The TV Thread

[Noeller]

The deal is that DJ is taking on the old Danny Tanner role. Essentially she's a recently-divorced single mom, and Stephanie (who became a world traveler) moves home to help her raise the kids, and Kimmy ends up moving in, as well. Stamos (who, I believe, is exec producing) is going to be involved full time, and Coulier will be there a lot, but Saget is just going to have some off-and-on appearances.....from what I've read anyhow. 

 

I think a new generation will enjoy it for what it is....saccharine, family entertainment...

[johnzo]

I just discovered Rick and Morty.

A silly cartoon about a drunk misanthrope mad scientist is somehow the best thing on TV.

Star Wars Rebels hasn't been bad either, it's definitely got the old school Star Wars spirit.

[The Unknown Poster]

I have a HIGHEST possible recommendation for a Netflix Original Documentary Series: Making A Murder.

Based on an incredible true story.  The non-Spoiler aspect of it is some poor, unsophisticated bumpkin gets tried and convicted for a rape.  18 years later he is exonerated due to DNA.  And then the real story begins... just unbelievable.  Ten part series because there are so many twists and turns and its a documentary!  I couldnt stop watching.  I only stopped after Episode 5 last night because it was 2am.  Everytime you think it couldnt get any wilder, it does.

Watch it!

[FrostyWinnipeg]

On 2015-12-04 at 0:54 PM, Logan007 said:

Maybe the reason you guys hate Lord of the Rings is because you suck.

 

Loved the first two but did not like the 3rd. Ghost army? Really?

[Logan007]

10 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Loved the first two but did not like the 3rd. Ghost army? Really?

It's called a FANTASY world.  Hello?

[The Unknown Poster]

Anyone watch the Netflix documentary Making A Murderer (I mentioned above)?

Ive finished it (10 episodes) and Im itching to discuss spoilers if anyone else loves true crime.  This case is nuts.  Now that I finished the series, I googled the case and the Netflix series is causing a ton of media around the case.

It almost seems like a companion case to the OJ Simpson trial in that what the defense in OJ case ridiculously asserted happened might actually have happened in the Steve Avery case....

[FrostyWinnipeg]

On 2015-12-24 at 11:04 AM, The Unknown Poster said:

Anyone watch the Netflix documentary Making A Murderer (I mentioned above)?

Ive finished it (10 episodes) and Im itching to discuss spoilers if anyone else loves true crime.  This case is nuts.  Now that I finished the series, I googled the case and the Netflix series is causing a ton of media around the case.

It almost seems like a companion case to the OJ Simpson trial in that what the defense in OJ case ridiculously asserted happened might actually have happened in the Steve Avery case....

I kinda stopped watching it after ep 8. Clearly evidence was tampered with but when you got bones in your backyard and blood evidence in the victims car well the jury don't care at that point.

[The Unknown Poster]

57 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

I kinda stopped watching it after ep 8. Clearly evidence was tampered with but when you got bones in your backyard and blood evidence in the victims car well the jury don't care at that point.

Irrelevant at that point. Once the evidence has been poisoned that's reasonable doubt. Plus this wasn't like an urban yard. It was a huge compound and numerous people had access. There was no direct evidence linking the suspect other than his blood in her car which made no sense and was really fruit of the poisonous tree. 

Later they revealed the jury voted and it was 7-3 in favour of aquittal. 

[Goldkobra]

It was the placement of the car that killed me. It was a scrap yard with a crusher, if Avery was guilty, why wouldn't he destroy the car? He had the means and the ability to do so, but instead he allegedly chose to just park it in the back and just lean some crap against it? I'm sorry,  but that just screams planted evidence. There is something severely broken in the Wisconsin legal system.

 

This case reminded me a lot of the west Memphis 3. If you haven't seen the paradise lost documenteries, I highly recommend them. The first ones aren't on Netflix so you will have to search for them, but the final one is. There is also a loosely based movie on Netflix about the west Memphis 3. I forget what it's called.  Also I recommend the documentery Dear Zachary, to anyone who enjoyed making a murderer. It's Canadian  and equally maddening.

[Brandon]

Ash Vs Evil Dead Season One just wrapped up....  much watch for any Evil Dead fans

[The Unknown Poster]

14 hours ago, Goldkobra said:

It was the placement of the car that killed me. It was a scrap yard with a crusher, if Avery was guilty, why wouldn't he destroy the car? He had the means and the ability to do so, but instead he allegedly chose to just park it in the back and just lean some crap against it? I'm sorry,  but that just screams planted evidence. There is something severely broken in the Wisconsin legal system.

 

This case reminded me a lot of the west Memphis 3. If you haven't seen the paradise lost documenteries, I highly recommend them. The first ones aren't on Netflix so you will have to search for them, but the final one is. There is also a loosely based movie on Netflix about the west Memphis 3. I forget what it's called.  Also I recommend the documentery Dear Zachary, to anyone who enjoyed making a murderer. It's Canadian  and equally maddening.

I think if I tried really hard I could come with a reason Avery might act a certain way if he was the murderer but its not "evidence".  For example, he might have hidden the truck on his property thinking he would strip it for parts before crushing it since that was the business he was in.  But if you're trying to get away with murder, it makes little sense.  Plus, the vehicle was described as "conspicuously" covered.  In other words, it was the only vehcle with things placed against it...so it stuck out.  Would have been wiser to hide it in plain site.

Plus, the woman who found it practically bee-lined to the car on a 40 acre compound with thousands of cars.  She knew it was there.  She came off like a nervous soccer mom on the stand but she was a Private Investigator. 

My feeling is, whether he committed the murder or not is actually irrelevant.  The jury's job is not to decide if he did it.  Their job is to rule on the prosecution's efforts to prove it.  Once you have admitted liars, the case is over.

That one uniformed cop was a slam dunk to me.  He had just given testimony in Avery's $36m case against his boss and was basically incriminated in ignoring evidence that Avery hadnt committed the rape he was eventually exonerated of.  Two days before the murder victim's truck is found on Avery's property he calls in the License Plate number and vehicle description to dispatch in exactly the way one would if they came across the vehicle.  When he was questioned about this, his demeanor changed.  He began blinking rapidly.  He was incredibly nervous.  That was the gotcha moment for me.

In my opinion, this cop found the vehicle, probably near the Avery property.  And he drove the vehicle to the location and took the plates off and placed them inside another wrecked vehicle on the property (a back up plan in case Avery found the truck and disposed of it).

The cops locked themselves into a crazy story by convincing the nephew to agree to it.  Unfortunately for them, the evidence showed that those events could not have happened (ie. woman chained to the bed, throat slit in the bedroom, shot in the garage).  But their one "witness" was locked into that story.  So the cops were forced to plant evidence in those two locations to back up their made up story.

There were so many reasonable doubt moments

- Avery's prior blood sample from the rape case had been tampered with with evidence that a needle had been inserted into the vial.  If evidence tampering is the poisonous tree then the blood drops in the truck are fruits of that tree.  Cant take them seriously.

- Prosecutor insisted the woman was chained spread eagle to the bed.  No evidence whatsoever.  Wrap a chain around your bed post and pull and twist it like you would if you were struggling to get free or violently raped. 

- Prosecutor insisted the woman's throat was slit in the bedroom.  Zero evidence.  Not a single drop of blood.

- Prosecutor insisted the woman was hot multiple times in the garage.  Zero evidence.  Not a single drop of blood.  They even tore up the cement floor where it was cracked and blood would have naturally pooled.  No DNA whatsoever.

- Prosecutor insist the body is burned in the bonfire Avery had that night.  Bonfire cant burn hot enough to cremate a body.  Thus the remains were planted in the bonfire after the fact

- Victim's car key was found in the bedroom.  On the 7th or 8th search.  In plain sight!  All prior searches found nothing.  Suddenly two of the cops implicated in the prior false rape case do a search and find the key.  The key has NO prints, NO DNA except for a sweat stain of Avery's.  ie. The key was wiped clean. 

- A spent bullet found in the garage, laying neatly on the floor, again after multiple searches found nothing and again only after the two cops enter the scene.  Prosecutor wants you to believe Avery is the greatest cleaner in the history of murder...but missed the bullet, missed the key.

And one other gotcha moment.  Steve's other nephew testified against him.  He claimed he was just getting up when he saw the victim on the property and when he went outside he saw her entering Steve's trailer.  Steve says when he went outside to speak with the victim, his nephew at already left.  So the nephew is lying.  Why?  Either because he was pressured to or because he knew the truth.  Who had opportunity and access?  Anyone on that property.  The nephew and his father (who hated Steve) were going hunting that day...right at the time the victim should have been leaving the property and they were gone all night and were each other's alibi.  There's your murderer.

[The Unknown Poster]

   Two separate #MakingAMurderer petitions are now circulating to free the show’s subjects rol.st/1Z1fkbg

[Mike]

If you ask me, one of the people who got charged was guilty but it wasn't Steven Avery.

I think the nephew was an accomplice in the murder but not to Avery.

[Jpan85]

To play devils advocate here there was a bunch of damning evidence that they did not show during the doc.

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

Quote

There was clearly some shady **** here, but I snooped around in various Reddit threads and through some local news reports and found a few pieces of evidence not presented in the docuseries that persuade me that Avery was probably guilty. Some of this was presented at trial, while some of it was excluded in pre-trial motions.

Here's what I found.

-- The documentary said that part of Avery's criminal past included animal cruelty. To my recollection, it didn't specify exactly what that animal cruelty was. I know that for some of our readers, knowing is enough to want to see Avery get the death sentence regardless of whether he murdered Halbach: He doused a cat in oil and threw it on a bonfire (this is not relevant to the murder trial, but it certainly diminishes the sympathy some of us felt for him).

-- Past criminal activity also included threatening a female relative at gunpoint.

-- In the months leading up to Halbach's disappearance, Avery had called Auto Trader several times and always specifically requested Halbach to come out and take the photos.

-- Halbach had complained to her boss that she didn't want to go out to Avery's trailer anymore, because once when she came out, Avery was waiting for her wearing only a towel (this was excluded for being too inflammatory). Avery clearly had an obsession with Halbach.

-- On the day that Halbach went missing, Avery had called her three times, twice from a *67 number to hide his identity.

-- The bullet with Halbach's DNA on it came from Avery's gun, which always hung above his bed.

 

Mouse over video for audio

-- Avery had purchased handcuffs and leg irons like the ones Dassey described holding Halbach only three weeks before (Avery said he's purchased them for use with his girlfriend, Jodi, with whom he'd had a tumultuous relationship -- at one point, he was ordered by police to stay away from her for three days).

-- Here's the piece of evidence that was presented at trial but not in the series that I find most convincing: In Dassey's illegally obtained statement, Dassey stated that he helped Avery moved the RAV4 into the junkyard and that Avery had lifted the hood and removed the battery cable. Even if you believe that the blood in Halbach's car was planted by the cops (as I do), there was also non-blood DNA evidence on the hood latch. I don't believe the police would plant -- or know to plant -- that evidence.

I certainly believe that there was a tremendous amount of police misconduct in this case. I believe the police helped the case against Avery along by planting evidence (and there's no doubt in my mind that they planted the RAV4 key in Avery's trailer). I also don't believe the prosecution's theory of events: There's no way Halbach was raped and had her throat slashed in the trailer without a speck of DNA evidence, and there's no way she was shot in the garage without any blood splatter evidence. After all, if Avery had somehow used bleach to erase all trace of Halbach's DNA, he would've also cleaned the garage of his own DNA (and the garage still contained lots of Avery's DNA).

I don't know how Avery murdered Halbach. I also don't believe anything that Dassey said in his coerced confession, but I also won't rule out Dassey's involvement because he would've done anything anyone asked of him. Still, the idea that the police killed Halbach is impossible to believe, not because they weren't capable of it, but because of the planning and foresight it would've required.

I also believe that Adnan Syed is guilty, but in both cases, I don't believe the jury should've convicted because there simply wasn't enough unimpeachable evidence to support a guilty verdict. I am even more convinced than after Serial that the jury system is ******, but ironically, in both cases, I also think the jury arrived at the correct conclusion.

Updated: Here's some additional damning evidence against both Avery and Dassey either not presented in the series, or not presented in its entirety.

-- The reporter from the doc who had all the great reaction shots, added this:

-- In this phone conversation (transcript in link) with his mother (which is not entirely included in the docuseries), Brendan told his mother that he did it, that Steven made him do it, and that Steven had touched him (and others) inappropriately in the past.

Mom: What all happened, what are you talking about?
Brendan: About what Me & Steven did that day,
Mom: What about it?
Brendan: Well, Mike & Mark & Matt came up one day and took another interview with me and said because they think I was lying but so, they said if I come out with it that I would have to go to jail for 90 years.
Mom: What?
Brendan: Ya. But if came out with itT would probably get I dunno about like 20 or less. After the interview they told me if I wanted to say something to her family and said that I was sorry for what I did.
Mom: Then Steven did do it.
Brendan: Ya
Mom: (Mom Crying) Why diddn't you tell me about this?
Brendan. Ya, but they came out wi.th something that was untrue with me
Mom:. What's that?
Brendan: They said that I sold crack

...

Mom: So did you talk to her family?
Brendan: No
M: Huh
Brendan: They just asked me if I wanted to say something to them, on the tape.
Mom: Did you?
Brendan: .lust that I was sorry for what I did.

...

Mom: Did he make you do this?
Brendan: Ya.
Mom: Then why didn't you tell him that.
Brendan: Tell him what
Mom: That Steven made you do it. You know he made you do a lot of things.
Brendan: Ya, I told them that. I even told them about Steven touching me and that.
Mom: What do you mean touching you?
Brendan: He would grab me somewhere where I was uncomfortable.
Mom: Brendan I am your mother.
Brendan. Ya.
Mom: Why didn't you come to me? Why didn't you tell me? Was this all before this happened?
Brendan: What do you mean?
Mom: All before this happened, did he touch you before all this stuff happened to you.
Brendan: Ya.
Mom: Why didn't you come to me, because then he would have been gone then and this wouldn't have happened.
Brendan: Ya ..
Mom: Yes, and you would still be here with me.
Brendan: Yes, Well you know I did it.
Mom: Huh
Brendan. You know he always touched us and that.
Mom: I didn't think there. He used to horse around with you guys.
Brendan: Ya, but you remember he would always do stuff to Brian and that.
Mom: What do you mean.
Brendan: Well he would like fake pumping him
Mom: Goofing around
Brendan: Ya but, like that one time when he was going with what's her name Jessica .. sister. Mom: Teresa?
Brendan: Ya. That one day when she was over, Steven and Blaine and Brian and I was downstairs and Steven was touching her and that.

-- There's no denying that it was unethical as hell for the investigator of Dassey's own attorney to elicit a confession out of Brendan, but the documentary suggests that the investigator peppered Brendan with leading questions and basically fed him the answers. From the full transcript, that is not the case at all. Brendan not only confessed, he gave a very detailed account of what happened. They had sex with Teresa on the bed, then they carried her out to the garage, where they cut her throat, and that's where Steven shot her five times with the .22 Brendan said he pulled from above his bed. Then they threw her in the fire. She begged for her life through the entire ordeal. Brendan even cut off some of her hair. Then they cleaned up with bleach and burned all the clothes in the bonfire.

The bits and pieces from the interview provided in the series make it seem like Brendan is kind of making it up as he goes along or is being fed answers. The 21-page transcript leaves very little doubt of Brendan's role. But again, Brendan's IQ is 70. He'd been molested by Steven in prior occasions. Basically, Steven forced him to do this, and Brendan wasn't bright enough to say no. He's also not bright enough to make up a story that matches much of the evidence, without being fed the answers.

On the other hand, make no mistake: That was tantamount to a coerced confession. From a legal perspective, the information contained within it was worthless. Brendan would've said anything at this point, and it should've never been admitted at trial. Yet, it was, and to any jury seeing it -- and the specificity of the details -- you might see why they believed Avery and Dassey committed the crime.

 

[Jpan85]

I think it was probably Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych

[The Unknown Poster]

5 minutes ago, Jpan85 said:

I think it was probably Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych

I just read the "additional information" you posted also.  Didnt want to quote the entire thing but most of it is irrelevant.  Past crimes were irrelevant as none of them were violent crimes.  No one is arguing that Avery is a wonderful human being.  Im not even arguing that he is innocent.  Only that its absolutely reasonable doubt and his conviction is a complete miscarriage of justice.

The information about him requesting the victim come out...that could be relevant.  Same with him calling her three times.  But only as additional evidence that he liked her/wanted her specifically there.  It doesnt even rise to circumstantial I dont believe.

The bullet is interesting.  But if we accept that there is a chance it was planted then it doesnt matter what gun it came from.  I wouldnt accept that bit of information as fact without something to back it up.  The bullet, if I recall, was damaged.  It had been shot.  So Im not sure if they could say with certainty it came from Avery's gun.  Even if they could, if the gun was present in Avery's home for the entirety of the searches then it could have been taken and shot by someone wishing to plant the bullet.  Since there was no evidence whatsoever of a murder taking place in the garage, it seems likely the bullet was planted.  At that point, it doesnt matter where it came from.

The blood evidence is the truck is the most damning piece of evidence.  Unfortunately, because his blood had been tampered with, you cant take it as evidence.  Plus, it doesnt rise beyond common sense.  Why did he trip blood?  He cut himself (he *did* have a cut on his hand).  Why didnt he leave any prints?  He was wearing gloves.  If he was wearing gloves, how did he drop blood?  Uhhhhhhh  Exactly.

And I cant take anything the nephew says seriously.  He's too simple minded and too prone to suggestion.  Him calling his mom was a complete and utter set up by the cops who knew they were recording the phone calls.  They convinced him to call his mom and confess before they could tell her.  Thus, he calls her and tells her exactly what he told the cops (that if he says he did it, he gets off in 20 years instead of 90).  He did exactly as they told him to do.

As far as Avery's guilt or innocence, I think it's all or none.  What I mean is, I dont think someone else killed her but he hid the car (which would explain his DNA).  I think he would have admitted to his part and fingered the real culprit.  In every other crime he committed, he fessed up.  The only two he maintained his innocence were the rape he was exonerated on and the murder.

I also see his interrogation tapes as signs of his innocence.  I've been on both sides of the police interview and he didnt act like someone lying or avoiding anything.  He didnt fall for any of the cops' tricks.  The only way he was able to keep everything straight was because he was only telling the truth.

I agree about the other nephew and the brother-on-law.  There were the only two (other than, I suppose, Avery and the other nephew) that had access and opportunity.  They were each other's alibi's.  There is evidence the nephew lied on the stand.  Why lie?  The brother-in-law hated Steve and didnt seem to much like his step-son either. 

 

[Rich]

The one odd part that stood out to me was in one of the last episodes when they are interviewing his lawyers years after the fact. 

One of the lawyers says something to the effect of ... For everyone's sake he hopes and wants to believe that Steven was in fact guilty because if he wasn't then he would have problems sleeping if the justice system had failed him twice like that.

Cant remember the exact words but the way he said it made it seem like there was doubt in his mind of his clients innocence.

Now I know lawyers defend guilty people all the time, but the way the story was told, it seemed like there was no doubt it was a frame job. But that one statement made it seem like even his lawyer didn't know for sure, and a part of him suspected he was guilty. 

[The Unknown Poster]

3 minutes ago, Rich said:

The one odd part that stood out to me was in one of the last episodes when they are interviewing his lawyers years after the fact. 

One of the lawyers says something to the effect of ... For everyone's sake he hopes and wants to believe that Steven was in fact guilty because if he wasn't then he would have problems sleeping if the justice system had failed him twice like that.

Cant remember the exact words but the way he said it made it seem like there was doubt in his mind of his clients innocence.

Now I know lawyers defend guilty people all the time, but the way the story was told, it seemed like there was no doubt it was a frame job. But that one statement made it seem like even his lawyer didn't know for sure, and a part of him suspected he was guilty. 

Funny you say that Rich!  I was just thinking the same thing and when he said it (as you wrote), the other lawyer sort of looked at him without comment.  That one lawyer seemed to be arguing the case as his job.  ie. guilt or innocence didnt matter.  The second lawyer seemed more outraged and determined to prove his clients *innocence*.

Keep in mind also, that that interview was quite some time after the trial. 

On that subject, I think the prosecution screwed themselves because of their crazy version of events.  Steve might have killed her.  But he didnt do it where they said or how they said.  But once they got the nephew to confess to their crazy version of events, they were locked in.  So in that way, the lawyers could think Avery was possibly guilty.  He had opportunity.  Everyone with access to that property at that time should have been a suspect.  And the cops knew that the property was too wide and the list of suspects too long to pin it on Avery...so they planted the evidence to fit their theory.

One thing not in the documentary was that the Defense had to submit a list of alternative suspects they might want to accuse at trial.  We heard the issue of "third party liability" come up at trial and that they werent allowed to just wildly accuse mysterious "other parties" of doing it...but they had a specific list of potential other persons and everyone on their list were Avery relatives.  Because, the defense knew, everyone with access to the property should have been a suspect.

[Rich]

5 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Funny you say that Rich!  I was just thinking the same thing and when he said it (as you wrote), the other lawyer sort of looked at him without comment.  That one lawyer seemed to be arguing the case as his job.  ie. guilt or innocence didnt matter.  The second lawyer seemed more outraged and determined to prove his clients *innocence*.

Keep in mind also, that that interview was quite some time after the trial. 

On that subject, I think the prosecution screwed themselves because of their crazy version of events.  Steve might have killed her.  But he didnt do it where they said or how they said.  But once they got the nephew to confess to their crazy version of events, they were locked in.  So in that way, the lawyers could think Avery was possibly guilty.  He had opportunity.  Everyone with access to that property at that time should have been a suspect.  And the cops knew that the property was too wide and the list of suspects too long to pin it on Avery...so they planted the evidence to fit their theory.

One thing not in the documentary was that the Defense had to submit a list of alternative suspects they might want to accuse at trial.  We heard the issue of "third party liability" come up at trial and that they werent allowed to just wildly accuse mysterious "other parties" of doing it...but they had a specific list of potential other persons and everyone on their list were Avery relatives.  Because, the defense knew, everyone with access to the property should have been a suspect.

That part struck me as odd because it was so out of place with the tone of the rest of the documentary.  It made me realize that the way the story was depicted was to make him look innocent even though the makers claim they just presented facts.

Either way, it was a very interesting story where life is stranger than fiction.  And only the people involved really know what happened.

I don't think anyone believes the cops actually killed the girl to frame Avery.  If it was a frame job, someone killed the girl and the cops took advantage of the situation.

[Jpan85]

I was left at the end just wanting to know what exactly happened to her.

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, Rich said:

I don't think anyone believes the cops actually killed the girl to frame Avery.  If it was a frame job, someone killed the girl and the cops took advantage of the situation.

I think this is exactly what happened.  The prosecutor made an interesting comment in closing arguments, something like "If the police planted evididence it was because they were certain Avery did it".  So much like your sense from the Defense lawyer, the prosecutor knew the cops had screwed around here.

Unfortunately for Avery, the admission that the cops *might* have planted evidence should have been enough to end the trial.  In fact, it should have been a mistrial I would think.  And the Prosecutor should have investigated the cops.  But they were all on the same side.  And we later learned that prosecutor was a shady prick too, when he was forced to resign for sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior towards a victim of domestic violence. 

Someone killed the girl near the Avery property.  They left the body in the car and abandoned the car.  During the search, that cop who called in the plates found the car and drove it to the Avery compound and left it there.  He took the body and had it disposed off with the remaining ashes put in Avery's bonfire pit and her belongings dumped in a "burn barrel" on the Avery property.  He took the key and gave it to the other cop, Lenk, who, when no other evidence surfaced, planted it in the bedroom.  Again, no other evidence surfaced, so they planted the bullet.

They suspected the Averys would never give the cops permission to search their property but figured they would do a civilian search team so they had the room-mate's team arrange for the two women (including a PI) to go search and went directly to the car the cops knew was there.

I heard someone's theory was, Avery did it and the cop called in the plates because he did an illegal search of Avery's property and found the car but couldnt declare it because he didnt have a warrant.  But he specifically called in the plates which were missing from the car (and found inside another wreck on the property) so I dont buy that.  Avery's brother indicated he had seen headlights driving down a road near where the car was left.  I think the cop planted the car.

[The Unknown Poster]

7 minutes ago, Jpan85 said:

I was left at the end just wanting to know what exactly happened to her.

And that's the sad part because we will probably never know.  The best we can probably hope for is a new trial for Avery.  I cant imagine the State or Federal government simply overturning the conviction and releasing them.  They might in the case of the nephew because if they order a new trial all the evidence against him is pretty much useless so how do you prosecute?

In the case of Steve, they might order a new trial.  But the prosecution has a big problem with that evidence too and if the nephew is essentially exonerated, it eliminates their "best" evidence.

Unless there is a lot we're missing (and I havent seen any "new" information that would change my mind), if I was the state, I'd call in a third party agency to do a full and complete investigation of the murder and the actions of the police.  But generally they protect their own.  I wonder, is there a way for the FBI to get involved?  They likely wouldnt cotton to any shenanigans by local Podunk cops.

If the petition to the White House gets 100,000 signatures, the federal government has to issue an official response.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

There is one thing for certain we can all agree on. If you ever get arrested in that county do not hire Len Kachinsky as your lawyer.

[Guest]

Shannara Chronicles starts tomorrow and I'm willing to give it a shot, love the New Zealand landscape. Beowulf premiered Sunday on ITV, haven't checked it out as of yet, but am planning to tonight. So far this television season I haven't been able to get into anything new, actually that last 2 years I haven't been able to stick with shows for some reason, most of my shows are now ending or close to it. I'm hoping "quarry" on cinemax ends up being a goodie, after loving "Banshee" I'm willing to give it a shot.

I tried "The Man in the High Castle" and while I loved the concept and idea of the show, didn't care for the story or actors (with exception to Davalos). Tried "Black Sails", "Outlander", "Orange is the New Black" and "True Detective", but couldn't get hooked on any of those either.

[17to85]

8 minutes ago, Project_Legacy said:

Shannara Chronicles starts tomorrow and I'm willing to give it a shot, love the New Zealand landscape. Beowulf premiered Sunday on ITV, haven't checked it out as of yet, but am planning to tonight. So far this television season I haven't been able to get into anything new, actually that last 2 years I haven't been able to stick with shows for some reason, most of my shows are now ending or close to it. I'm hoping "quarry" on cinemax ends up being a goodie, after loving "Banshee" I'm willing to give it a shot.

I tried "The Man in the High Castle" and while I loved the concept and idea of the show, didn't care for the story or actors (with exception to Davalos). Tried "Black Sails", "Outlander", "Orange is the New Black" and "True Detective", but couldn't get hooked on any of those either.

As in based on the books? How is it possible I didn't know they were making a show based on that... guess I need to crawl out from under my rock.