Just tell us if you have watched it or not... Always have to be so difficult. If you haven't watched it, then it really is hard for you discuss.
Yes I have watched it I had not watched it when the topic was started but last week and over the weekend I watched it.
No different than this movie. Everyone is assuming everything in this movie is fact and the "whole" story. Double standard.
Here is what I think I know. a woman was murdered her body, car and things were found on the Avery Property.
It was definately the same judge, when I saw this I couldn't believe this was standard protocol, how does the same judge decide if an appeal is granted?
I think he did it, the show was intriguing i7n its nature but I don't think it was well balanced factually. If you have ever watched Paradise Lost about the West Memphis Three, the similarities are eerily similar. I think they rose the success of that 3 part series in an attempt to create the same results. I don't know if it is the same production team that did both or not. I'm in the guilty crowd but there is probably enough out there to get a retrial for Brenden, not Avery. The original judge did not stop the case from going to the states appelate court, he denied a new trial based on Avery's motion of an unfair prosecution. The states appelate court denied his request for appeal and the WI Supreme Court also denied to hear the case. There was supposedly non-plantable DNA on the hood release latch in the engine bay where he supposedly opened the hood. I have suspicions about the key and the bullet, they say the bullet couldn't have been had DNA planted, but they had her blood in the truck to do that. Fire a round from his gun, plant blood on it and find it days later. I don't think it happened the way Brenden said, and that seems to be what their entire prosecution of the way it was carried out. I wonder if there was a scene in that book he said he got it from or not, not going to read it to find out, but was something like "Kiss the girls"??. Brended should have gotten a new trial with ease. His lawyers drove a bus over top of him, they agreed with the prosecutuon that the last hour and 45 minutes of his "confession" was irrelevant and no reason to show the jury. There is just no way all of that happened and no blood other than in the truck and on the bullet was found. I doubt Avery will ever get a retrial, there's no way to have a fair trial at this point. Much like his first release, he will need new DNA evidence or the real killer, if there is one, to come forward. With both the appelate court and the WI Supreme Court denying to hear the case, I think that speaks larger volumes that the original judge granting a retrial. It would take a cover up at all levels of WI government and court system for that to happen. Brenden I think will get retried or possibly some other sort of settlement. I think he was involved, but it was unknowingly. She was already in the fire when he was helping to keep it going amd didn't know what he was doing when helping clean the garage, if that in fact did happen. His mom thought it so as he had bleach stains on his jeans. It was interesting, but after seeing Paradise Lost last year(it came out in '96 I believe) I couldn't help but think it was a sort of knock off of it. Not going to lose any sleep or sign a petition, but it past 10 hours of otherwise boredom for me.
Judge Jenine(Sp?) On Fox News channel last night had a special episode. I think the prosecution/investigators thoughts on that was some predator, other than sexual, carried a few bones off. Some were found in the back of the junk yard and a few by Brendens house.
Yeah, I don't recall the specifics.I watched it because it was being talked about everywhere. There's a few hogh profile lawyers that are saying they are taking the case up. I'm betting they will review the facts, find out how much money Avery's parents have left to put up and decide whether enough can be had for a run at SCOTUS to get the conviction thrown out. The only reason they will do that is due to the likely multi million dollar settlement and how likely they are to reach that point. May have a few small time lawyers toss out a few motions in hopes of getting their name out there, but high dollar lawyers won't do it. Heck, his own lawyers had given up on him once convicted and the $400k was used up.
Tell me what was a lie? And I don't think anyone here has denied that it was biased and left out some things. I don't understand that people that write something off just because it might be biased and slanted towards a certain angle. There is plenty of info out there if you want to read "the other side" and I have, and I have still yet to see anything that can prove Avery is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
I really don't know either, the show only had the one released juror in it, so i am guessing the rest are yet to talk? I haven't researched it much, admittedly, just watched it Thursday and Friday. Have any of the other jurors spoken out either since this came out or previously? I find it odd that the released juror was such a big part of it, he seemed to be as biased as the prosecutor. If there was juror misconduct that would open up a whole new avenue to get it overturned. As with everyone, we just don't know what we are missing that was left out from the prosecution side. They had cameras in the court room, all of our answers are out there probably on film but they chose not to show them. Too many questions left unanswered and so far nothing has compelled any higher ranking judges, with no dog in the fight, to hear the case. We are missing the key part, whatever that is We'll probably have to wait until a jurors book comes out, I'm sure several are mulling the option with all the hype this is generating.
The producers claimed to have interviewed a juror and the juror claimed that they thought he was not guilty but were too scared to not convict him and that the reason why they were inconsistent with their charges (guilty for murder, but not guilty for mutilation) was to try to get the judge to call a mistrial. So the producers claim
A trial judge cannot deny the right to an appeal. He can deny a motion for a new trial which is the first step in the appeals process, but not the right to an appeal. Remember that an appeals court will only hear an appeal if based on new evidence or error at the lower court level. For example you move to exclude certain testimony as prejudicial or or you object to certain statements and the judge rules against you. An appeals court may consider this as error. Of course it may conclude that it was harmless error. You always make an objection on the record even if you know the judge will deny it, just to preserve it for an appeal. One of our judges will cut extended arguments short by saying, "okay, be sure to include that in your appeal."
Yeah, the way it went was they filed for a retrial and the proceedig judge denied it. He then sent to an appelate court and they denied to hear the case. He then tried to file to the WI Supreme Court and they denied to hear the case. After that he had exhausted all of his avenues for a new trial and was denied further use of a public appointed attorney. Now they are seeking to appeal to the federal level, if that petition is denied then SCOTUS will be the last attempt sans indisputable new evidence. The fact that all levels of the state courts have denied him leads me to believe there is indeed more incriminating evidence than just no EDTA in the blood DNA in the vehicle. The fact his own counsel has wothdrawn themselves from the case leads me to believe they do not believe the odds of his successful release and following wrongful conviction monetary suit are great enough for them to stay in it until then at their own expense. The fact his parents and family have not put up their property/assets to hire new lawyers leads me to believe their is more damning evidence than what the docudrama leads you to believe. His best resort is exactly what is happening now. This is creating auch a frenzy of support and recognition that a high profile firm will jump at the chance to take up the case on ego alone. I doubt it happens honestly, it has been 8 years already that vile of blood and whatever dried blood on those interior panels are his only chance, and 8 years of advancement in testing and such haven't proven helpful yet. Leads me to believe there really isn't EDTA in it.
Who the hell douses a cat in gas and burns it? And I'm not a fan of cats but anyone who does that surely has some screws loose.
