Speaking of the Verdict
On Steven Avery.
My take is the verdict is it is the correct one. Yeah the not-guilty on the mutilation charge seems nonsensical but who knows. Remember we are dealing with the legal system here with its extreme attention to niggling detail. Also, as is rampantly speculated there could have been some jury nullification. Most experts have speculated about "charge trading", but the important charge was the first degree intentional homicide.
The defense utilized a very prosecutorial approach. They tried to prosecute the investigators. IIRC the defenses opening statement included a comment along the lines of Steven Avery and the investigators had one thing in common and that was neither killed Ms. Halbach. That is, they investigators found the body, car, etc and then planted it all. I think that was lame-lame-lame. The only real fact supporting the defense's case was motive.
Steven had no real motive to kill Ms. Halbach and the county did have motive to go after Mr. Avery. I heard some talk about if there was a frame-up, it was done by his family because he was hurting the business, but even that seems outlandish.
Of course, many people try to wonder why would he do such a thing or did not do a better job of hiding it. After all, he was in jail, or he should have known he would be a chief suspect, if he did it he would have done a better job of hiding the evidence etc. Too clever by half. Remember, Steven Avery even prior to the false imprisonment was one of the usual suspects. Is it considered recidivism even if you were in jail for something you didn't do?
One last note. Do not vent on the Wisconsin Innocence Project (WIP). Steven did not commit the rape he was accused of. In fact, comparing the recidivism of those sprung by the WIP to the general prison population supports the work of the WIP.
My take is the verdict is it is the correct one. Yeah the not-guilty on the mutilation charge seems nonsensical but who knows. Remember we are dealing with the legal system here with its extreme attention to niggling detail. Also, as is rampantly speculated there could have been some jury nullification. Most experts have speculated about "charge trading", but the important charge was the first degree intentional homicide.
The defense utilized a very prosecutorial approach. They tried to prosecute the investigators. IIRC the defenses opening statement included a comment along the lines of Steven Avery and the investigators had one thing in common and that was neither killed Ms. Halbach. That is, they investigators found the body, car, etc and then planted it all. I think that was lame-lame-lame. The only real fact supporting the defense's case was motive.
Steven had no real motive to kill Ms. Halbach and the county did have motive to go after Mr. Avery. I heard some talk about if there was a frame-up, it was done by his family because he was hurting the business, but even that seems outlandish.
Of course, many people try to wonder why would he do such a thing or did not do a better job of hiding it. After all, he was in jail, or he should have known he would be a chief suspect, if he did it he would have done a better job of hiding the evidence etc. Too clever by half. Remember, Steven Avery even prior to the false imprisonment was one of the usual suspects. Is it considered recidivism even if you were in jail for something you didn't do?
One last note. Do not vent on the Wisconsin Innocence Project (WIP). Steven did not commit the rape he was accused of. In fact, comparing the recidivism of those sprung by the WIP to the general prison population supports the work of the WIP.
Labels: Steven Avery
posted by Marcus Aurelius @ 9:58 AM
<< Home