For Those Who Do Not Think Avery was Framed & Evidence Planted - Discuss

[Limaes]

A lovely tribute from Teresa's family and friends.

http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/remembering-teresa-shell-be-in-my-heart-forever-611975235991

 

[RANCH]

"The point of Strickland is that even extremely incompetent performance of counsel does not support a finding of ineffective assistance, if there was also independent and substantial evidence of the defendant's guilt—or if the end result would have probably been the same in the specific case, even with a competent counsel."

My question related to the bolded above: since an individual is innocent until proven guilty, how do they stand a chance of proving their innocence with incompetent counsel? Who is the individual making the judgment that the evidence shows substantial evidence of guilt? The whole point of a defense attorney is to show how the evidence may be wrong, misleading and to show evidence of innocence.

All IMO, of course, as everyone's posts are.

The defendant is innocent until proven guilty at trial not at appeal.

The people who make the determination that the evidence shows substantial evidence of guilt would be the appellate court.

In my opinion the whole point of a defense attorney is to give the defendant a voice.

That doesn't always mean that the state's evidence is "wrong" or "misleading". The defense could show the jury that there's reasonable doubt even if the state has provided correct and truthful evidence.

JMO

 

[RANCH]

My thoughts as well..the way some of these laws are written ( and YES, I COMPREHEND them 100% ) leave me smh thinking " this makes no sense at all "
JMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I think that the law makes perfect sense.

If a jury finds a defendant guilty and there's plenty of evidence showing the defendant committed the crime, why shouldn't it be okay for an appeals court to go with the weight of the evidence instead of minor errors at trial?

In my opinion it would be a miscarriage of justice if a crimminal is released because of a technicality.

JMO

 

[Saul Vesalot]

I think that the law makes perfect sense.

If a jury finds a defendant guilty and there's plenty of evidence showing the defendant committed the crime, why shouldn't it be okay for an appeals court to go with the weight of the evidence instead of minor errors at trial?

In my opinion it would be a miscarriage of justice if a crimminal is released because of a technicality.

JMO

I don't know that I would consider a drunk/high/sleeping/not even there defense attorney to be a minor error. It is a miscarriage of justice for a defendant to have to rely on an unconscious lawyer at the time of the trial. Justice is not just putting the right person in prison, justice is a process that ends with putting the right person in prison. The process being broken prevents justice from being done, even if the "right' person ends up in prison in the end.

 

[dexter75]

I don't know that I would consider a drunk/high/sleeping/not even there defense attorney to be a minor error. It is a miscarriage of justice for a defendant to have to rely on an unconscious lawyer at the time of the trial. Justice is not just putting the right person in prison, justice is a process that ends with putting the right person in prison. The process being broken prevents justice from being done, even if the "right' person ends up in prison in the end.

My thoughts exactly!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

I think that the law makes perfect sense.

If a jury finds a defendant guilty and there's plenty of evidence showing the defendant committed the crime, why shouldn't it be okay for an appeals court to go with the weight of the evidence instead of minor errors at trial?

In my opinion it would be a miscarriage of justice if a crimminal is released because of a technicality.

JMO

Guess it depends on the " minor error " in question.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[IDK]

I don't know that I would consider a drunk/high/sleeping/not even there defense attorney to be a minor error. It is a miscarriage of justice for a defendant to have to rely on an unconscious lawyer at the time of the trial. Justice is not just putting the right person in prison, justice is a process that ends with putting the right person in prison. The process being broken prevents justice from being done, even if the "right' person ends up in prison in the end.

:goodpost: You nailed it!

 

[IDK]

Guess it depends on the " minor error " in question.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I totally agree Dexter! I wonder if those who think the Strickland rulings are so great would like to be represented by a lawyer who is doped up, asleep, or completely absent from court that day. I highly doubt it. But of course that is the double standard in our justice system, IMO. Many people don't really give a hoot about what kind of representation a "lower class individual" receives.

 

[Madeleine74]

Only he knows. My thinking is that he is just evil.

Howdy to the land of Oz!

Fortunately motive doesn't have to be proved to meet the burden of guilt BARD to a jury. That said, I tend to look at motives in a simple way, especially in this case:

IMO: SA wanted TH, he decided to make that known to her or otherwise act on it, he was determined to get what he wanted, and if she didn't agree then he'd do what he needed to do and then attempt to make sure he didn't get caught.

I believe the rest flowed from that fairly straightforward motive.

And because this is the thread for those who do not think evidence was planted or SA was framed, I believe evidence was found because of the incredible nose of a trained K9 officer, even though SA tried to obliterate TH under a layer of burned tires and resulting ash, as well as her stuff at the bottom of a burn barrel. Brutus was the officer who really solved the whereabouts of TH.

 

[RANCH]

I don't know that I would consider a drunk/high/sleeping/not even there defense attorney to be a minor error. It is a miscarriage of justice for a defendant to have to rely on an unconscious lawyer at the time of the trial. Justice is not just putting the right person in prison, justice is a process that ends with putting the right person in prison. The process being broken prevents justice from being done, even if the "right' person ends up in prison in the end.

Strang and or Buting were drunk/high/sleeping/not even there defense attorney's? I always hear that they did a good job.

 

[Madeleine74]

I think that the law makes perfect sense.

If a jury finds a defendant guilty and there's plenty of evidence showing the defendant committed the crime, why shouldn't it be okay for an appeals court to go with the weight of the evidence instead of minor errors at trial?

In my opinion it would be a miscarriage of justice if a crimminal is released because of a technicality.

JMO

That matches my understanding of the law and what an appellate court does. They look at judicial errors, based on briefs filed by the defendant, and determine whether those errors are valid and if they are valid, if the error was significant enough to create a need to overturn the conviction. Avery struck out at both the circuit appeals court and the state supreme court.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Howdy to the land of Oz!

Fortunately motive doesn't have to be proved to meet the burden of guilt BARD to a jury. That said, I tend to look at motives in a simple way, especially in this case:

IMO: SA wanted TH, he decided to make that known to her or otherwise act on it, he was determined to get what he wanted, and if she didn't agree then he'd do what he needed to do and then attempt to make sure he didn't get caught.

I believe the rest flowed from that fairly straightforward motive.

And because this is the thread for those who do not think evidence was planted or SA was framed, I believe evidence was found because of the incredible nose of a trained K9 officer, even though SA tried to obliterate TH under a layer of burned tires and resulting ash, as well as her stuff at the bottom of a burn barrel. Brutus was the officer who really solved the whereabouts of TH.

.
Actually for the record, TH's stuff was found on the top of a 1/4 to 1/2 full burn barrel, and Deputy Jost and Fallon were the ones to notice the bones in the pit, not Brutus. Brutus only got "agitated" near the burn pit. We don't know the reason he got "agitated" as there was another dog BARKING in the area. Brutus only approached the burn pit up to the LP tank.

"..and will Brutus tend to bark when he's confronted with, say a German Sheperd/"
"Yes"
"Is he interested in other dogs?"
"Not primarily, if the dog barks at him, he will bark back."

From Jury transcripts.

 

[dexter75]

it should also be noted that the first officer to notice the bones in the pit, also noted that they were on top of the crust.

It should also be noted that prior to checking the bum area,I observed that the area had not been disturbed. It
appeared that due to the previous heavy rains we had through the weekend, that being Saturday night/Sunday moming where we received approximately an inch plus in rain, there was a crust over the top of the burn area, the burned ash and materials. It did not appear as if anybody had previously dug into or moved anything within the pile. The two items that we observed were lying directly on the top.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf#page=157

I know this is the thread for those that DO NOT think Avery was Framed, however, I think it's also imperative to state when things are facts and when it is an opinion IMO.

Also, just a suggestion, but maybe someone should start a thread about the Strickland rules. I for one find it interesting

Yes I'd be interested in a Strickland thread as well😊
Thank you for keeping the facts out there and backed up with links, Missy😊
appreciate it

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[RANCH]

Is this the thread for those who do not think that Avery was framed and evidence planted or is it the thread for Avery is innocent and was framed?

I'm a member who wish's to post my opinion about this case and I'll keep doing it on this thread.

 

[Madeleine74]

IMO Brutus is the canine who detected scent(s) that allowed his human officers to find valid evidence and ultimately led officers to discover TH's remains. From being the first 'officer' to investigate the SUV, where he detected the smell of human decomp to his tracking work involving barrels where TH's personal belongings were discovered, he helped investigate a huge (40+ acre) scene.

Brutus was a great asset to the case, possibly one of the few officers who wasn't accused of any malfeasance or conspiracy.

JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

Is this the thread for those who do not think that Avery was framed and evidence planted or is it the thread for Avery is innocent and was framed?

I'm a member who wish's to post my opinion about this case and I'll keep doing it on this thread.

Sometimes I have to look at the thread title as a reminder of where I am because it can get a bit confusing. You're right though, this is a thread for those who do not believe or at least are not convinced there was a conspiracy or planting of evidence in the case.

 

[missy1974]

Is this the thread for those who do not think that Avery was framed and evidence planted or is it the thread for Avery is innocent and was framed?

I'm a member who wish's to post my opinion about this case and I'll keep doing it on this thread.

Fact vs. opinion should be stated regardless of what thread it is in. Surely you would agree. JMO, of course.

 

[RANCH]

Sometimes I have to look at the thread title as a reminder of where I am because it can get a bit confusing. You're right though, this is a thread for those who do not believe or at least are not convinced there was a conspiracy or planting of evidence in the case.

Exactly. I'm not trying to change peoples minds on how they feel about this case so I'm limiting myself to this one thread. It's tough for me to make that decision because normally I like to post on all threads on a case that I'm following.

 

[RANCH]

Fact vs. opinion should be stated regardless of what thread it is in. Surely you would agree. JMO, of course.

Sounds like something a moderator should deal with.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

IMO Brutus is the canine who detected scent(s) that allowed his human officers to find valid evidence and ultimately led officers to discover TH's remains. From being the first 'officer' to investigate the SUV, where he detected the smell of human decomp to his tracking work involving barrels where TH's personal belongings were discovered, he helped investigate a huge (40+ acre) scene.

Brutus was a great asset to the case, possibly one of the few officers who wasn't accused of any malfeasance or conspiracy.

JMO

.
I absolutely agree that Brutus was vital to the case, I'm just not convinced SA killed TH. Someone did~~I'm just not sure who.

I also believe all the cadaver dogs who worked on the case are equally as vital, including Loof, who tracked TH's to the quarry and Kuss Road.

We covered approximately five to ten miles of tracking. One of the more significant tracks that LOOF and FAUSKE tracked was from the south entry door of the red house trailer near the concrete stoop. This track did continue in a westerly direction
toward a cul-de-sac at the end of Kuss Road. It was indicated by FAUSKE that LOOF was very intense on this track.

I don't think you can give weight to one excellent police source without giving weight to the other.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf