I thought defense did good job explaining that its unlikely that Avery would be able to clean the car of every single print of his own (yet leave all of Teresa's and various other prints) but fail to clean the extremely obvious blood stains. Gloves you say? Well, that also lessens the likely hood of blood ending up in the car (also put forth by the defense).

Yeah, but there is so much conflicting data at this point that Steven Avery having committed this murder actually becomes one of the most complex answers possible.

The documentary did an excellent job showing that the most likely answer is now actually that 4-5 already proven shady cops who stood to lose everything and an entire county on the verge of bankruptcy set this whole thing up.

Wait, so Netflix planted the ripped "sealed evidence" taped box?

New on Amazon Video: "Making a Making a Murderer". An Amazon original about the planted evidence of planted evidence in Netflix's attempt to keep a series from falling apart.

13 seconds ... he calls gf later that night, not sure what time

It's extremely unlikely he killed her the WAY the police said he did.

But that doesn't rule out any of a dozen other scenarios that involve criminal mischief on Avery's part, including murder.

If the police had taken a rigorous approach to the whole thing, maybe there's be enough information to make a reasonable judgement one way or the other. As is, who knows?

He could've cut his finger with gloves on, yes. A much more likely scenario considering there is no evidence the blood was planted. The cuts on his finger even match the blood stain near the ignition.

Netflix didn't create the show and never did I suggest anyone involved in filming planted evidence.

Please be more rational if you wish to continue discussing.

wow what a watch..
Very interesting thread, good to read some additional info not included in the series. I'm leaning more towards the innocence of SA, but the docu is very one sided.. It will be pretty interesting to see what this documentary will do for SA and if the truth ever comes out.

At the end of episode 5, the interview with Colburn and the license plate.. Thats it? Why is there no follow up there for something that strange? Also the Ex boyfriend was pretty suspicious, i know they could not accuse a third party but why don't the lawyers push more there?

Is there any indication he left a message? The prosecution paints it as though he called without *67 in order to set up an alibi, but maybe he just called that number by mistake while trying to reach his gf. Pulled up last number called and hit send and then whoops, wrong number.

Is there any evidence of this? Did police happen to find a pair of gloves that had been cut on one of the fingers that have blood on them? If there was enough blood to drip on the car there should be blood stains on these gloves he was purported to wear, right?

Well, knowing that the film maker had an agenda, and I was being led down a carefully carved path, I wanted to find some independent information. there are several other bits of evidence that were glossed over in the doc or not addressed at all. There is not a ton of info available but I've read a couple of the appellate briefs and such. Too much to explain away.

Yes, there are troubling aspects. Some of which I cannot get around. The cop calling in the license plate and confirming the year make and color of car does not have an innocent explanation. I am convinced he was looking at the car. I am also very troubled by the blood sample having been tampered with. But you won't convince me that the FBI were co-conspirators and fabricated the EDTA tests. They found EDTA in the blood sample but none in the samples from the car.

So, as I sit here today, I arrived at the conclusion he most likely did it. And the cops juiced the evidence. That is different than saying I would vote to convict.

Given the evidence presented to me, had I been on the jury, I doubt I could have voted to convict. Realizing that I don't have all the facts and didn't hear everything the jury heard, it is possible that I could reach a different answer.

I am far more convinced the kid got screwed. False confessions happen and I think this is one of them.

1. The 4:35pm call was the third and last call from Steven that day.

2. Teresa's phone was already turned off then.

3. It's conveniently the only call that wasn't *67 (whether *67 never shows up on records when a phone is turned off, I don't know).

Have many people seen this and the Jinx. Pretty sick to compare what kind of justice you get being millionaire heir and a guy like SA.

While watching and a bit after the show I was sure he SA was innocent, mostly because document is so one-sided so I was biased, then I read some counter-arguments and things that weren't shown on the document and I turned to maybe 50-50 he's quilty.

But after a while now I'm starting to think again its no way he did it, too many things that don't add up. Even the timing of this thing, if he has this fantasy told by fellow inmates about raping and murdering a woman, why would he do it year after he's been free and is finally going to get his paypack on the bad cops and the county suing them.

Why would he do it to a woman who surely a lot of people know is coming to your yard that day, why not pick a time and place where there is not a planned appointment with your victim. Hes not that stupid.

Can you upgrade this from you think to you know? Regardless of the filmmakers intent, we saw the tapes of the confession. Did Brendan offer up one original thought that was not fed to him by the interviewers?

Gloves could have easily been burnt, but that's just speculation.

What is fact is that his blood was in her car and neither the tests nor any other evidence showed it was planted from the vial.

The test showed that in those 3 samples they tested there was no EDTA, it didnt prove that it's impossible those stains came from the vial.

This is another good point. He must be legitly either a genius or ******ed.

My problem with the cut is that it is on his left hand and the bloodstain near the ignition would be more indicative of a cut on the right hand. Unless he were in the passenger seat to reach across to the ignition with his left hand to get the key? The cut and the stain just don't match up in my mind.

I did not say it proved it's impossible that the blood was from the vial (as it's impossible to prove that, just like it's impossible to prove aliens didn't plant the evidence). What I said is the tests showed no evidence that the blood was planted from the vial.


http://imgur.com/a/65CKe Check again. Cuts are on the right hand.

Regarding the FBI as co-conspirators: I don't find this that implausible. They've lied for decades about the certainty of fingerprint matches and certain types of DNA matches. Given stingray devices to local law enforcement and instructed them to lie about or hide the source of any evidence garnered from the device. I would not put it past them to have done something fishy here as well.

A cut like that isn't going to have just one spot of blood like that. That's a fairly nice cut. When was it taken after the murder too? Cuts like that aren't going to heal overnight.

We don't know. All we know is that the call lasted 13 seconds. What we do know is that someone deleted messages on Teresa's phone in the days following her visit to SA's house.

IMO a 13 second phone call either points to a message or a conversation. Coupled with the fact we know at least one message was deleted, it is extremely suspicious.

Also the brother who deleted the messages is highly suspicious. Who is he to say what is important or isn't important to a case? Those messages could have given a clue that he's too dumb to even realize. Highly suspect and downright dumb on his part.

I think there were other spots of blood, and I'm guessing it was taken when he was arrested on November 9th, so 9 days later.

The odds that he had anything to do with this murder given the scope of the evidence to the contrary and extremely unusual circumstances are so low that I'm having trouble understanding how anyone could doubt that he's innocent of this crime.