Thx-4-the links, LOSTINTHESAUS.

She's still trying hard to get that payday imo.

1 Q? Anyone know if the film makers are allowed to put her in the doc if she had not signed a contract, even after the phone call from the producers & she asks not to be in it.

To be fair the interviewer did not softball pitch a lot of the questions as I thought she might. She asked a few tough ones, but didn't call out inconsistencies in the answers.

I think the defense messed up by saying the didn't maliciously plant the evidence, because they never accounted for how the bones got in the fire pit. It kind of means there were two parties conspiring against Avery.

One other point I would like to make is that I think that there are some people who are more comfortable behind bars. I have a cousin that continually gets locked up. IQ wise, he's not a stupid person, but his actions that lead to him getting thrown in prison would leave you asking 'why would someone do something so stupid?' My answer is that it's possible that he just wants to be in jail.

I do think that Brendan is innocent. Most of what he described seemed fairly unlikely to have happened given that there was no evidence of it. (Tying her down and slitting her throat, etc.)

Does anyone have any knowledge of IQ testing at that end of the spectrum? At the beginning, one of Steven's lawyers said that Steven had an IQ of 70. Then we're also told that Brendan has an IQ of 70. But to me, Steven seemed a lot more alert and capable. Is it possible that Brendan's IQ sank below 70, but there's just some floor where test administrators won't give a score below that? Steven strikes me as 'not the sharpest knife in the drawer' where as Brendan seemed barely capable of simple everyday tasks.

Stevens also 30 years older. I would imagine a 15 year old with 100 IQ won't seem as smart as a 40 year old with 100 IQ.

This.

This was more of a general statement that Nancy Grace is an awful attention-whoring fear monger than an opinion on the interview. One of the reasons I watched the interview was because NG wasn't conducting it.

I watched the whole interview. Some of the questions were stupid and at times the questions seemed awkward, but Jodi struck me as credible. I don't find it the least bit remarkable that someone with a history of alcohol abuse does not remember certain meetings she had or statements she made nearly ten years ago.

I don't think she knows any more than the rest of us whether SA did it, but it's quite clear to her that he was capable of murder and she's convinced he did do it.

I still think there's a pretty decent chance (at least 50%) SA killed her (just not in the trailer or garage), but still think the state failed to meet its burden at trial.

Colbert interviewed the filmmakers and asked them if they thought Avery did it. They said the state didn't prove its case, but wouldn't go beyond that to say they are convinced he's innocent. http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-col...ery-is-guilty/.

To be fair, if my sibling went missing I would try to check their voicemail too. Wouldn't delete messages though.

You'd expect them to be in the same ball park, particularly on day to day things, right?

After Jodi's interview, I don't think there's much left for me to say.

I believe it shines a lot more light on the real Steven Avery and exposes yet another aspect the "documentary" portrayed completely wrong. You'll either see that here, or you won't see it anywhere.

If you do see it, just remember that this is the same documentary you're using to base your opinion on whether you'd find Steven guilty/innocent, whether he received a fair trial, etc.

Anyway, I'm bowing out of this thread. I might still post occasionally, but I'm pretty busy, as Colby just rolled in a new batch of framed criminals for me to prosecute.



And for those who still want Avery freed, just remember: you're the security guard.

What do you all think about 1st versus 2nd degree murder for Brendan? Were his action premeditated if his uncle solicited his assistance?

No, why would I? Life experience certainly counts for a lot. Even idiots learn things in life. Perhaps that's why Steven Avery didn't let the cops manipulate him into a confession.


I was going to ask who thinks they'd deliver a civil judgement against Steven Avery (remember civil cases only require a burden of more likely than not) but have doubts about the verdict in a criminal case?

Anyone else find it odd that poorcriticialthinkingskills rails on and on about the documentary being biased, but has nothing to say about the media coverage from the time Steven Avery was arrested until his conviction?

Dont adress poorskillz plz. He cannot understand that steven can be not proven guilty while not beeing necessarely innocent and that most people understand that we have no clue if it s black or white because the trial said that this grey picture we only had to consider was black.

That colbert interview is a nice summary imo.

"YOU DON"T KNOW ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE IF YOU ONLY WATCHED THE DOCUMENTARY!! Here, watch this character assassination of the suspect which has nothing to do with the case. See?! See?!"

We all know steven is a saint and a scholar who love to do scrabble on sunday with his mother and going to the retirement center to manage the bingo session of monday when he isnt busy writing poetry and painting in his backyard.

No. 40 year olds and 16 year olds are hardly in the same ballpark on day to day things. My 16yo daughter is smart as hell, in the IQ test way, but on day to day things she sure as hell had better lawyer up if some cops want to trick her into a confession.

I think this becomes a much closer question. If I'm a juror and 51% sure he killed her, I'm holding him liable in a civil case. From the limited stuff I've seen, I'd probably lean to liable. Do I think the key and bullet were planted? Probably. The blood I'm like 60/40 thinking it wasn't planted and the bones I have no clue about one way or the other. I'm not 90+% sure he did it though which is why I would've acquitted in a criminal trial.

It's absurd but not surprising. I watched the Nancy Grace special last week (wish I hadn't) where she bashes Netflix for being biased and selective, and derisively refers to the filmmakers as "students." But her one hour special cherry picked facts supporting the prosecution, ignored facts supporting the defense, and in some instances got things plain wrong. This kind of stuff happens all the time with high profile defendants awaiting trial. It's one of the many systemic problems highlighted in the film imo.

I still plan to post some interesting tidbits here every once in a while though. Like here, regarding the evidence seal:

Read more here: http://mobile.onmilwaukee.com/movies...bloodvial.html

You made it almost two hours. Pretty good.

Brendan says multiple times that his friend left to go trick or treating, but no one really brings it up.

Doesn't it seem to kinda make more sense for someone like Steve Avery to do something like this on Halloween. Obviously that isn't some huge piece of evidence, but the fact that he may have tormented this woman on Halloween seems to actually be something that adds to his guilt imo, even if ever so slightly.

Why? Does he have a history of doing stupid stuff on Halloween?

Has anyone looked at the blood stain by the ignition? Doesn't the splatter seem a little odd? There is essentially 2 (maybe 3) dark areas where the blood is thicker. One looks like a drop (which is weird because its on a surface perpendicular to the ground), and the other is a drop kind of connected to an arc or curve. The strange part to me is that both stains have a smudge/swipe that go in different directions. The blood drop on the left trails up and the other trails to the right following the curve. I dont know anything about blood splatter but I feel like it would be a lot messier than that if it came from the huge cut on SA's hand.

God damn it, i'll find the pic later. You can google it though.

1)she sung a completely different tune in the documentary. that's her fault not their's.

2) i wouldn't be surprised if SA was a pos who abused her. That was no bearing on the murder case, no bearing on how corrupt the cops were, no bearing on planted evidence and no bearing on how broken the "justice system" really is.

3) it's pretty funny you want to say we don't know **** and the jury knows everything bc they heard all of the evidence even though they're mostly dumb trailer trash who much like you doesn't actually know how a court of law works and then you are now sure he is legally guilty bc of this interview. Classic.