in the documentary they said the cops ordered her to stay away from him I believe for 72 hours.

Poorskills?

No I don't think so.

Would probably go something like this:

Then he'd admit to raping him and stabbing him and strangling him and cutting his throat. And it would all be true because he had a bleach stain on his jeans, something which no teenager in history has every had unless they were cleaning up a murder scene as previously described.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTz673OMTF0

2:40 starting she said that police arrested him and ordered HIM to stay away from HER for 3 days.

Guaranteed he's currently watching The Queen



and will not be available for comments until worship is over.

Jodi did say this herself in the doc" They told me to stay away from SA "
is defo said by jodi.
I can't remember if it was the parole officer or MCPD.

Once again, I guess you are not a nativespeaker, but HE was ordered to stay away from HER, not HER to stay away from HIM. Steven Avery not allowed to see her, what you are saying is Jodi not allowed to see Steven Avery.

This is a separate issue. She was ordered not to have contact with him as a condition of her probation. This was during the investigation after SA had been arrested for the murder.

There appears to be a prior incident where SA assaulted her and she was given a protective order against him.

I believe it was both. Before the murder, he had a restraining order issued to stay away from her after their "altercation." Once he was arrested for murder, she was ordered to stay away from him as part of her probation. I think, at least. They were two different things.

Yes-I will try to look at MaM 2nt to get the part that she clearly says"I was told to stay away from SA

Poor skills is willing to make arguments for the prosecution that even they never made.
That's exactly what I said.

Interview is compelling. Definitely didn't see that coming. To me, while she's clearly lying about certain facts and does seem to have an apparent extremely selective memory, she is clearly not lying when she says that she feels that he is not innocent and that she feels guilty for not being able to prevent the murder from happening.

Still, massive gaping holes in her story that she can only say "I don't know" or "I don't remember" to fill in and nothing truly incriminating at all. But the fact that she assuredly feels that he is guilty doesn't look good.

I'm sure the holes in her story will be pointed out shortly but I'll start with one of the obvious ones that had already been addressed somewhat ITT: Her claim and subsequent police report of the assault that resulted in his "no contact for 3 days" order also included a report from the police stating there were no signs of physical abuse to corroborate her story. Her answer for this is, "I don't know, I didn't look at my neck."

She remembers with vivid clarity anything that would be incriminating against SA but can't remember virtually anything that the interviewer asks regarding the documentary that goes against what she is claiming now.

And wtf is up with the editing? Camera is often on the interviewer for extremely long periods of times during Jodi's answers.

While defo a victory for Poor "wiki-reverse-level-I-really-do-believe-I'm-smarter-than-you" Skillz, it's still more of the same: Seems like evidence against SA but turns out to be disingenuous, full of holes, lies and exaggeration.

Evidence against Steven Avery in what way? Of him being a good person or good boyfriend? Those things aren't on trial. I'm not watching that interview(Nancy Grace), but I'll read a transcript. Does she express any knowledge of the murder or give any evidence regarding that?

There may be some confusion here. As part of her probation, she was ordered to stay away from SA. When she was seen driving by the Court while he was being walked to the police car, they arrested her.

After that, she was arrested a number of other times until she broke it off with Steve and move away.

Yes, it appears there was a prior incident where the police ordered SA to stay away from her for 72 hours. In reality, this is outside of the normal process of filing for a restraining order with the Court - it is simply a "peacekeeping" measure by the police. There was no hearing, etc. regarding the facts of that matter; this all happened outside of court. I am not sure the police actually would be able to legally enforce their demand on Steve as it was not ordered by the Court. But, in small towns, things tend to run a bit differently - its like dad giving a kid a "time out."

So, the facts of that incident were never vetted. They actually do not matter as the police were not doing anything other than taking measures to keep the peace.

I'd be interested to see this.

As you know, she was in jail when all of this went down - so, I don't know how much she would actually know. Further, all her discussions with SA were taped, so I doubt he provided her with any "smoking gun" facts that would allow her to make such definitive conclusions of his guilt.

Jodi obviously getting her drink on.

I say no, but others will say yes. She is now changing her story and saying that on the recorded first phone call on October 31st at around 5:36 pm, she tells the interviewer that it is in fact true that he did NOT seem rushed and seemed normal and not out of the ordinary, then she says she actually doesn't remember. Then she says "yeah it's true and laughs."

Interviewer then inexplicably asks if she still believes that. And she then says "no".

Interviewer asks: "Why not?"

JS: "Because he did sound funny? I mean, he didn't sound rushed or whatever, but he did sound funny, like he was lying or hiding something."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTz673OMTF0

Taking her memory for it instead of just listening to the tape would be a pretty silly move. We're talking about her memory of a 15 minute phone conversation ten years ago that she didn't even know was important at the time.

Yeah but like I said, she apparently can remember with remarkable accuracy anything bad that SA did to her, but can't remember what the directors said when she "told them she didn't want to be in the documentary because it is all lies." (note: she has not seen the documentary).

Who wants to know:

A) Why the prosecution dropped her as a witness even though claims to have agreed to testify against SA?

B) Why she would claim the prosecution approached her to testify against Steven Avery but eventually dropped her?

You're kidding? Someone would remember abuse much more than a conversation from strangers? Shocking.

pics or it didn't happen.

Who wants to know the probabilities of these two events being a coincidence:

1) October 31st 2005 - Cops inexplicably deny her scheduled alcoholism class that day that Jodi says Steven would have taken her to.

2) October 31st 2005 - Steven snaps in a fit of rage or sexual desire and murders someone.



https://youtu.be/HTz673OMTF0?t=700

Saw snippets of the interview, but I think that's the gist of it. I think the main takeaway if her story is to be believed is that SA isn't the happy go lucky guy portrayed on Netflix and had a history of violence with women.

Of course, none of that stuff would be admissible at trial and there's a rule of evidence that specifically prohibits a prosecutor from presenting a defendant's prior bad acts to a jury for all the reasons you'd think: it's highly prejudicial and doesn't really prove whether the defendant committed the crime in question.

Also, Nancy Grace is the absolute worst.