Why do you think that every item you mentioned here has actual reported evidence to counter it's legitimacy. EVERY ONE. What are the probabilities of that?

Did you just choose to not believe what you were being shown in the documentary?

Has this link/theory been discussed yet in this thread?

http://www.sunnyskyz.com/blog/1244/T...ve-Seen-So-Far


Of all the theories I've read this one seems to tie everything together the best.

Not similar but def one of the best docs I have seen is Dope Sick Love. It follows two couples who are addicted to crack for I believe around 1 year.

Yes, it's been mentioned. I think it's way off in some parts. I can get into it if you want, but it's all ITT.

Plus this:

is just not going to cut it 'round these parts.

Nope, no need to get into it. If it's been covered itt already I'll get to it.

And yes I agree the conclusion isn't as perfect as us analytical types would like.

That being said, they touch on some decent points but eventually it just comes crashing down because they won't insert the key ingredient.

It just seems hard for anyone to accept that someone at or near the top of law enforcement and/or the judicial system would devise a plot to murder someone to frame Steven Avery. Everything makes perfect sense if one can accept that fact.

I would assume there are people in other countries laughing at us right now like, "Haha you idiots, of course it was the cops. Obviously."

What is the reported evidence countering the legitimacy of the victim's car being found on his property? Of his blood being found inside her car? Of his DNA being found on her car key?

I believed much of what the documentary showed. I believe they rushed to judgement on Avery's first conviction for rape. I believe the local cops were too involved in the murder investigation. I believe Brendan Dassey had a legit case when they appealed based on his incompetent public defender. None of which means I don't think they are both guilty.

OK I.ll bite

What is the odds that the MCPD would frame SA again, considering the fact that he got framed(18 years in jail) because he threatened a woman with a unloaded gun because she was spreading false rumors about him regarding a sexual offence.
That these same officers & Dept, Courts ect would frame SA again When facing a potential civil lawsuit for $36 Mil & is getting paraded around town like a hero(eveyone in town wanted a piece) & a actual bill was getting named after him(never mind a road).
Also may I suggest you provide proof that has not been provided itt to debunk all of the points you say that SA is guilty,DNA, Bullet fragment,Key,Car & DNA.

Reasonabledoubt.

Anyone want to explain why Steven denied having any fire at all on Oct 31 in his initial statements?

And why the series chose not to cover this despite showing other excerpts from that same statement?

Bonus points for creativity!

I was tryna read it like

My favorite part from that initial statement. It's a shame he didn't stick with this alibi lol:

Well, too bad it wasn't recorded.

Why do you think Brendan said he didn't see Teresa at first? Bonus points if you can get it in 18 guesses or less.

Oh, it was though. 0 points. Try again.

Because he was coached what to say.

Here, made it easy for you

(emphasis added)

This has probably been mentioned, but isn't "Kiss the Girls" a long (like 500 pages or so) James Patterson crime novel? It seems pretty unlikely to me that 16yo Branden Dassey was reading that novel for entertainment (or that he did a lot of leisure reading in general). In fact, they way he immediately had a book title at the ready when the prosecutor asked him what book he could have read all that stuff in, seemed rather rehearsed.

I read on the internet it was something like ninth grade reading material, I just wonder where a guy like that would get the idea to cut the victims hair.

I also wonder why the police would wash the key before placing SA's DNA on it, seems like something someone besides the police would do.

Also, what reason could there be for a scared woman to be walking toward SA's trailer?

Because what would happen if the cops had their DNA on it?

I know I'm being nit-picky here but I had to read it a few times to realize he simply states he did not use his burn barrel that night. That's it. He also says he burned some tires and trash the week before. The report does not state that Steven Avery denies burning anything in the pit that night. I've been looking for the recorded interview but can't find it.

What I did notice about this report that you so generously provided is that Doctor Laura Vogel-Schwartz collected SA's DNA that night of the interview and was reminded conveniently AFTER she had already done the swabs of his groin area that the warrant didn't allow for it. So she just threw them away in the disposal bin. Confirmed on reddit that they are already trying to confirm what relation this Vogel that collected his DNA has to Denis Vogel. Jesus man, wtf is going on in this town?

Also, something else even you can't help but notice in this report written by police is:

Steven is a Simple man who seems to work pretty hard and spend quite a bit of his time having meals with his mom and leading a fairly boring life.

He doesn't go to bars and hasn't since he was younger, in fact he rarely drinks at all.

His day revolves around 2 things, work and visiting Jodi that he intends to marry once she is released.

"Steven advised" was giving me a headache.

Alright, few things I find important:

-Lisa Buchner, the bus driver, dropped off Brendan between 3.30 and 3.45. The bus driver saw Teresa taking pictures of a van.
-Propane truck driver saw Teresa's car leave the property between 3.30 and 4.00. He didn't see who the driver was nor whether the car turned left or right on the 147.
-Robert Fabian sees Steven at his trailer at 5.20 with no signs of Teresa's car

Teresa's arrival time at the Avery property seems to be fairly uncertain, but Mrs. Zipperer said that Teresa was at their place around 3.00. Avery would be her next visit and around a 10 minute drive away.

Then there is of course the testimony from Bobby and Scott Tadych. They both seem pretty inconsistent in their stories and their testimony is kind of a mess.

Perhaps he was concerned about it being an illegal search. Meaning, if it's found that the search is illegal, then it can't be used as evidence.

2 points for misinterpreting the report to fit your narrative. You can do better though.




The problem with eyewitness testimony is it's often pretty inconsistent for anyone, not just Bobby and Scott.

So we should be taking the BD interviews and testimony as gospel, but ignore or not give credit to the other eye witness testimony?

Nope, please don't put words in my mouth again.