This.

It's not hard to believe that all those cops, judges, DAs are in on it. In fact, it's very hard to believe they aren't in on the conspiracy.

And the right thing is happening now that this doc came out, they are all on trial by the Public. **** those scumbags.

What the doc shows is that everyone in this Wisconsin judicial system did very egregious evil things and mostly illegal. So why would you put it past them to frame an innocent man again? These people are more scum than a guy that abused a a cat, and I hate animal abuse.

I agree with all of the above, which is why I don't trust the FBI blood results.

According to the Federal Rules of Evidence and the rules of most states, scientific evidence has to meet the Daubert standard, which states that evidence has to be reliable --that is, accurate and repeatable.

However, in Wisconsin expert testimony can be admitted based
primarily on the judge qualifying the witness as an expert and considering the evidence/testimony to be "relevant." The following is a good summary of how the rules for expert evidence play out in Wisconsin:

http://hbslawfirm.com/2015/admissibi...lenge-its-use/

It wouldn't have taken a wide conspiracy. Lenk and Colburn could have planted the evidence. Kratz and the judge could both easily have just been reminding themselves that their police officers are good people who should be trusted. And the FBI blood results may just be unreliable, rather than being fradulant.

If true, LOL. I mean come on, this is just too incredible of a story and it keeps getting better. You would think that SOMETHING of great relevance would have surfaced by now for the prosecution to support their case, but no. Just more and more in the opposite direction.

well said, sums up my opinion as well

Too bad this didn't all happen in alabama so we could have seen some voir dire positraction action

yes, witness called by the defense, John Leurquin

"Jon Leurquin, who delivers propane for Valders Co-op testified that he fills his truck with propane near Avery's property. He usually fuels up at about 3:30pm for about a half hour.Leurquin says he seen THs Rav 4 leave the property. He didn't see who was driving it." - article

Fits with the bus driver's timeline.

Considering the pro-Avery bias in the documentary it's surprising this wasn't included.

Having said that, the bus driver was far and away the most credible person to establish a timeline....and this guy corroborates that. SA driving her away the property doesn't jive with the prosecutions theory of the crime, the evidence, and doesn't seem to accomplish anything for SA. i.e. her car leaving is more evidence he didn't do it.

Add that to his demeanor on the phone with Jodi later on, and the fact he called Teresa's phone at 4:30...and it only lessens the likelihood SA is in fact guilty.

While both legal teams seemed to do a pretty good job (obv the documentary made the defense team look even better) there were two glaring deficiencies that really bothered me:

1. The prosecution's inability to establish a clear crime scene and sequence of events that could withstand the scrutiny of bumbling police work. The police screw up every investigation and then lie to protect themselves and their crap work. Welcome to the DAs office, now convince me that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. The defense's inability to establish a plausible alternate explanation. They did a great job of showing that the police are terrible, but they never gave the jurors another story to believe. They didn't need to list suspect's names to do this either, they just needed a bit of creativity.

If the prosecution had done a better job with #1 (other than just in the closing arguments, which was actually pretty good) they may have been able to win over the court of public opinion in spite of the dirty cops. If the defense had done a better job with #2, the lack of #1 could have won the case for them.

From what i read your 2nd point was impossible because the judge explicitly forbid it.

IMO, the reason they did not do this is because the mountain of evidence points only to Police framing Avery as the alternate explanation. If they attempted to prove this, the defense (I feel) correctly assumed that not only would they have to prove Avery didn't do it, they'd have to essentially prosecute the County of Manitowoc's police force and prove they DID frame every. The job becomes 3x harder.

So that leaves offering other explanations other than the 1 already mentioned. The problem is that any theories they put forth would be false and the defense knew it, opening themselves up to looking guilty if the prosecution is able to destroy their false alternatives. They also could sense the presumption of innocence was tossed out the window long before the trial started so they had to do everything possible to defend his innocence rather than place blame elsewhere. I think they did the best possible job they could do under the circumstances by suggesting that there were things very wrong with the investigation and suggesting (but not accusing) the police might have something to do with an alternate explanation.

I think this is correct. The judge basically said they couldn't point the finger at a 3rd party. They could only ask the police what leads they followed, but were pretty much screwed on other suspects since the police didn't pursue third parties, hence the episode where they ask the ex-boyfriend who headed up the search team if he ever felt like he was treated as a suspect, and whether he and her roommate were questioned separately or together. He said to paraphrase, "no, he never felt treated as a suspect."


Seems highly likely under a more liberal ruling from judge they would probably hone in on guy who took day off work, eventually went hunting in area, had access to area and victim, and gave a timeline that coincided with Avery relative, but different than bus driver who was far more credible. I imagine they cast doubt on the young relative also since his timeline was also off.


It seems there wouldn't be a shortage of people who could be pointed to. I'm not aware if this is standard in criminal trials or not. I don't understand why a Casey Anthony can point to her father despite no evidence, yet Avery couldn't.

If I had to bet, I'm betting Avery did it, but the game felt even more rigged than it usually is, and it's always pretty rigged.

The clear calling in of the plate 2 days before car was found was pretty mindblowing.

another dean strang interview:

http://www.channel3000.com/news/News...trang/37202800

In that interview Strang said that they developed new leads as a result of this documentary

I'm a bit of a DNA newb, but don't family members often share various portions of their dna? Is it at all possible the blood in the car belonged to an Avery but not Steve?

I find it funny how so many people here are more convinced of his innocence than his own defense lawyer is.

1. This is perfectly acceptable and expected lawyer speak.
2. There are very few here that take any position other than this. He may be guilty, we honestly don't know, but there is 0 chance of finding him guilty based on what we saw.

You also seem to continuously sweep Brendon under the rug. Is he guilty in your eyes? Is there any evidence not presented by the doc we should know about?

I don't get the actual innocence claim either. An acquittal and innocence are very much different.

Even if every single claim of malfeasance is factual that does not equate to innocence.

So is "I believe he is innocent".

"Based on what we saw".

I don't "continuously sweep Brendon under the rug". I'm not addressing him because I have much less of a disagreement on him with most people here.

I do believe Brendan was involved somehow- whether knowingly or unknowingly, and to what extent, I don't know. But at the very least he was at the bonfire and helped Steven clean something with bleach that night.

I think legally he probably should've been found not guilty because the confessions don't really make any sense and there's not really any DNA evidence incriminating him.

I wish the series focused more on Brendan rather than Steven Avery, because that's where I believe actual injustice happened.

Bleach? Did they find things have been cleaned with bleach? They have tests for that. I apologize if I missed that piece of information but it seems like you continually throw opinions of yours into this discussion and try to pass them off as facts.

If it's true that county employee relatives were on the jury, I wonder how well the sequestering process was monitored. If officers were still allowed to participate in the investigation after they publicly announced that they wouldn't be, don't you think it's possible that info could easily leak back and forth between these jurors and their relatives? This would be a good explanation as to how so many jurors had their minds changed.

I don't know whether they found things were cleaned with bleach or not, and I never said they did or didn't.

According to the criminal complaint, Brendan's mom told the investigators she noticed bleach on his jeans the night of the murder and he told her he was helping Steven clean the garage.

Brendan gave the investigators these jeans, and they had bleach on them.

Jodi also supposedly testified that Steven told her he was cleaning the garage in one of his calls with her that night.

Sources:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2wpxlnf5l...assey.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uu07xwofjc...02006.pdf?dl=0
http://www.convolutedbrian.com/dasse...pril-2007.html

I disagree. Please provide examples.

Right. Are you saying the information we were presented does not provide reasonable doubt to the guilt of either person?

I'm saying we watched a TV series not a full trial.

with what was presented the investigation looked shady as **** and that s about all i can say