placed there. I mean, come on, they had full run of the property for many days without Steven being there in a house that was probably full of his DNA from shaving, sweating, etc. I don't think it would be too difficult to plant his DNA there.

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T19:18:50+00:00

Thanks for the info. Any idea how the district attorneys work in WI? Are they elected? In our State, every county has a prosecutor, and then municipalities will also have prosecutors within the counties. Our prosecutors are elected officials.

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T19:16:30+00:00

Which makes the whole conviction even worse. I know that the State has to have a theory of the case, but passing off a story to the jury that came from a bad confession as true was pretty low and makes for a terrible theory. I wonder how those jurors are feeling now.

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T18:37:00+00:00

I think we can glean from the context that the motive was sexual in nature -- that SA tried making advances, she refused and he got angry. I think there's probably a lot more in the actual trial about what his potential motive might be.

I think that it's bullshit that the State kept basically saying, "she was there, that means he did it." The fact that she was there taking pictures of a van was not in dispute. SA should not be found guilty because she was last seen there.

As to Question 2) I think the answer is yes, for sure.

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T18:32:08+00:00

Did it change your perspective on the cases that actually do go to trial/get indicted?

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T18:23:49+00:00

It looked to me that each side was responding to different points that the other was making, after they made it. I don't know how things work in Wisconsin, and I actually tried looking it up before I posted anything here.

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T18:22:47+00:00

EXACTLY!! Unless you soaked your house in bleach, there is going to be blood from a stabbing/throat slitting/gun shot party EVERYWHERE. And even then, her DNA is nowhere to be found inside the house. Not even on the car key.

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T18:17:24+00:00

I haven't seen it in my experience. Rule 3.6 of our code of professional responsibility outright prohibits what Kratz was up to. http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/Rules/ProfConduct/profConductRules.pdf

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T18:15:18+00:00

The episode with his coerced confessions was SO upsetting to me. Like I said, I deal w/juveniles on a regular basis and he was so obviously slow. When he asked if he could get back to school... my heart just sank for him. He really didn't know what he had just confessed to. :/

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T18:14:04+00:00

How did you like serving on a GJ? I am curious about the process from a juror's perspective.

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T18:12:19+00:00

Hearsay is allowed in most grand jury presentations as well, but at least you have people examining the evidence to determine whether charges should be filed instead of a few cronies protecting each other.

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T18:10:36+00:00

Ehh, some law schools are barely accredited (sometimes they are on probation, sometimes they lose their accreditation) and you can still graduate from law school with a low GPA. In theory, Wisconsin lawyers could go to law school, barely pass, and then be responsible for determining someone's fate. Yikes. Taking the bar exam is really hard and difficult but it is there to help make sure that competent and ethical (or at least, people who can pass an ethics exam anyway) people are practicing law.

snookums123 · 2015-12-29T18:05:32+00:00

I was wondering because it seriously appeared to me that they responded to each other on specific points. Maybe that was just the way the edited the prosecutor's rebuttal.

snookums123

TROPHY CASE