The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Arts & Entertainment

Arts & Entertainment Give meaning to your life or distract you from it for a while

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-06-2016, 11:58 PM   #1
Clodfobble
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
The question being, I guess, does that strike you as plausible?
Clodfobble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2016, 09:20 AM   #2
Spexxvet
Makes some feel uncomfortable
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble View Post
Okay, so I have this theory. The only good and smart people in the whole thing were Stephen Avery's trial lawyers, right? The shorter one with the full head of hair seemed to be slightly more in charge. And he said two things that really caught my attention, only because he proved himself in other places to be SO VERY careful with his words, as lawyers must be.

1.) In the closing arguments, they got into a weird back and forth where the prosecution was basically like, "Why would the police pick Avery out of nowhere to frame him?" And the defense responded with the logical argument that of course the police are not inherently evil, and they would only plant evidence if they believed him to be guilty and wanted a slam dunk, but that doesn't actually make him guilty... Except what he said was, "The police don't frame innocent people." And then he sort of elaborated into the point he actually meant. But that seemed like a really boneheaded verbal slip for a defense lawyer, to me.

2.) In the post trial discussion with all five lawyers in the room, he was the one who said that on some level he hopes that Avery did really do it, because otherwise the system is so depressingly broken, etc. Again, a relevant point, but not really the way one's own lawyer best phrases it.

Conclusion: I think he knew/believed Avery was guilty, or at least a terrible person (did you find the not-presented-in-the-documentary stuff online about Avery molesting Brendan Dassey when he was younger?) and didn't actually slip up at all, but instead showed the excellent, excellent control of language that he had in the rest of the series to very subtly make sure that he lost the case in the end.
I don't remember his exact words in the closing arguments, but what I took away was "The police don't frame people they believe to be innocent."

I was shocked when he said he almost hopes Steven is guilty, but I think he was trying to salvage something, anything, from the whole mess. He got choked up, which I think added to his show of frustrated indignation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble View Post
The question being, I guess, does that strike you as plausible?
I guess it's plausible, but I think he truly believed that Avery was mistreated.

I read a couple of articles about the "ignored" evidence. Unfortunately, it all appears to me to be hearsay. It would be nice if someone did the kind of investigation into those accusations as they did in the series. Still, if he was an evil guy early in his life, it doesn't mean he killed Halbach, any more than it meant he raped Beernsten in 1985. There was no indication, even by the cops, that he did anything bad after getting out of jail for the rape.

I think the most damning evidence against the cops is the tampering of the vial of Avery's blood that was in the police evidence room, in police custody.
__________________
"I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex. " - xoxoxoBruce
Spexxvet is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:16 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.