Calumet investigators interviewed both steven and the girl and found the concerns unfounded.
ffs the guy was coming into a lot of money after spending 18 yrs in JAIL. But na don,t bother to cut him a bit of slack.

That was when first investigated in 2004 because the girl didn't tell the detectives then, as the girl claimed in 2006 Steven Avery threatened to kill her family if she told anyone then.

You're sure cutting him a lot of slack with your horrible interpretation of that article.

From article:

Smacc's interpretation of article: Look it says "Calumet investigators interviewed both steven and the girl and found the concerns unfounded." Nothing to see here!

That would add strength to the argument that he was framed as there was some history between the pair.

Article: Steven Avery's female relative claims she was raped by him, plans to press charges if he's not convicted for the murder.

Kevin21: "That would add strength to the argument that he was framed as there was some history between the pair."

Ignore me then I thought it was TH they were talking about! Oops!

grunching

my first impression of Len was too stupid to be in on it (consciously being used as a tool of the prosecution) and that he is what happens when someone with a similar intellect to Brandon is born with a great support system.

the prosecutor probably told him to get his client to confess then call when it was done, and he's too ****ing stupid to anything more than exactly what he's told.

Jurors initial instinct was not guilty, pretty sick turn of events. Anyone ever served on a jury where a meaningful debate actually occurred?

I don't think the type of people posting here get sat on juries.

the interview with the dismissed juror was one of the most infuriating parts of this to me. it sounded like there were 3 confident dimwits who mainlined Nancy Grace that bullied 9 passive dimwits into a "compromise" verdict that doesn't seem like much of a compromise when you're serving life without parole.

did they mention if the 2 jurors that were relatives of the sheriffs were the confident ones? If so, how on ****ing earth does the defense let 2 relatives sit in the jury? that really should be illegal especially with the suit that avery was going through.

the only information directly from the actual jury was a short interview with a 40-50 year old white man who sat for the entire trial but was dismissed the day deliberations began.

he described 3 jurors who were "stubborn". I remember his description of the rest of the jury was basically "tired, want to go home".

I'd never heard that relatives of sheriffs were on the jury. is that true?

http://popwrapped.com/news/120792/ma...on-avery-jury/

Looks like 1 in the Sheriffs and 1 in the clerks. But still no one in the local gov or relative should be involved in the case.

wow

there is something seriously ****ed up about the court system especially in wisconsin.

i started watching it again this time with my GF.

why is the state DA auditing the rape case for misconduct in 2005? The fact that the state saw no misconduct in the first case when there was clear misconduct all over the sheriff's office in the first case. A neutral 3rd party should audit them because when the state audits one of it's local agencies, they are almost partially implicating themselves and they obviously don't want to do that and didn't do that.

it's amazing that the cop who didn't report the call from the other county about how Avery was likely innocent actually found the key in the other case. what are the ****ing odds.

True.

This was confirmed by Dean Strang in the Facebook interview previously posted ITT. Brutal. Nonetheless the defense felt those jurors were still more favorable than the ones they chose to dismiss.

Despite its many flaws, a trial by jury remains one of the most important foundations of our criminal justice system. And if you would pardon me for getting off track a bit, I fault the public school system for producing so many people incapable of properly serving on a jury far more than the jury system itself.

I wouldnt even blame the jury some stuff that has been allowed to kratz and forbidden to the defense seems really insane to me and it must be hard for the jury to make a decision.

That's the thing I've just started thinking about after watching the entire series.

That defendant-a guy who may or may not have raped a woman and spent half his life in prison.

with that case-body burnt in his front yard, witness/accomplice 1st hand account

and that jury, he was always guilty. The series does a great job of building up the suspense of the trial, but in real life there there was likely 0 doubt of the verdict.

It's easy to forget after so many hours of television, but didn't Steven Avery's trial begin with some weird "Steven told me he did it" hearsay testimony that could have caused an immediate mistrial?

did you watch the entire thing?

there was doubt--the jury was initially heavily not guilty for steven. due to the fact the documentary was made, of course they were going to charge him but in real life I don't think it was that easy for the jury with all the reasonable doubt and a laundry list of inconsistent testimony, evidence and story lines.

Any idea when the jury was selected? Was that before or after the March 1st press conference, I don't remember

Obviously after.

He had 0 chance with a jury selected from Wisconsin. Just look at any comments posted by anyone from there. They still claim BOTH SA and Brendan without a doubt guilty and no wrongdoing on part of LE. Most refuse to even watch the doc. Their comeback is always that the public knows nothing from watching a 10hr doc. They are the experts because they sat through it. Which is hilarious because most of their info came from the ridiculous media.

So why do we figure the Innocence project passed on him the second time around? I wonder if the series is going to make them pull a 180.

There's no leverage. Absent new evidence, improved forensics (e.g. DNA) or third-party confessions, what exactly are they supposed to do?

They pulled the plug on him way before that though. They were just following public sentiment at the time.