(01-09-2016 12:42 PM)BlueRaider0x0 Wrote:  Put me in the boat of not quite sure if Avery is guilty. To me the "evidence" seemed too suspicious to prove 100% guilty. For instance, I don't get how the key to the RAV4 was found after multiple sweeps of the room. It was in plain sight and "discovered" by a Officer Lenk, who was included in the $36 million lawsuit. Second, the way the DA describes this murder, Halbach was bound and tied to Avery's bed. She was then stabbed, her throat was slashed, and then shot. Where was all the blood at? Avery is described as a man of below average intelligence. Was he able to clean this blood from his mattress, carpet, walls, etc? Now the 11 shell casings the investigators found in March after Brenden was arrested. Again, these investigators missed 11 casings after multiple sweeps of the property the previous November? These people must really suck at their job! What about the officer who called dispatch where it sounded as if he found the RAV4 before it was found at the Avery compound? Finally the blood vile. That evidence was obviously tampered with. The state combated this by having the FBI resurrect a test to detect EDT in less than 3 weeks. The memo the FBI recieved by the state indicated the direction in which they wanted the results to lean.

Regarding Brenden, that poor kid had no chance. It was disgusting to watch his court appointed lawyer lead him in a direction in which he would believe he was guilty. The investigators took advantage of his low ability to process information and led their questioning to get the answers they wanted. His shyster lawyer Len C. was in obvious cahoots with the DA and Brenden was completely screwed from the get go. To me his interrogations alone would have been enough for me as a juror to say that he was manipulated by law enforcement and the judicial system to get what they wanted. The system failed him miserably.

Agreed on all of the above.

The two cases seem to contradict one another. The way that Brendan was convicted seems to suggest they believed his original confession, if they believed his original confession, where was the blood indeed?

With no other evidence linking Brendan to the crime or any supposed scene of the crime, you can't convict him on any thing other than his original confession, which has no physical evidence to support it.

Seems to me the jury either just thought, okay he did it and despite his obvious cognitive challenges he somehow has managed to eliminate all possible evidence and never slip up on the stand, so even though it's clear his first confession was bull****, he did it and we're okay calling him guilty with no evidence... Or they all lacked critical thinking skills to see that however Teresa did die, it wasn't as Brendan described it in that first confession.

I grew up in town similar in size to there. We had a family that I think would be very similiar to the Avery's named Newcomb. Owned about 20 acres. Had a gravel pit a beer joint and scrap yard on it. About 8 trailers housing 12 families. Very poor. Most couldn't read. If you wanted to insult your friends growing up you called them a Newcomb. When I watch this and think "how could any juror not have reasonable doubt?" I think of that family. Given how most people thought of them I could see them easily being being convicted under questionable circumstances. I think most would think even if they didn't do it it's better to get them out of the community. It's not right but I have zero doubt that it would happen.

The "confession" still disgusts me days after watching it. I think there is special place in hell for those investigators.

It's just hard to trust these people anymore. A quick side story, my friend was involved with a domestic assault case in which her boyfriend pulled a gun on her. Long story short when the case went to court the local DA was trying to make her testify using specific words so he would go to jail. When she refused to do so (because she is honest and what they wanted her to say wasn't true) the DA, the defense attorney, and judge had a pow wow near the stand. Her attention was diverted. I was near them heard the DA actually say while laughing "wouldn't it be something if she went to jail for perjury while he walks." They ALL laughed too.

I told her immediately afterwards as it appeared they were going to come after her instead. She immediately retained a lawyer. In the end she was ok. But I was so angry to personally watch this and I couldn't believe it. But that was the moment I lost faith because it hit close to home.

I watched the whole documentary - fascinating viewing but I'm still torn as to whether Avery (and the nephew) are guilty of the murder. I think I read recently where Steven Avery is thinking his two brothers might have done it instead of him. I'm not sure why his attorneys didn't try to play up other potential people who could have done it besides Avery.

There was another incident that I thought Avery's attorneys didn't press the issue properly. The incident where the lady who was in charge of the evidence tainted the bullet's DNA because she was distracted by two people she was training at the same time. I thought that was fishy in itself because why in the world would she be training people in the middle of one of the most important cases (and pieces of evidence) in the state's history? And then if she was training people, couldn't they have found those people to corroborate her story?

(01-09-2016 10:53 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I watched the whole documentary - fascinating viewing but I'm still torn as to whether Avery (and the nephew) are guilty of the murder. I think I read recently where Steven Avery is thinking his two brothers might have done it instead of him. I'm not sure why his attorneys didn't try to play up other potential people who could have done it besides Avery.

It was covered early on. The judge ruled that they are not allowed to offer alternative suspects in court. It's why they didn't go after the ex-boyfriend that couldn't remember what time of day he went to her house. It's why they didn't offer the brothers or police as suspects. They called it "third party liability". I am not a lawyer so I was pretty shocked. His lawyers didn't seem surprised. I guess I watched too much Perry Mason and Matlock as a kid but it seems to me that the best way to create reasonable doubt is to offer other possible suspects.

(01-09-2016 10:53 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  There was another incident that I thought Avery's attorneys didn't press the issue properly. The incident where the lady who was in charge of the evidence tainted the bullet's DNA because she was distracted by two people she was training at the same time. I thought that was fishy in itself because why in the world would she be training people in the middle of one of the most important cases (and pieces of evidence) in the state's history? And then if she was training people, couldn't they have found those people to corroborate her story?

Particularly upsetting when you combine it with the fact that the defense team requested to witness the test but it was denied by the state because they didn't want to risk contamination from the extra person being there. Then they send trainees in but not the defense. And why in the world would you have 4 month old evidence that has the DNA that you know your looking for out on your work bench at the time of the test when cross contamination is such an issue?

After having watched the documentary and reading some additional information (mostly pertaining to information not covered in the documentary) I'm still not sure whether Steven is innocent or guilty. There's definitely suspicious things that were/are going on with Manitowoc County sheriff's department. Either they are completely inept at their job or planted evidence.

However, the thing that's making it difficult for me to fully accept bones, the key, Steven's blood, etc was planted was there's no evidence of it at all; only suggestions or things that happened that can't be explained (why was Steven's vial of blood accessed?). What there is evidence of, however, is Steven is the last known person to see Teresa. Her burned bones were found on his property on a night Steven happens to have a bonfire (it was Halloween so it's not too uncommon I guess). Her car was found there suggesting Teresa didn't leave the property that day. That's hard evidence that definitely points to Steven.

I fully believe Brendan is innocent and was coerced into his confession. He's cognitively challenged and it was fairly clear to see he had no idea what was going on during that interrogation, ie asking when he'll be done because he has a project right after saying he helped kill someone. He never fully understood the weight of the situation he was in.

I don't think Steve Avery did it but I can see how he was found guilty.

BUT

Absolutely no way Brenden had anything to do with it. Other than the girls death, he's the real tragedy of it all.

Also here's evidence that was not in the show:

http://time.com/4167699/netflix-making-a...-left-out/

A few things I couldn't get over..

• His vile of blood that had obviously been tampered with.
• The victim's DNA was not on her own set of car keys but Steven's was (looked like they had been scrubbed clean and then Steven's DNA placed on them)
• The fact the keys were magically found months later, laying in the open, after multiple searches found nothing.
• And the biggest. Where was all the blood?? Do you think Steven and Brendan had the ability and smarts to clean that well? (no offense to that family but did you see their trailers?)
  

(01-11-2016 07:56 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  A few things I couldn't get over..

• His vile of blood that had obviously been tampered with.
  

This one is the one that keeps playing over in my mind and it wasn't really even discussed much! Wouldn't an evidence room have a camera on it at all times documenting who entered/left as well as a log of people who accessed it??

(01-11-2016 09:42 AM)tyler90wm Wrote:  

(01-11-2016 07:56 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  A few things I couldn't get over..

• His vile of blood that had obviously been tampered with.
  

This one is the one that keeps playing over in my mind and it wasn't really even discussed much! Wouldn't an evidence room have a camera on it at all times documenting who entered/left as well as a log of people who accessed it??

Small town. There was no evidence room. This just sat in the court clerks office.

None of her blood anywhere in the trailer or garage but her blood was in the back of the rav 4. The claim is he raped her in the trailer, shot her in the garage and burned her in the pit right outside the garage. So sometime in between that he decided to load her in the car and joyride for a bit? He is also such a meticulous crime scene cleaner that he didn't leave a shred of blood or DNA evidence in the trailer or garage but didn't bother to clean his or her blood out of the Rav 4 that it made zero sense to put her in in the first place?

They "knew" that he killed her but they knew that they did not have sufficient evidence to convict him, so they planted it all - the key, the bullet, the car complete with DNA evidence.

I have no idea who killed that woman or where it happened, based on watching the documentary, but in my mind there sure as hell was a shadow of a doubt as do SA's guilt.

Seeing what I've seen of the case, I cannot say that Avery is innocent. I also can't say he's guilty. If I were a Juror I'd vote to acquit.

(01-11-2016 10:48 AM)TeKERaider Wrote:  None of her blood anywhere in the trailer or garage but her blood was in the back of the rav 4. The claim is he raped her in the trailer, shot her in the garage and burned her in the pit right outside the garage. So sometime in between that he decided to load her in the car and joyride for a bit? He is also such a meticulous crime scene cleaner that he didn't leave a shred of blood or DNA evidence in the trailer or garage but didn't bother to clean his or her blood out of the Rav 4 that it made zero sense to put her in in the first place?

The call by the police officer about her license plate in between the time she went missing and when the found the car was another piece that shocked my.

The officer obviously knew where the car was but did absolutely nothing about it?

The whole story just doesn't add up whether he did it or not.

(01-11-2016 01:58 PM)wh49er Wrote:  

(01-11-2016 10:48 AM)TeKERaider Wrote:  None of her blood anywhere in the trailer or garage but her blood was in the back of the rav 4. The claim is he raped her in the trailer, shot her in the garage and burned her in the pit right outside the garage. So sometime in between that he decided to load her in the car and joyride for a bit? He is also such a meticulous crime scene cleaner that he didn't leave a shred of blood or DNA evidence in the trailer or garage but didn't bother to clean his or her blood out of the Rav 4 that it made zero sense to put her in in the first place?

The call by the police officer about her license plate in between the time she went missing and when the found the car was another piece that shocked my.

The officer obviously knew where the car was but did absolutely nothing about it?

The whole story just doesn't add up whether he did it or not.

I binge watched the entire series yesterday and this is what I don't understand the most.

There was a rumor that a cop planted the car, and then during trial, it was found a cop who was being involved in a lawsuit from the defendant had called in about the vehicle days before it was found.

Just too suspicious.