Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Okay, after finishing it......Im thinking maybe he might have maybe killed her....Brendan on the other hand needs to be freed immediately. What happened to him is ridiculous.
On the other hand the conspiracy gets very unwieldy. The cops would had to have known she was murdered somewhere else. Drove her truck onto his land. Scattered her remains in his fire pits. That sounds crazy until you see that his blood sample had been tampered with and the same cops who convicted him for a crime he clearly and positively did not commit a decade before were the same ones coming after him again and finding all the new evidence (even though they weren't suppose to be active in the investigation due to a conflict of interest created by him suing them). One of them even called in the missing car's tag's several days before the car was found and gave a description of the car he was...not looking at?
The conspiracy theory just seems to bloated to be probable yet there's evidence that's hard to ignore. The idea that he just up and randomly killed some girl after he was getting his life back together seems improbable as well.
The most damning thing and what I think swayed the jury was the EDTA blood vile. Even that is weird though. Their is no blood or DNA evidence in any suspected crime scene area except for a trace of his blood in her car. SO he cleaned up everything LIKE A BOSS but forgot about the ignition switch on her vehicle.
This is one of those stories where the truth will never be known. That's why I think it bothers the hell out of me so much.
On the other hand the conspiracy gets very unwieldy. The cops would had to have known she was murdered somewhere else. Drove her truck onto his land. Scattered her remains in his fire pits. That sounds crazy until you see that his blood sample had been tampered with and the same cops who convicted him for a crime he clearly and positively did not commit a decade before were the same ones coming after him again and finding all the new evidence (even though they weren't suppose to be active in the investigation due to a conflict of interest created by him suing them). One of them even called in the missing car's tag's several days before the car was found and gave a description of the car he was...not looking at?
The conspiracy theory just seems to bloated to be probable yet there's evidence that's hard to ignore. The idea that he just up and randomly killed some girl after he was getting his life back together seems improbable as well.
The most damning thing and what I think swayed the jury was the EDTA blood vile. Even that is weird though. Their is no blood or DNA evidence in any suspected crime scene area except for a trace of his blood in her car. SO he cleaned up everything LIKE A BOSS but forgot about the ignition switch on her vehicle.
This is one of those stories where the truth will never be known. That's why I think it bothers the hell out of me so much.
I don't think it necessarily has to be a big conspiracy. It's mainly Lenk. Beyond him, it really could just be a lot of looking the other way and not making waves.
It is a documentary, and it was clear that the filmmakers did not believe he did it, so the film was cut that way. But I just can't imagine what might have been cut out of that that would have showed that this was anything other than a huge miscarriage of justice. The fact that seven people went into the jury room believing he was innocent and ended up voting to convict seems unbelievable to me. And how did they get to that verdict? If they believed that he killed her, they have to believe that he burned her body, i.e., that he mutilated her corpse. How could they find him guilty of murder but not guilty of mutilating a corpse? It doesn't make any sense.
On the other hand the conspiracy gets very unwieldy. The cops would had to have known she was murdered somewhere else. Drove her truck onto his land. Scattered her remains in his fire pits. That sounds crazy until you see that his blood sample had been tampered with and the same cops who convicted him for a crime he clearly and positively did not commit a decade before were the same ones coming after him again and finding all the new evidence (even though they weren't suppose to be active in the investigation due to a conflict of interest created by him suing them). One of them even called in the missing car's tag's several days before the car was found and gave a description of the car he was...not looking at?
The conspiracy theory just seems to bloated to be probable yet there's evidence that's hard to ignore. The idea that he just up and randomly killed some girl after he was getting his life back together seems improbable as well.
The most damning thing and what I think swayed the jury was the EDTA blood vile. Even that is weird though. Their is no blood or DNA evidence in any suspected crime scene area except for a trace of his blood in her car. SO he cleaned up everything LIKE A BOSS but forgot about the ignition switch on her vehicle.
This is one of those stories where the truth will never be known. That's why I think it bothers the hell out of me so much.
I don't think it necessarily has to be a big conspiracy. It's mainly Lenk. Beyond him, it really could just be a lot of looking the other way and not making waves.
It is a documentary, and it was clear that the filmmakers did not believe he did it, so the film was cut that way. But I just can't imagine what might have been cut out of that that would have showed that this was anything other than a huge miscarriage of justice. The fact that seven people went into the jury room believing he was innocent and ended up voting to convict seems unbelievable to me. And how did they get to that verdict? If they believed that he killed her, they have to believe that he burned her body, i.e., that he mutilated her corpse. How could they find him guilty of murder but not guilty of mutilating a corpse? It doesn't make any sense.
I don't think it necessarily has to be a big conspiracy. It's mainly Lenk. Beyond him, it really could just be a lot of looking the other way and not making waves.
It is a documentary, and it was clear that the filmmakers did not believe he did it, so the film was cut that way. But I just can't imagine what might have been cut out of that that would have showed that this was anything other than a huge miscarriage of justice. The fact that seven people went into the jury room believing he was innocent and ended up voting to convict seems unbelievable to me. And how did they get to that verdict? If they believed that he killed her, they have to believe that he burned her body, i.e., that he mutilated her corpse. How could they find him guilty of murder but not guilty of mutilating a corpse? It doesn't make any sense.
Which is bullshit because the only evidence they can go after him on it was his own confession. The one that should've been thrown out before the case went forward.
I don't think it necessarily has to be a big conspiracy. It's mainly Lenk. Beyond him, it really could just be a lot of looking the other way and not making waves.
It is a documentary, and it was clear that the filmmakers did not believe he did it, so the film was cut that way. But I just can't imagine what might have been cut out of that that would have showed that this was anything other than a huge miscarriage of justice. The fact that seven people went into the jury room believing he was innocent and ended up voting to convict seems unbelievable to me. And how did they get to that verdict? If they believed that he killed her, they have to believe that he burned her body, i.e., that he mutilated her corpse. How could they find him guilty of murder but not guilty of mutilating a corpse? It doesn't make any sense.
I was under the impression that the information about Brendan was not discussed at Steven's trial since Brendan wasn't testifying. That was why they had to completely drop the kidnapping and sexual assault charges - because Brendan's testimony was the only evidence of those charges. I don't know for sure. My knowledge about criminal law is limited, but I don't think the charges against Brendan would have been discussed at all at Steven's trial. And regardless, if they both participated in burning her body, they both could be convicted of mutilating a corpse.
God this guy is such a douchebag. That fuckin smirk he gave every time a camera was in his face drove me crazy.
I'm not sure who was worse, him or Kratz. Three episodes in, I told Josh I thought the title of the show was directed towards the audience because it had made me want to murder several people.
It doesn't, by any means, excuse the corruption that was clearly present in the case or mean that he should have been convicted, but it does muddy the waters a little bit on my feeling of whether he was guilty or innocent.
So is it real footage documentary or more like based on a true story? I am not familiar with Serial or anything but saw this was on Netflix and people on FB are talking about it.
So is it real footage documentary or more like based on a true story? I am not familiar with Serial or anything but saw this was on Netflix and people on FB are talking about it.
It's a documentary. The filmmakers initially got involved with the idea of making a film about the guy who is the focus of it for one reason, and then, while they were in the process, a whole new aspect of the story began to unfold and the film ended up getting greatly expanded. So it's fairly unique in that, unlike a normal documentary where they have to go back after the fact and put things together, a lot of the filming was actually done as the story was taking place.
It doesn't, by any means, excuse the corruption that was clearly present in the case or mean that he should have been convicted, but it does muddy the waters a little bit on my feeling of whether he was guilty or innocent.
Damn! That is one hell of an article, thank you NBF! I'm left with you're exact same thought in the spoiler above. For the folks who haven't watched DONT READ THIS THREAD!
As far as the conviction. I'm not really sure if he did it or not. It's crazy to think the police would frame him but the other details like why he would just leave the RAV4 on his lot is baffling. I don't believe he should be in jail though. I don't think their enough evidence point either way.