Go Back   Forums @ The Digital Fix > Entertainment Discussion Forums > Television Discussion

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-01-2016, 15:58   #61
LouBarlow
Retired Member
 
LouBarlow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 55,655
Thanks: 923
Thanked 979 Times in 620 Posts
Ultimately, what all of these documentaries prove (beyond a doubt!) is that the jury system needs to be overhauled. The defence goes through detailed, intricate explanations for why certain things can't have happened the way they did, and they are sometimes just lost on the type of person who makes up your average juror off the street, who can't see beyond pre-conceived opinion.

They need proper, expert 'judges' to hear both sides of an argument, and be able to understand the evidence fully, and what it means. If 'beyond a doubt' is to be continued, it needs to be enforced more rigorously, unless you want to argue that having a potential killer walk free is less preferential than having an innocent go to prison for the rest of their life, and I can understand both sides of that argument to be honest.
LouBarlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2016, 17:04   #62
jockosjungle
formerly rbullivant
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 21,797
Thanks: 278
Thanked 1,072 Times in 765 Posts
Not sure the judges would make better decisions, they seem to not much care and be on the prosecutions side.
jockosjungle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2016, 17:58   #63
LouBarlow
Retired Member
 
LouBarlow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 55,655
Thanks: 923
Thanked 979 Times in 620 Posts
Have independent judges then. If you watch the 3rd part of Paradise Lost, when they take the case to the Supreme Court, who have no trouble cutting down the assistant DA to size. If you have more than one judge, you cut down on such bias also.
LouBarlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2016, 18:08   #64
alsemail
Bibble....
 
alsemail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,732
Thanks: 918
Thanked 623 Times in 354 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouBarlow View Post
Ultimately, what all of these documentaries prove (beyond a doubt!) is that the jury system needs to be overhauled. The defence goes through detailed, intricate explanations for why certain things can't have happened the way they did, and they are sometimes just lost on the type of person who makes up your average juror off the street, who can't see beyond pre-conceived opinion.
Having spent some time on a jury a number of years ago it was scary how a few of them could not retain basic facts of the case, were too disinterested to care or just went along with the popular concensus.
One of them didn't want to say he was guilty as the accused "had a young family" and "it would be a shame to break them up"

Last edited by alsemail; 03-01-2016 at 18:10.
alsemail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2016, 19:44   #65
dvds2000
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunderland
Posts: 4,249
Thanks: 32
Thanked 76 Times in 58 Posts
So I'm at episode 8, and I don't think the prosecution have come anywhere near to proving he did it beyond reasonable doubt.

The key, at the very least, it shows the cops weren't doing their job properly, how was it missed in so many searches.
Not a shred of DNA evidence in the pace where they said she was killed.
The blood in the car, none left to get independent tests done on, but if there were 6 stains, where were the rest? Plus the test wasn't exactly rock solid.

Even getting rid of the corrupt cops defense, was there even enough evidence to convict him, surely there would have been some blood, some dna, something they could link him to the death with.

The ONLY bit of evidence linking him to the crime was the blood in the car, which was suspect at least. And it was never explained why the vial of blood had a hole in the top or why the evidence box had been tampered with. Having said that there seems to be quite a bit that wasn't in the documentary.

At least anonymous are on the case now

Last edited by dvds2000; 03-01-2016 at 20:13.
dvds2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2016, 20:40   #66
jockosjungle
formerly rbullivant
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 21,797
Thanks: 278
Thanked 1,072 Times in 765 Posts
The car was on his property, his blood was in the car, the key was in his room, the bones were in his bonfire, there was plenty to convict him on.

Not sure they said where she was killed, they put a lot out there and talked about a lot of stuff in the documentary, but I'm not sure it was ever put into the court record, all the stuff with his nephew was never included.

It's a trial at the end of the day, and it comes down to who you believe, a man who wouldn't even speak in his own defence.

It was a pretty one sided documentary as far as I can tell, I think it started out looking at his wrongful conviction and they lucked into the murder. Wanted to show he was innocent and left out a load of the evidence, then made out he was wrongfully convicted.
jockosjungle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2016, 20:51   #67
dvds2000
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunderland
Posts: 4,249
Thanks: 32
Thanked 76 Times in 58 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbullivant View Post
The car was on his property, his blood was in the car, the key was in his room, the bones were in his bonfire, there was plenty to convict him on.
Well yes but the property was open, pretty much anyone could get up there, the key was defo dodgy as it wasn't found in loads of searches then just happened to appear on the floor one day, did they not say earlier the bones showed signs of being moved, the only evidence that wasn't dodgy in my eyes was the blood, but then that was a bit suspect too. The conviction has to be beyond reasonable doubt, to me there was definitely reasonable doubt.

Quote:
Not sure they said where she was killed, they put a lot out there and talked about a lot of stuff in the documentary, but I'm not sure it was ever put into the court record, all the stuff with his nephew was never included.

It's a trial at the end of the day, and it comes down to who you believe, a man who wouldn't even speak in his own defence.
I believe most lawyers in the US advise clients against giving evidence themselves in court.

Quote:
It was a pretty one sided documentary as far as I can tell, I think it started out looking at his wrongful conviction and they lucked into the murder. Wanted to show he was innocent and left out a load of the evidence, then made out he was wrongfully convicted.
I agree, which is why I said there seems to a lot that isn't included that could make a difference to what people think.

As for the other guy, wtf, it was obvious he was lying so how the hell did he get convicted!
dvds2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2016, 20:58   #68
jockosjungle
formerly rbullivant
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 21,797
Thanks: 278
Thanked 1,072 Times in 765 Posts
Did they present their own forensic experts? They just seemed to be bad mouthing the police, rather than anyone do anything themselves.
jockosjungle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2016, 21:04   #69
alsemail
Bibble....
 
alsemail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,732
Thanks: 918
Thanked 623 Times in 354 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbullivant View Post
The car was on his property, his blood was in the car, the key was in his room, the bones were in his bonfire, there was plenty to convict him on.
Did you read my spoilered post #54

There was a fair bit of scientific and other evidence which disputed all that or at least raised questions the prosecution couldn't answer or never redressed.

It was obvious we never really saw a lot of the trial but all this was mentioned in the documentary.

Last edited by alsemail; 03-01-2016 at 21:31.
alsemail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2016, 21:46   #70
dvds2000
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunderland
Posts: 4,249
Thanks: 32
Thanked 76 Times in 58 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbullivant View Post
Did they present their own forensic experts? They just seemed to be bad mouthing the police, rather than anyone do anything themselves.
There were no blood samples left to test.
They did have an expert testify that the test that was done wasn't reliable.

As for the other stuff, it was all questioned.

If I'm remembering rightly, the car key, was it not only Stephens DNA found on it, none of hers? Might be wrong about that.

What I also don't get is, how, if he was careful enough to be able to remove every trace of his DNA from the car, and every trace of her DNA from the murder scene, why on earth would he be stupid enough to
Leave blood stains in the car
Not crush the car
Leave a key to the car, which seems to have been invisible until after Lenk went to the garage, to be easily found
Leave a bullet with her DNA at the murder scene, yet manage to clean every single trace of her DNA from every single item in the garage, without making it look like anything had been cleaned. Like surely if you shoot someone there are blood spatters, the garage was a mess, but not a single item had a single cell of blood or DNA on, nor did the concrete floor, despite not being cleaned.

I honestly don't know if he did it, but if I had been on the jury, even taking into account the extra evidence that isn't in the Netflix film, I think I would have struggled to convict.

As for Brendan, I have no idea why he's in jail.
dvds2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2016, 05:20   #71
LouBarlow
Retired Member
 
LouBarlow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 55,655
Thanks: 923
Thanked 979 Times in 620 Posts
There was also DNA (from sweat I believe) found under the hood of her car, again linking Avery to it, which wasn't mentioned in the documentary. If you go back and read Brendan's first confession, it offers a more believable version of what could have happened.

I personally think he did it (Stephen) but there are so many variables to consider. He may well have done it, and police planted evidence to bolster their case - likewise, a 3rd party could have done it, and likewise the police planted the evidence to deflect the blame - either way, there can be no doubt that at least some police tampering went on i.e. the key.

Unless there is a confession now (from either Avery or the real killer) I can't see how anyone would ever know truly what happened. Either way, it seems both men are shafted.
LouBarlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2016, 08:34   #72
jockosjungle
formerly rbullivant
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 21,797
Thanks: 278
Thanked 1,072 Times in 765 Posts
His lawyers don't seem that fussed do they? As soon as he stopped paying them they no longer cared. You think they might have took his appeal pro bono if they genuinely believed there was a massive miscarriage of justice.

I don't think the family is very smart, if the best defence you can come up with is "he's innocent because if he did it, he'd hide his tracks better" isn't much of a defence.

Brendan is in jail because he admitted to doing it, numerous times. His sister(?) also said he did it, they then later changed their story. After you've sat at home for a few months with family pressure and realise he's facing life in prison, you all say the statements are lies.

You then stand up in court and say I was lying about all that, but now I'm telling the truth. I wouldn't put much weight on their story and I'd suggest the original confession was key (he was drawing pictures of what they did to her, etc.)
jockosjungle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2016, 08:48   #73
alsemail
Bibble....
 
alsemail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,732
Thanks: 918
Thanked 623 Times in 354 Posts
The drawings that he did for his lawyers investigator?

They were all ********, the evidence doesn't stack up with those statements.
alsemail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2016, 09:41   #74
jockosjungle
formerly rbullivant
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 21,797
Thanks: 278
Thanked 1,072 Times in 765 Posts
He described the handcuffs and chains that Steve had bought 3 weeks prior, the kid said what he did to her, which would seem to stack up with the evidence that the body and car was found near where he lives.

I'm not saying he didn't talk himself into a long jail sentence and he could of got away with it, but what can they do? His Mother says you were with her at the time, he then says he sneaked away later.
jockosjungle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2016, 09:46   #75
alsemail
Bibble....
 
alsemail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,732
Thanks: 918
Thanked 623 Times in 354 Posts
There was no blood or DNA in the trailer. Where they chained her up, assaulted her and slit her throat according to his confession.
alsemail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2016, 10:45   #76
dvds2000
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunderland
Posts: 4,249
Thanks: 32
Thanked 76 Times in 58 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbullivant View Post
His lawyers don't seem that fussed do they? As soon as he stopped paying them they no longer cared. You think they might have took his appeal pro bono if they genuinely believed there was a massive miscarriage of justice.

I don't think the family is very smart, if the best defence you can come up with is "he's innocent because if he did it, he'd hide his tracks better" isn't much of a defence.

Brendan is in jail because he admitted to doing it, numerous times. His sister(?) also said he did it, they then later changed their story. After you've sat at home for a few months with family pressure and realise he's facing life in prison, you all say the statements are lies.

You then stand up in court and say I was lying about all that, but now I'm telling the truth. I wouldn't put much weight on their story and I'd suggest the original confession was key (he was drawing pictures of what they did to her, etc.)

You can't jail someone for life because they make a false confession, while being prompted by the police, even to the extent of telling them how the person was killed.
Theres no way it happened anywhere close to what he said as there MUST have been loads of DNA in the trailer. You don't stab someone multiple times and then shoot them without leaving some trace of the crime.
Plus the prosecution seemed quite happy to accept his version in his trial, but in Steven's, suggested the kill site was somewhere else. Both can't be right.

As for describing the handcuffs, well he might well have seen then and thats why he made his fantasy up, and included them in it.

Like I said, I don't know if Steven did it, but theres more than enough doesn't add up to suggest reasonable doubt. I also don't understand why all appeals were refused. This was a controversial case, one that made national headlines at the time, surely an appeal would satisfy all the doubters, unless they were scared that for a second time, an innocent man would be released from jail.

I keep going back to the key. It was a main bit of evidence. Yet it wasn't once explained how it managed to just appear there on the floor, after the same area had been searched numerous times already. I've got no doubt that was planted there, most likely by Lenk. If thats true then all other evidence must be considered tainted, and begs the question, where did it come from. Also, why did Lenk call in the plates 2 days before the car was found.
Same as the fact the evidence box containing the blood had been tampered with. Surely there should have been an investigation into that.

It certainly could be argued, Lenk found the car, maybe with the key in, 2 days before the car was found. That is plenty of time for him to have planted the blood evidence, move the car onto Stevens property and keep the key hoping to be able to plant it at a later date. Even if that didn't happen, don't forget under oath he stated he was arrived at the scene around 6 or 7pm, then in the trial to explain why he didn't sign in, he arrived around 2pm. If nothing else he should have been prosecuted for lying under oath.
dvds2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2016, 11:07   #77
jockosjungle
formerly rbullivant
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 21,797
Thanks: 278
Thanked 1,072 Times in 765 Posts
I suppose you need to trust the police, hard to accept I know. However if you can't accept the police are honest then nobody would ever go to prison. Anyone could say the police had it in for them or they planted the evidence.

There was an investigation into the tampered blood, the FBI ran a test on it, it was negative. Do the FBI now have it in for him as well?

The story you're telling is pretty unbelievable, they found the car and then drove it to his house and then painted his blood in it, then crudely hid it. This is a woman who definitely was at his house.

The whole thing only works if you accept a lot of other people committed a very serious crime, and as the prosecutor said, if you're going to do that, you need some proof.
jockosjungle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2016, 11:44   #78
dvds2000
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunderland
Posts: 4,249
Thanks: 32
Thanked 76 Times in 58 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbullivant View Post
I suppose you need to trust the police, hard to accept I know. However if you can't accept the police are honest then nobody would ever go to prison. Anyone could say the police had it in for them or they planted the evidence.

There was an investigation into the tampered blood, the FBI ran a test on it, it was negative. Do the FBI now have it in for him as well?

The story you're telling is pretty unbelievable, they found the car and then drove it to his house and then painted his blood in it, then crudely hid it. This is a woman who definitely was at his house.

The whole thing only works if you accept a lot of other people committed a very serious crime, and as the prosecutor said, if you're going to do that, you need some proof.
well yes, but as I say, I don't know if he did it, but from a legal standpoint, was there reasonable doubt? I think there was.

Everything you say was countered by the defence, pretty convincingly.
The blood test had only ever been used once before, in the OJ case. They said it would take a couple of months to run, but managed to do it in 2 days. The defence had an expert who clearly stated the test was unreliable at best. Doesn't that give reasonable doubt? Thats without the fact the evidence box had been tampered with and a syringe hole in the top of the blood test tube.

Why did the cop run the plates of her car 2 days before it was found if he wasn't looking at it, coincidentally the same cop who 'found' the key in a place that had already been searched numerous times.

I don't think its unbelievable at all. This is a cop who was involved in the initial investigation that led to Steven spending 18 years in jail, people hold grudges. Also, I think Lenk was probably the only one who did anything, I think others got dragged in because they were there, but don't think any of the others did anything wrong, certainly not intentionally.

DNA testing in 2005 was pretty reliable. If she was killed in the trailer in the way described, there must have been some DNA or blood.
If she was killed in the garage, same applies.
But not one cell was found in either place, this is a girl was was stabbed multiple times, had her throat cut then shot multiple times. The prosecution didn't say anything showed signs of being cleaned, no new bed or mattress, so presumably it was the stuff that had been there at the time of the killing, but not one spot of blood managed to sneak onto any item.

He could have killed her elsewhere, he could have stabbed her once, or shot her once, somewhere out in the yard and got rid of the evidence, probably quite easily. But in the trailer or garage?

The bones were found not only behind his trailer, but some were found over 10 miles away and also in a burn barrel. The body could have been burnt 10 miles away then someone tried to frame him by bringing most back and putting them in his burn pit. I have no idea, but if I was burning a body, I think if I was trying to get rid of the bones, I would carry them away from my property, not from 10 miles away to my property.

I honestly have no idea if he did it, but certainly don't think it was beyond reasonable doubt, and can't see how a 16 year old boy who obviously has learning difficulties, with a different version of what happened to what was presented in court at the main trial, is sitting in jail.
dvds2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2016, 11:56   #79
dannywonderful
Bon Viveur
 
dannywonderful's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Coventry,England
Posts: 4,018
Thanks: 0
Thanked 56 Times in 47 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvds2000 View Post

Why did the cop run the plates of her car 2 days before it was found if he wasn't looking at it, coincidentally the same cop who 'found' the key in a place that had already been searched numerous times.
Without trying to refute any of the points you're making, it wasn't the same cop (Lenk) that called in the car number plate it was Colborn.
dannywonderful is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2016, 12:17   #80
dvds2000
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sunderland
Posts: 4,249
Thanks: 32
Thanked 76 Times in 58 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannywonderful View Post
Without trying to refute any of the points you're making, it wasn't the same cop (Lenk) that called in the car number plate it was Colborn.

so it was, still, surely it begs the question as to why? Unless he was looking at it all covered up on Steven's property, then it must have been moved after that point.
dvds2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Netflix making new Star Trek series? LeftHandedGuitarist Television Discussion 15 17-06-2014 20:31
[Blu-Ray] So I Married An Axe Murderer Ł5 T4V Bargain Forum 0 24-10-2012 10:22
[blu-ray] Perfume: The Story of a Murderer Richie DVD and Blu-ray Discussion 3 05-10-2009 15:40
So I Married An Axe Murderer re-release. megatron Film Discussion 0 12-02-2004 22:29
So I married an axe murderer? Guest 3357 Film Discussion 16 04-01-2004 01:43

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:28.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018 Poisonous Monkey Ltd. Part of The Digital Fix Network