yes? The bullet was from her head. She had a gunshot wound in her head, and a bullet in the same location where someone who confessed to killing her said she was shot in the head, with her dna on the bullet. Like do you need a ****ing video here? lol

Where can you see the video of his testimony?

Nvm, I think you mean the edited testimony in your docugospel.

+1 ****ing million

If anyone who read the BD transcripts thought that BD kept referring to a Suzuki in the garage and just mistook a Suzuki for Teresa's RAV4, he actually did mean Suzuki.

Netflix.

(I'm going to let you hang yourself by stating that it was edited to make him look guilty).

EDIT: Too Late.

Your use of 'confession' makes me think you're referring to Brendan, but I was clearly referring to Lenk. As the screenshots of his testimony that Saus posted show, he said he arrived at both 2pm and 630pm (day and night).

So you're saying that you believe Lt. Lenk's testimony was edited here? Do you think it was edited so much that it does not accurately represent his statements on the stand that day?

Every point in that last link I provided includes a source.


Yeah, and I'm saying the trial was fair, you goof.

It's too bad Avery's lawyers couldn't satisfy the Denny rule and provide a valid reason for accusing any other suspect in the trial. (sourced it for you )

It's too bad Avery's lawyers chose not to strike the deputy's dad for cause. (sourced it for you )

It's too bad Avery's lawyers chose to have the jury from Manitowoc. (**** you, you can find this one)

It's too bad Avery's lawyers chose not to do their own EDTA test, and didn't request to be able to do their own until they saw the prosecution's. (sourced it for you pg.248 )

It's too bad even after all of this, Avery and his lawyers chose not to have a mistrial when given the opportunity during jury deliberation, and his lawyers said "all things considered, their case had gone in as well as they could have hoped, and it was in Avery’s best interest for that jury to continue to deliberate on the evidence presented". (sourced it for you )

Now you present sourced information that it wasn't a fair trial.

The first case shows that something is clearly wrong in the county that SA was found guilty in. In addition, when the state audited the case and saw literally no misconduct, I start questioning the entire justice system. Because of the first case and all the weird investigation/evidence findings, of course I'm going to question the entire justice system of the county and the state. Maybe everything is really kosher in the county and the state and SA is just the luckiest/unluckiest SOB ever, I have no idea. All I know is if the prosecution/county wanted NO question of impropriety they should have never gotten involved. The troll is correct that there was nothing legally stopping the country from getting involved in the case when the other county said that M county would not be involved. With that being said, because they were allowed and the fact they found key evidence, puts everything in question.

yeah for some reason shillz et al keep confusing "there was no law against manatowic county investigating TH's murder" with "Manitowic county (and specifically people who had be deposed in a lawsuit from Steven Avery) created a strong appearance of impropriety."

I was going to come post that this is gonna be the longest thread in OOTV history. After reading this thread I change my stance: this is going to be the most AIDSy thread in 2p2 history.

Thanks to those few posters who actually post new twists and whatnot. To those with 200 posts ITT promoting their own dumb opinions: gfy

Im on it.

Or so the docugospel makers would have you believe!

I perfectly understand that. The jury understood that and I'm sure they weighed this in their deliberations (as it was what the defense's case relied on). This does not make it an unfair trial.

There was literally nothing substantial pointing to the evidence being planted (the biggest thing is Teresa's DNA not being on the key, which is odd, but possible). Pretty much everything pointed to the blood not being planted (including the EDTA test, which it turns out did have a limit of detection and was actually very reliable). Along with many other fair reasons, that is why Steven was found guilty.

Didn't the jury understand that in the original rape case and got it wrong? Like we can keep going back and forth on this, the fact that the jury says X does not mean it is necessary gospel. As reported by the dismissed juror, there was definitely some doubt when it came to the trial if the first vote was 3/8 in guilty/non-guilty. The case, like we've all been saying, is far from clear cut.

While we can assume, your rationale is WHY Steven was found guilty there could have been other reasons included reported FEAR by the jurors for their safety.

Yeah, juries get it wrong sometimes. Can you present any evidence the jury got it wrong this time or that it was an unfair trial.

Another juror supposedly said only three found not guilty in that initial vote. Another juror supposedly said there wasn't an initial vote at all. So I don't know why you take Mahler's word on that initial vote as "fact", especially considering during Avery's appeal the court found his testimony unreliable.

Supposedly one juror says 10 yrs later that they feared for how the county would react if they voted not guilty, but they weren't threatened at all. That's a personal problem. There were 11 others on that jury though.

Nah, Amanda Knox takes that one easily.

It depends on everyone's definition of reasonable doubt. There are different thresholds of which I have no idea what the jury in question actually is.

What evidence do you want me to present that could give the jury some doubt because there is a laundry list of them. I know you'll have your own spin on probably every single one of them, that's just how you are. At this point I really don't care that much. My feeling is that there is reasonable doubt that SA didn't do it and that the evidence has been tainted--not all of it but some of it and because of that all I want to see is another trial. The fact that the state won't grant him a retrial means nothing to me because they wouldn't in the original case either and they were wrong.

Did I say that it made it an unfair trial in and of itself? No, I didn't. I said that, at the very least, it creates the appearance of impropriety.

If the officers who had been deposed in Avery's civil suit never entered the crime scene (what are they the only 4 cops in Manitowic's deputy force?) and all the key evidence was found by Clemut (spelling probably wrong) county law enforcement then this "evidence was planted" argument wouldn't have any legs. As it is, you have 2 officers that repeatedly enter the crime scene who have a strong motive in seeing Steven Avery convicted, as well as means and opportunity. And in a strange coincidence, they're instrumental in finding several key pieces of evidence.

Does that prove that they planted the evidence? No, it doesn't. And it's probably impossible to prove. But that isn't a problem, because the defense doesn't have to prove anything-they nearly need to raise reasonable doubt. You saw that picture that was posted ITT of the lawyer holding the chart showing what guilty and not guilty mean, right? For most people ITT the confluence of the above factors is enough to downgrade from the guilty column. As I've said before, I think it's probable that Steven Avery killed her. But "probably guilty" isn't "guilty" in a court of law.

Anyway, I didn't mean to get in a debate, just wanted to defend fraley and the other "trolls".

My main point is this:

If you're basing your opinion off watching the series, you're probably wrong.

If you're criticizing others who read the trial transcripts or did other outside research, and calling them trolls for presenting the actual facts from the case that **** up your narrative, then you're an ignorant jackass who thinks way too highly of himself.

Bye.

I'd like to see a trial where all evidence found/tainted by Lenk and Colburn was ruled inadmissible. If he's found guilty then then good riddance.

fraley has also repeatedly pointed out incorrect things as well.

http://time.com/4167915/making-a-mur...n-avery-juror/

http://www.people.com/article/steven...es-a-new-trial

HMmmmmmm.....

Yes, that's why we're all rolling our eyes.

I don't know what you think that proves. It's not the role of the defence to investigate the crime, that's the police's role. They just stopped looking into leads once they determined Avery did it.

His lawyers also addressed this, and said it can often be a trap for the defence to start mounting their own exhaustive investigation. I guess you're suggesting that they could have hired a team of investigators to do that. How much money do you think the average defendant has?

If anything, this helps the argument that the jury pool was poisoned. They only get to strike so many potential jurors, not every juror with a conflict. The fact that they struck 6 others and left this guy speaks volumes as to how tainted the pool was to begin with.

His lawyers also spoke to this. Kratz's press conference was seen by most of the state. The decisions Steve's lawyers made are possible grounds for appeal, which is specifically why they didn't handle the appeal.


IIRC they tried to find a lab to do the test, and found that people had stopped conducting the test years ago because it was generally unreliable. The prosecution had to get the FBI to re-tool their lab in order to conduct the testing. The guy that testified on behalf of the FBI said under oath that he tested 3 samples, and not 3 different samples. He then drew conclusions about the 3 samples he didn't test. Sounds like a pretty credible guy.

Avery decided, not his lawyers. I'm not sure what you think a mistrial means. They would have re-tried the case with the same judge, but different jury. I'm not sure how you think that helps.

I'm just catching up on this thread, but his problem seems to be that he's done some extraneous research, but it's not comprehensive enough to argue the points he's making. Most of the recent discussion itt has gone far beyond the material in the series afaict.