MovieChat Forums > fisherbender
fisherbender (3)
Posts
Replies
This was certainly a fact that crossed my mind. I felt that an affair certainly would give him motive yet, no evidence exists to suggests this. I also find it a bit odd that the key witness from Germany's statement originally omitted most of the key details it contained in court. I find it hard to believe that these memories were suppressed for 17 years which you never felt they were important or suspicious enough to report to authorities but, miraculously when you arrive in North Carolina and start spending time with the prosecution these things start to come back to you. I thought this was compelling evidence but quite literally irrelevant and inflammatory. While i understand that the ME determined it was homicide originally it was ruled an accident. Exactly why should I believe this ME over the original autopsy report. I just found the whole thing to be corrupt and disingenuous from the state. I felt that they had their minds made up when they walked in the house and would stop at nothing to convict this guy. While i think if they would have done their jobs right and explored all possibilities they would have had a much more convincing case. Instead they attempted to manipulate evidence and add things that made it look like exactly what it was, a railroading. Michael was gonna be convicted with or without the evidence
While I agree the Lacerations are very curious the same could be said for how you encounter so much trauma without suffering from a skull fracture or brain bleed of some sort. My point would be to say that while i agree there are certainly things that make you think something more happened, the prosecution never proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a "beating" took place much less that Michael committed it. Furthermore as a citizen of the United States it shakes me to my core to think that the state would manipulate evidence something that was very clearly done in this case and that any juror would find any credibility with the Blood spatter anylisis expert in the first trial (the one that admitted that the crime lab was manipulating evidence to assist with convictions). When I watched his testimony FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME (at which time i was leaning towards Michaels Guilt rather than innocence). I quite literally laughed out loud. To see his outrageous experiment in which he took small "love tap swings" at a sponge filled with red paint and just continue to walk through the blood and anything else he could think of to make the experiment match the crime scene was absolutely laughable. The funniest part however is when he attempted to explain the lack of cast off by saying that the murderer could have "wiped the weapon of between blows." My jaw quite literally dropped as i thought about the possibility of a murders striking their victim saying "hey stay still a minute while i wipe away this blood" then WHACK again. Stop "Your making a mess honey im gonna have to wipe this damn thing off again" WHACK i mean are you serious. Yet the jury said this was some of the most convincing testimony of the trial. If this is the case then NOT GUILTY was an obvious choice because nothing about this guy came across as anything less than a made up story. I do not know weather Michael killed his wife but, he was certainly never given the presumption of innocence.
View all replies >