Poll: Steven & Brendan Avery: Guilty or Not?
- Thread starter BBdK
- Start date
Are we going by the reasonable doubt or gut filling? Basically are you saying if we were on the jury? N/M I see your note.
Gut feeling is he killed her. However, I'm not even close to certain, certainly not enough to convict them and sentence to life w/OP.
Gut feeling is he killed her. However, I'm not even close to certain, certainly not enough to convict them and sentence to life w/OP.
Is this poll going to be open for longer than your cheese poll?
Not guilty based on evidence shown in the series. Considerably more than enough evidence to raise serious doubts.
Of course not based on what we saw in the documentary, but I'm ready to check out those those trial transcripts.
do steven and brendan sleep with their bedroom doors open or closed?
do they add cheese to their sausage biscuit?
what are their favorite waters?
what condiments do they add to a hamburger??
do they add cheese to their sausage biscuit?
what are their favorite waters?
what condiments do they add to a hamburger??
I'm only on episode 4. But this entire family is about on a similar plane of intelligence as the white's of wv, no apparent drug use (other than profuse tobacco inhalation) and zero dancing or storytelling talents. Not hard to see why they got railroaded.
"What's inconsistent mean"? My guess is that question stumped them for several thanksgiving dinners.
"What's inconsistent mean"? My guess is that question stumped them for several thanksgiving dinners.
Not guilty by reasonable doubt on what we were shown by the series. Question is how much did the series leave out?
Just finished the series. I would really love to see the trial from start to finish. Watch the actual legal events take place as they did for the jury. We obviously didn't see the prosecution put on a case and then the defense put on theirs. Instead, we saw a mash of them together. I think that likely made it a bit easier to understand and to pick up on. Remember, these jurors had to sit there and listen to almost a month's worth of State's evidence. The defense then was able to put on their evidence (I believe for only 2 days). So, those jurors had to remember back to what was testified to earlier and it might not be as damning or clear as when the evidence is basically presented side by side.
Also, I'd like to know how often the majority of the jury changes from not guilty on initial polls to finally coming to a unanimous guilty. I can see it going from guilty to not guilty, but I have a hard time believing that it is typical that they change from going into the jury room thinking not guilty and end up changing their minds.
Also, I'd like to know how often the majority of the jury changes from not guilty on initial polls to finally coming to a unanimous guilty. I can see it going from guilty to not guilty, but I have a hard time believing that it is typical that they change from going into the jury room thinking not guilty and end up changing their minds.
Steven- guilty
Brendan- not guilty (well I'm not sure his guilt but I couldn't have convicted him based on the evidence)
Brendan- not guilty (well I'm not sure his guilt but I couldn't have convicted him based on the evidence)
So what does Brendan's cousin Kayla recounting her statement and saying "she made it up" say to you?
I agree Brendan got screwed by his first attorney and that private investigator, but still....you sign two confessions, whether pressed by cops or not, you deserve to go to prison.
I agree Brendan got screwed by his first attorney and that private investigator, but still....you sign two confessions, whether pressed by cops or not, you deserve to go to prison.
I think she was covering for her family, BUT am definitely not positive. No way I could convict on what they had on Brendan.
Lol, shocker.
Definitely never want Chad on my jury. Dude thinks everyone is guilty, every time, no matter what.
Definitely never want Chad on my jury. Dude thinks everyone is guilty, every time, no matter what.
I have you blocked, so I missed it.
(someone else told me about this post)
(someone else told me about this post)
Wisconsin has not had the death penalty since 1853, but the state does allow the sentencing option of life without parole.
Wisconsin does have the death penalty its just called slowly dying while living in miserable goddam Wisconsin
He gave an interview in prison about having a torture chamber and killing young women. He is guilty as hell and the other one is a mental case.
The show is no documentary if it doesn't show the family of the victim.
The show is no documentary if it doesn't show the family of the victim.
They asked the family to participate..they refused, however the clips of her brother show he really wasn't interested in hearing anything else.
I believe he could be guilty, but the doc was never about that to me..it's more about problems within the legal system and piss poor operations of small town police.
If you're following this case, today Kathleen Zellner, a pretty famous attorney who's had 17 people released for wrongful convictions filed a motion accusing the officers of planting evidence, including the car and the car keys.
She is asking for newer DNA tests to be done for basically every piece of evidence and says she has enough evidence now to get him released. Finally she claims she'll give her theory who the real killer is after the DNA tests - apparently it's going to be the victim's ex-boyfriend.
She is asking for newer DNA tests to be done for basically every piece of evidence and says she has enough evidence now to get him released. Finally she claims she'll give her theory who the real killer is after the DNA tests - apparently it's going to be the victim's ex-boyfriend.
Last edited:
After watching the documentary it's impossible to say guilty unless you're a cynical contrarian dbag, however I have no idea how accurate or biased the doc was. But based on that being the only thing I've seen it's definitely 100% not guilty. Don't see how you can sit there with a straight face and say that the case is "beyond a reasonable doubt"
^ correct. Don't listen to Chad, he thinks everyone is guilty in every high profile case -- and is proven wrong about 94% of the time.
Jackass probably thought OJ was guilty too smh.
Whoa whoa whoa first I've heard of this, link?
Whoa whoa whoa first I've heard of this, link?
Well I believe he was suing for 13 million or one million a year for however long he was in prison the first time (can't remember the actual figure) , and was one of the motivating factors for framing him as was presented on the show, so I would think something similar.
He didn't give an interview. According to the prosecutors and according to some other inmates, he had drawn a torture chamber while in prison. Not sure how that's relevant anyway.
If he is exonerated and it's found that the police planted evidence, it's no telling how much he'll get. Many millions and will deserve every penny.