The Buting guy? The tall fella? I thought he was alright. Who was seriously weird was the clown Kachinsky who defended Brendan first. What a fucking plonker. And he looked like a thunderbird or something as well.
2 Likes
Yes, I spotted that. I wondered if it was some lacrosse type thing but it looked very much like a hurling statue.
just did a quick search. Unsurprisingly the click bait sites had already latched onto it an verified it is indeed a hurling statue. There was a comment on the balls.ie site that had this attributed to the click bait piece:
Up the Ra!
5 Likes
Canât be a real response. Surely those guys are overwhelmed with people contacting them.
what? you dont believe a click bait site would have legitimate info on them???
Even if so, the statue is clearly a hurling one, so I am happy to count Mr Strang as part of the Ra.
2 Likes
Did Buting remind anyone else of David Wallace from The Office?
2 Likes
Yeah, him. I think lawyers are generally weirdos anyway.
This an email from Ken Kratz about some of the evidence that was left out. For the record, Iâm not Andrew, they were uploaded by someone on Reddit:
Links to the stuff I mentioned earlier:
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery%20documents%201-22.pdf
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery%20document%20page%2023%20+.pdf
You need to tag the know-ot-all @anon7035031 on this who must have been making tea while this was being discussed in the series.
1 Like
He was very open about it being exposure for his business. I would suggest he was picked out for the state based on this, a back scratching exercise.
from online reports of him, he seems to be a district judge now, so he finally got his vote into power. It was clear as day that he was far more interested in the media aspect of the trial than the actual defending of his client.
1 Like
It would make sense that he pursued such a career and is so deeply passionate. I really like him, exceplent lawyer.
Its more than possible to contact most people these days. He is after all just a solicitor down the street to most people.
Would be aliw to believ any of this, especially the shot he supposidly said to cell mates. Give a few of these guys 1k and theyâll say anything. The cops/state were shown to influence people so we could not possibly take this as true.
I donât think Avery is smart enough re the phone calls etc and again i would temper anything the people at auto-trader supposidly said.
the one thing that got me, is that we are supposed to believe Avery meticulously cleaned both his house and garage to a massive degree of clinical cleanliness to remove any evidence whatsoever of the victim, but yet dumped the body 20 yards from his house in the open, left her car in his yard beside a crusher, and left blood from his hand but no fingerprints in her car. that doesnt stack up. Also, her blood was found in her car, so she was transported in the boot of her car. To where? Are we to believe that he moved her from the garage to the firepit in her car? It makes no sense. If he was to have her in the car, he wouldnt take her out and put her in the middle of his yard and then just leave her car on his property. Just massive inconsistencies in what was supposed to have happened.
The fact that the initial vote on the jury was 7 not guilty, 3 guilty and 2 undecided is really troubling too.
1 Like
Ya thats bananas, how did that swing so hard.
It might sound a bit TVish but i believe these people were got to.
Look at Whitey Bulger, the authorities bent the rules ovee and back many times to allow him flourish. Mental shit.
Whats very clear from this and many other cases and even the way our country has been run for years, Ordinary people cannot handle power.
There was no discussion of alternative suspects in the series, other than mentioning they werenât allowed in by the court. For all you would know watching the series the alternate suspects were the ex-boyfriend or even the brother, as both were cast in a questionable manner. If the documentary was really seeking the truth, as opposed to casting the Avery family in as positive manner as possible, this seems a strange omission. In particular as all 4 alternative suspects had a history of violence against women.
There is a lot of discussion on line about how Steve Avery (or other Averys) may or may not have behaved versus how one might expect him to behave. You have to keep in mind the kind of people we are dealing with, and whether it is reasonable to expect behavior that the average person would find normal. It was disclosed in the documentary that Steveâs IQ was 70 and Brendanâs 69. The range for mental retardation (now known as cognitive dysfunction) is 70 - 75. I agree lots of the evidence doesnât add up, but how much of that is the makers of the documentary leading the audience? Youâd need to be in the courtroom for 6 weeks to really judge that question.
It is quite common for jurors to change their opinion as they discuss a case, the 7-3 was taken before they started to deliberate. You would have to question the one juror who was interviewed in the documentary, given he was excused and missed much of the deliberations.
I thought that juror was odd, and hm turning up at Brendans trial too with the family. Regardless of which, I still find it odd that 7 jurors who in the first vote after the trial all changed their minds. And then to return a not guilty verdict for the body mutilation? You cant have one without the other? That doesnt make sense.