The most amazing thing to me was actually that the Jury found Brendan Dassey guilty after not even deliberating for a day (the very same night, if I didn't understand the timeline wrong). Just WHAT THE EFFING EFF?!?! How is that even possible? That whole jury process with SA was even weird (like that swing unexplained swing from the initial 3-7 showing of hands), but I could at least remotely pretend to understand. But the BD decision and its speed just blew my mind.
I personally think jury-based justice systems are horse-**** - in light of this case and others were dimwit jurors send innocent people to prison based on "he looks guilty hurrdurr" logic or whatever is going on in their brain when they rely on no evidence whatsoever but stereotypes and prejudices in their own head.
Can some legal expert make some argument on why they think such jury-based justice systems are not fundamentally broken? I really want to understand! I mean, every time I hear stuff like "let's get a jury in county x/ made up by housewives/ white people" - if you have no qualms about openly discussing these things - that proves to me that the system is broken when you actually count on partial jurors, just hoping it will be in your favor ...

-Ok perhaps dumb people with no money do dumb things, but dumb people who need to keep their nose clean for a few more months max to get a verdict on 36m? You can do all the killing in the world post verdict.

-He knows how badly the county hates him, he's not counting on them not being able to get a search warrant against HIM of all people. Also now all of a sudden he's smart enough to know about these sorts of things?

-His DNA is still there in the garage, hers is not. It's just not possible. It's also not realistic to leave the car dirty with 4 small blood spots while you took the time to sanitize the car


The other thing that doesn't fit with your theory at all is the key. What's the explanation for the key not having a shred of her DNA and only his? Even the location of the key makes zero sense. And even if you wanted to believe that SA scrubbed the key but was dumb enough to just leave his DNA on it, how do the cops toss the trailer several times and then only just find it the time Colborn is there? I mean godamn. It's putrid.

Definitely true, but the filmmakers are going to show the strongest parts, so I find it hard to believe they the defense did better and we didn't see it.

Across the board, it just seemed that the states' points were argued better. Kratz was an excellent actor, and unfortunately I think that type of thing matters more than evidence in the current system.

My only real issue now in light of new evidence mentioned was how SA got his DNA on the hood latch. I guess it could be planted especially since that fact was found out months after the incident happened but it is a big concern for the side I think is right.

It's weird that if you know the court/justice system hates you in an area that you would make it so easy for them to convict you with the evidence laid and the fact he was the person to see the victim unless there was another party that killed Thersa. Some of the evidence wasn't gift wrapped but a ton of it was which makes no sense to me.

Completely disagree, the states prosecutors came across as significantly worse arguing their points and in their logical conclusions imo. There were a few things Kratz said that I looked to my wife and said this guy is an idiot, logically speaking and not about what he was arguing.

This has been debunked already. The DNA on the hood latch has been introduced numerous times both as further "evidence" that he is guilty or further proof that the documentary was weighted towards the defense because they "left this fact out."

First of all read or watch the BD interview in March. It's more of the exact same sh*t from Fassbender and Weigert, clearly coercing BD to agree with them that SA opened the hood. Again, BD does not offer this info. He tries multiple times to guess what they are asking and fails everytime but eventually says "yeah, when they get frustrated and just ask him, "Steven open the hood of the car, right?" BD - "yeaaah".

Then, and ONLY then does Fassbender call the DNA collectors and instructs them to test the latch. The latch is test in APRIL. Oh, by the way, the effing car has been on the impound lot FOR SIX MONTHS at this point.

Also read Ken Kratz recent interview as of a few days ago...he seems to be trying to backout of the hood latch DNA theory already by saying that it was the trunk latch not the hood.

Again, it's just more BS "evidence" that actually strengthens SA's claims that he was framed.

The same way they got his DNA on the key?

I mean this would be as easy as rubbing a dirty shirt/sock on it.

Also, and I said this on reddit. In order to believe the key wasn't planted, you have to believe that first ~7 officers to search SA's room were so inept at their jobs, that they missed this key in plain sight.

In order to believe that the DNA under the latch wasn't planted, you need to believe that the forensics team that inspected the car was also so inept that they failed to dust the latch for prints/DNA. Keep in mind the battery was disconnected, so that would seem like a go to.

You also need to believe that SA was some home genius enough to clean the car clean of all prints/other DNA, but missed a clear smear of blood and other drops, not to mention her blood in the cargo compartment.

While I think they were incredible throughout the whole case, I actually kept asking myself this same question throughout the trial. They seemed to have multiple state witnesses on the ropes may times catching them in lies or conflicting testimonies but didn't seem to want to hammer it home. I wonder if they just assumed the jury would understand that they just destroyed this witness' testimony.

I'm grunching this whole damn thread to say that the only reason I watched it is because I noticed how many posts it got in such a short time. Didn't want to click and get spoiled.

It was waaaaaay too long, boring as hell, and after 10 hours there was NO PAYOFF!

Sort by OOTV post count, watch bad television.

I can't believe people are trying to critique Strang and butings approach to the case based off the 1% of the in court events that were shown in the doc.

2 of the best lawyers in the state, and their biggest weakness was not consulting some online poker players about correct court room approach. Silly them.

ok? what payoff did you expect?

thx for the great contribution, now go back to the politics forum

Ok, allow me to rephrase, because I agree with you as you answered this question.

The states' prosecutors didn't argue more logically, they pandered better. Communication is about knowing your audience. You can prove something scientifically, but if the other side can appeal emotionally better than you can, he's going to win the favor of a dumbass jury.

Exactly. They proved their points logically, but failed to predict and properly navigate the poor comprehension of the jury.

Oh man where do we start....

- He told an inmate that burning the body gets rid of the DNA, maybe the reason the car was so close to the crusher was because he was preparing to crush it. Perhaps the crusher needed to be cleaned out first, or something in order to crush the car.

Source? Also, once you do provide source, realize that the source's source is an inmate. Don't think we need to belabor how this isn't exactly reliable info.

- He doesn't have the money yet, and so what. OJ killed somebody, rich people do dumb things, and dumb people with money do dumb things too

Umm, OJ was found NOT GUILTY? Also, victim was his ex-wife! How are you even comparing these stories?

- Probably felt comfortable with the car on the property because you need a search warrant to be executed, and wouldn't think that somebody would let people onto his property

Yeah, and it Probably was God that lead the searcher directly to the car withing 20 minutes of starting the search. And it probably was coincidence that she happened to be the only one that was given a camera by coincidentally, TH's password-guessing ex-bf.

- Well if he killed her in the garage, there wouldn't be that much blood in her car, only when he was moving it up to the back. All the blood would be easily removed once it was bleached etc, and as somebody mentioned if it was only a gun shot wound, it's not like it would be gushing blood.

First of all, if he killed her in the garage, why did he then put her in the car? 2nd - All the blood would not be easily removed with bleach. Luminol tests would still reveal blood. It was minimally 2 gunshot wounds alleged by coroner and up to as many as 11 as suggested by prosecution. Now consider the fact that they found bullet in garage, the alleged crime scene. Bullet would have had to pass through her head. That means an entry AND exit wound. OR Avery dug the bullet out after? Not that much blood? Not a single bit of blood spatter anywhere? If you are still doubting this, how could Avery have cleaned all the blood AND DNA from TH on this scene YET they found Avery's DNA everywhere?

- He specifically requested her, even using a different name to get her to go out there.

I would like to know more about this one. However, given all the proof I need to be near absolute 100% certainty that the police did a full on frame job here, it would be entirely believable that these facts are either twisted or simply flat out lies. But I welcome theories on how this is true. Did SA admit to this?

I do think Kratz was pretty quick on his feet when Strang wanted to drop the key to see if the LEO could hear it hit the carpeted ground. The whole bit about creating fair testing conditions was pretty quick but I imagine that may be a common thing (a lawyer like Strang reenacting a moment in the courtroom).

LOL - Some of the highest scores on IMDB and RT. Time magazine touting as one of the best and most significant pieces ever seen on Netflix.

Sorry you were disappointed. But you gotta ask yourself what everyone is seeing that you are not.

Also, SA's guilty right?

The biggest example of what I'm talking about came when the framing defense was revealed. Kratz' argument was completely void of logic but clearly superior emotionally. The jist was:

"You're going to accuse these honorable policemen? HOW DARE YOU??!"

All Strang and Buting could reply with was,

"We didn't accuse the cops."

Now I know the judge said they're not even allowed to accuse a third party, but at least hammer on the framing harder.

I was reminded of A Few Good Men. Buting and Strang saw how deep the corruption was and got a bit fearful of the blowback if they pushed too hard.

EDIT: I admit that I use quotes frivolously, please excuse the paraphrasing and focus on my point.

Good points !

I have some questions:

Does the timeline allow the blood to be planted near the ignition after SA is arrested and his cut on the finger is documented?

As far as I know the vehicle was found on 11/5 and SA was arrested on 11/9.

When was the vehicle forensically examinated?
When was the cut finger documented?

Meh, I think just starting from an inherently stronger strategical position is the only thing the prosecuting attorneys had going for them in what we saw. It did kind of feel like they just had their talking points and kept to those points, which is probably a pretty effective strategy. Although were pretty ineffective adjusting to things outside of those points and arguing on the fly.

Just imagine the bloodbath of Kratz defending SA from a technical lawyering aspect, if you could somehow switch the lawyers.

The part you are missing is the judge was incompetent, corrupt or both.

The DA and judge essentially colluded to keep them from pointing at any third parties in exchange for not putting the kid on the stand. Which didn't matter anyways because they just convicted him on a different set of "facts". It is not normal for a defense to not be able to point to evidence of another party. Wisconsin has some really weird laws, rules and exceptions.

Stick with marvel stuff

This makes a lot of sense. If they were capable of framing this guy twice, or perhaps even having something to do with the murder and then framing, what would happen if the people involved started to become completely exposed?

For me, this answers a lot of questions as to why Strang has put forth so much effort into remaining as neutral as possible while still trying to show that there's just not enough evidence for "beyond a reasonable doubt".

It was presented as a mystery that was slowly building to... something. There was no something. The actual story could have been told much better and in far less time. Instead we got hours of repetitive, brooding camera pans over a junkyard that served no purpose. The last few episodes didn't tell us anything about anything. Everything had already been said. It was like a 3 hour long anti-denouement.

Then pls explain why initially 7/12 was in favour of not guilty.