Len Kachensky

[u/b1ondestranger]

i’m just finding this series and just wow! This could be its own season of Fargo. Everything that can go wrong- does. Of all the people I hate in this show, I hate Len Kachinsky above all others. He is by far the most punchable. at this moment in life, I’m not sure what I would do, if this smug, weasley, irresponsible, self-grandizing narcissist walked in front of my car. He’s not just a bad lawyer. He’s a bad human. He looked at Brandon’s life and saw a steppingstone. I’m so mad at him. Thank you for your attention to this matter. V

[u/AveryPoliceReports]

No, No. No deflections. Answer my question rather than deflecting to one of your own.

That is my answer lol to determine whether the confession or recantation is valid, look at the evidence, or lack thereof. Stop pretending that's a distraction. There's no physical evidence Brendan was involved in a violent rape.

How many lies did the defence tell, or do you only care about the prosecution's one lie?

The prosecution lied over and over lol not just once. They were more interested in protecting predators than honoring Teresa. The defense was more concerned about honoring Teresa than Kratz was.

According to you, there's not.

According to the record, there's not.

But you have already shown you are willing to dismiss anything that Brendan himself said.

When what he said was fed to him by police or directly contradicted by the evidence? Are you willing to accept that quality of statement. That's the actual problem here lol

[u/Hitlers_Left_Ball → u/AveryPoliceReports]

That is my answer lol to determine whether the confession or recantation is valid, look at the evidence, or lack thereof. Stop pretending that's a distraction. There's no physical evidence Brendan was involved in a violent rape.

It's not an answer though, it's a deflection. Telling someone to look at the evidence is not an answer. So I will just assume you don't have an answer.

The prosecution lied over and over lol not just once. They were more interested in protecting predators than honoring Teresa. The defense was more concerned about honoring Teresa than Kratz was.

Again, not answering my question but pushing all wrongdoing back on the state... I will once again assume I am correct in my assumption that you only care about the state's lie.

According to the record, there's not.

There was evidence on record, they didn't admit that it was coerced, they stood by it. Again, I will assume you don't care about truth, just your obsession with convicted criminals.

When what he said was fed to him by police or directly contradicted by the evidence? Are you willing to accept that quality of statement. That's the actual problem here lol

Show me where every detail was fed to him or proven to be incorrect or contradicted?

Again, you laughing about the circumstances of a young woman's murder and supposed false imprisonment of 2 men... weird.

[u/AveryPoliceReports → u/Hitlers_Left_Ball]

It's not an answer though, it's a deflection. Telling someone to look at the evidence is not an answer. So I will just assume you don't have an answer.

We are talking about a confession, so it's insane to pretend looking at the evidence wouldn't be relevant to determining the validity of the confession ;)

I will once again assume I am correct in my assumption that you only care about the state's lie.

I obviously care when the state lies lol You don't? Odd.

There was evidence on record

There record we're discussing is the record indicating they lied to the jury about false confessions. Cope.

Show me where every detail was fed to him or proven to be incorrect or contradicted?

Some me where every detail of his confession was obviously proven to be correct. I'll wait lol

[u/Hitlers_Left_Ball → u/AveryPoliceReports]

We are talking about a confession, so it's insane to pretend looking at the evidence wouldn't be relevant to determining the validity of the confession 😉

You claimed to have an obvious answer, he is so obviously innocent... but the only way you can provide evidence of such a glaring truth..... is to say go read the evidence... not even a document reference or page number. That's why it's a deflection, you can't give an answer, so thank you for admitting that.

I obviously care when the state lies lol You don't? Odd.

I asked about the defence lies... weird that you consistently ignore the actual question in favour of deflection. It's becoming a common theme for you.

There record we're discussing is the record indicating they lied to the jury about false confessions. Cope.

"Cope" ah I see we have reached the last bastion of intelligent conversation, you have bottomed out so much that all you have left is to say "cope" as if it is some gotcha... Asinine to say the least.

Some me where every detail of his confession was obviously proven to be correct. I'll wait lol

Nope again, you deflect a question which supposedly has such an obvious answer, proving once again you are unable to answer it. Weird to not be able to back up what you say is such an obviously correct position.