As far as planting evidence goes I don't think the cops could have planted the car. Because if they did plant a car with Avery's blood in it no way do they waste time trying to cover up the car with scraps and tree branches. It would waste time, serve no purpose and be a huge risk spending anymore time than they needed to do it. I also doubt that what ever was used to cover the car just happened to be near the spot they parked.

With his history and IF he is innocent, that reaction makes total sense to me.

Whoever draped a few tree branches over the car was an idiot and that doesn't rule anyone out except for SA's attorneys.

If they weren't stupidly thinking that the branches make it harder to spot the car among hundreds of cars, they were intentionally trying to make it easier to find the car and only to look like someone tried to hide it.

lol

Since both cases were handled by the same police departments and the same prosecutors, by definition neither is beyond reasonable doubt as the police and the prosecutors clearly can't describe how things unfolded to that standard.
That there can be be two cases regarding the same murder with different scenarios is outrageous to start with.

Character assassination by the prosecutors and media, which the judge didn't mitigate and which influenced the jury - see that bit re jury selection for example.

Also:
Again, do you sincerely believe that either had a fair trail?

I believe you're referring to Kratz's press conference about Brendan's testimony? While I agree that was bad, that was way before the trial, so I'm not sure what you want the judge to do about it.

Also, we don't know if/how this affected members of the jury, and I'm sure the jury was instructed not to take stuff like that into account.

So I still don't see any flaws regarding the judge and the jury.

The dismissed juror seems like a bit of a nutjob tbh. I believe the juror saying they "feared for their safety" was referring to fear of public reaction, not any direct threats, IDK what to say about that.

And at least two others (neither of which are the sheriff deputy's father) have come forward to say they fully stand by their decision and disagree with the other juror's account.

Yes, I sincerely believe that Avery had a fair trial.

Not sure about Dassey because of the whole false confession thing.

Oh, okay. All good then.

does not really compute

Let's leave out the amount of circumstantial and physical evidence introduced by the prosecution that has a higher than average probability of being invalidated.

Then let's also leave out the clear character assassination by media (you read Griesbach's book, and know what Nancy Grace did to him in 2007).

Let's consider only the confession. You call it "false", I call it "coerced". Why would it only apply to BD's trial? This confession lead to the news conferences that Kratz gave describing the horrific details of something that Steven Avery was accused of doing. But I already agreed to leave that out.

Since there was not enough physical evidence to corroborate the first coerced confession, Fassbender and Weigert coerced a 2nd confession that became grounds for further search warrants which happen to coincide with the forbidden Lenk being on the scene which happen to coincide with the "magic bullet".

The biggest mystery is "what happened to Fassbender's eyebrows?"

He's an alpaca.

I would not have acquitted OJ, but would have acquitted Brendan and most likely Steven as well.

The tone of your post reminds me of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

I love poorskillz essentially saying "none of you can know if you would find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because you don't have all the information. On the other hand I don't see enough evidence to find him not guilty"

So ridiculously backwards and biased.

Seriously if you can not even get the basics down wtf are you doing trolling this thread so hard. Why are people arguing with him on minutiae of evidence when he does not even comprehend the concept of reasonable doubt.

You also are confusing innocence vs not guilty. The two are not the same thing. Fundamentally they aren't all that close.

Unfortunately we have pretty much obliterated the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt for prosecutors.

I think OJ is guilty but I don't have an issue with the verdict in his trial. His case was also burdened by a lot of law enforcement incompetence.

It goes back to the cliched quote of "Better ten guilty men go free before one innocent man is convicted." We need to get back to this mindset and it's going to take some work. The idea that someone "probably" committed a crime is not good enough.

You have transcripts of the interview or the trial? The actual trial we have much less information in the Dassey case.

You are all over the road. You are using two different standards to judge these two cases and both are wrong.

i believe he is correct in that there is more information out there on the internet about the dassey trial than the avery trial. obviously we saw more footage of the latter in the actual documentary.

This seems like a reasonable assumption for anyone with a degree of modesty.

That's sort of how it works though, isn't it? If there's no evidence that show's the jury's wrong and no evidence of a legally unfair trial, then the jury's decision is upheld.

K

Love you too mark. Toodles.

Yes, I have both for the Dassey case.

Sorry that you consider these the wrong standards.

Stick to Netflix.

this paragraph makes no sense in the context of this conversation

I think O.J. also benefitted from superior lawyering.

I think Steven's team was also very good, but if they could have afforded the help of a few more lawyers and investigators, they may have been able to get further on arguing alternate killers. They simply did not have the resources to gather competent evidence to overcome the Wisc. 3-rd party liability rules.

One issue I had was with Strang's closing were he was trying to make a sophisticated argument that would only be grasped by fairly competent jurors. The argument about how he felt the police did not believe they were framing an "innocent man." In making that argument, he had to refer to SA as being "guilty" within the context of his argument. Because the viewer was provided a preview of this argument when he discussed it with the other lawyer, we were not as confused when we saw the closing. Nevertheless, the way it came across in closing seemed confusing.

I'm not really sure what the context is supposed to be then, considering it's not an actual quote of mine he attributed to me. Care to explain?

Pretty much the only certain thing is that evidence was planted. Even poor skills can't imagine how the key has SA DNA, but not TH, or how the seal on thr blood was broken.

Imo planting evidence should be a serious felony.

Wikipedia has a page on police officers convicted of planting evidence. 3 entries. 2 Americans. Only one was actually charged with anything related to planting evidence (obstruction of justice).

Essentially police can plant evidence with impunity.

Steven & the fam