Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lunkerslayer" data-source="post: 74176" data-attributes="member: 217">II don’t know if anyone has watched this documentary on Netflix, A sconi was found guilty of a crime where he said that he never committed now there are more than 300000+ signatures asking Obama to pardon this man for a crime supposedly was committed by the local PD. It’s an interesting case of a small town man wrongfully convicted of rape back in the late 80s. Avery was eventually found innocent by DNA evidence and was determined to be another man who was convicted of rape and had lived in the area.Avery was in the process of a civil lawsuit on wrongfully convicted for the amount of 36 million dollars but this gruesome murder of a lady who was working for autotrader.com. She was a photographer who had taken pictures of used cars that Avery had up for sale in the past. I have started watching this documentary as well as news information from the last week or so. There have been a few jurors who have come forward stating that Avery was definitely not guilty by lack of credible evidence. Interesting If Kratz's trial by media does not verify that there is something fundamentally wrong from the absolute beginning, nothing could. The same Kratz who spouted off about his law-abiding honor and years of incredibly "just" service, the same standards of honor that police officers are to be held to, who was then accused of sexual harassment, when he sent lewd text messages to a VICTIM of domestic violence (among others), the very type of victim that he was to be an advocate for. He thought he was above the law and there was more evidence in his case than there was in Steven Avery's. Why? Because Kratz did what he was accused of, denied it vehemently, at least, at first. He sure as hell didn't want to be tried in the media (Associated Press interview) but had no problem placing violent pictures in the minds of the good people of the area that witnessed the trial he held himself in the media, BEFORE Avery's trial in front of a jury. Innocent until proven guilty - there is no such thing.So, someone tell me; why was there no DNA evidence found in Avery's bedroom? How do you rape, cut the hair of, stab and slash the throat of someone on top of a mattress and not find any DNA? Did they find any of the hair that they claim was cut in that bedroom? How about semen, or blood spatter - did they conduct a luminol test? Did they explain to the jury what luminol is? Did they explain how sensitive luminol testing is and that any trace amount would be found? Did they find bleach on the mattress or some other 'cleanser'? Were there marks, or mars on the bedposts from the shackles/chains? How can you as a juror in this case not ask those very very very important questions. It would be the first thought on my mind as a juror - how can we convict when there's no evidence inside the house, the house that the prosecution decided was the scene of the crime? Oh, but wait, four months after they realize that there's no way to get a conviction on the bedroom due to the lack of DNA or evidence of any sort during eight days of searching in November, all of a sudden there's a bullet fragment in the garage. There's a key in the bedroom - the same bedroom that they supposedly searched for 8 days. Why was it mentioned that they removed every single item from the garage? Why did they not remove every single item from the bedroom - you know, the same room that the crime supposedly took place in? The same key inside the very room that four months later a cop that wasn't supposed to be there found? Again, how can any jury not ask those questions? Why was the FBI brought in on this? A favor? An opportunity to make a name by bringing back a test for the presence of EDTA in a blood sample? The same name-making opportunity that was presented during the OJ Simpson trial. Is there such a test today? If so, someone please point me to the URL where I can find this information.Bottom line, neither Steve Avery nor Brendan Dassey received a fair trial - nothing about this entire situation was fair and just. If the family of these two gentlemen reads this post, I want to say, a woman in Missouri, who had never heard of this case before yesterday sees the wrong-doing. Fight the good fight - this should not be over.As a juror, your duty is to walk into a courtroom and take a vow that you will consider all of the evidence before reaching a decision. There is no way on Earth that it could have happened with the evidence, or lack thereof, that was available. How can any of these jurors say that reasonable doubt was present?Minds were made up long before the trial, why? We come full circle to the Kratz media fiasco that TRIED THAT MAN before he ever sat in front a jury. That is wrong!</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA