Quote:
Originally Posted by biggetje
Uhh, yes? If you throw a cat in a fire you're an ******* in my book. If you write letters threatening people left and right, you're an *******. You must have a very high tolerance for people if you think he's a nice guy.
So now we need evidence of something so "small" like him beating his wife occasionally and being an all around ******* before we believe anything that comes out of this woman's mouth? What about the fact she had a black eye and her blood was found in the trailer? (In before: she walked into the door and cut her finger cutting onions)
I've read a lot of material on this case and I'm really starting to understand the importance of the presumption of innocence. Let's take your question:
Quote:
What about the fact she had a black eye and her blood was found in the trailer?
- Well again, she said she "thought" the testing resulted in it being her blood, but she did not know for sure. Again, as with 99% of the rumors, suggestion and other accusations surrounding this completely wild story, we don't have proof that it was her blood. It fits her story nicely though.
- If he did give her a black eye at some point, then yeah, he's a POS for doing that. But this is the first time anyone is hearing about this and there is no proof of it. She tells a horrible story of a time that she was knocked to the floor, choked to unconsciousness, dragged out of the house and tossed into the car, where a police officer pulled Steven Avery and her over. Steven Avery denied doing any of those things and the cop's report said there was no sign of physical abuse. The story doesn't add up. The result of this was a court-order of separation for 3 days, not a restraining order as others have stated. Think about the range of significance between the two statements, "She had a restraining order against him for domestic abuse" and "The court ordered them the be separated for a period of three days because although she claimed domestic abuse, the police officer's report stated there was no physical signs of abuse."
I wouldn't just automatically doubt someone making these claims, but I HAVE to doubt what she is saying at least to some degree because it is opposite to the things she was saying in the documentary. She admitted to the HLN interviewer that she lied about everything - so can't we conclude that doubt needs to be cast to some degree as to the accuracy of what she is saying now, especially without bringing anything in the form of proof?
These are exactly the type of statements coming from media that turn facts into fiction and cause wide-spreading paranoia and destroy any presumption of innocence.
Check this transcript from the Nancy Grace show:
Quote:
WENDY MURPHY, PROSECUTOR: Well, at this point, even though we don't know who exactly whose bones and teeth they've found, let's not forget there was a camera there, too, and this was a woman who was a photographer at the scene, and she's been missing. This doesn't take rocket science.
The amount of blood in his car, the fact that his DNA is on her stuff, and her blood, I assume, is all over his car, it doesn't get any closer to a slam dunk, even without knowing yet that it is, in fact, this woman.
I mean, I`ve got to tell you something, the sympathy for this guy, the idea that hes filed this lawsuit, I just want to reach through this camera and grab the guy and shake him and bang his head on the wall because I'm not convinced at all that he was wrongly convicted! I will not deny for a minute that the DNA evidence that wasn`t available, technologically speaking, at the time of his trial kind of affected his ability to have a fair trial. But let's not mistake the fact that he was granted a new trial or should have been allowed to use that evidence to show somebody else might have been at the crime scene with this other rape -- let's not confuse this with innocence. I'm not persuaded at all that this guy was, in fact, innocent with regard to that earlier rape!
So let me say this to the people who helped him get out. Good job! You let the guy out by claiming hes innocent. He probably wasn't innocent of that other rape.
FAULKNER: So Wendy, you...
MURPHY: And now look what he did. He killed a woman! Thanks a lot!
This is coming from a practicing lawyer and it's so unbelievable, I don't know where to begin. Have you read the e-mail from Dassey's defense about the Avery family?
Quote:
Uhh, yes? If you throw a cat in a fire you're an ******* in my book. If you write letters threatening people left and right, you're an *******. You must have a very high tolerance for people if you think he's a nice guy.
What if I told you "you know what, 26 years ago, I was hanging out with some people who I think had a bad influence on me at the time. We were drinking one night and I poured some gasoline on the family cat and we were tossing it over a fire, not exactly purposely knowing it would catch, but knowing full well the chances were really high that it might. It caught on fire and died. I feel horrible and don't know what I was thinking when I did that. I took full responsibility for my actions, never once denied anything and served time in jail and paid my fines for it and have never been cruel to an animal since."
Let those without sin cast the first stone.
Last edited by lostinthesaus; 01-15-2016 at 05:32 PM.