Re bolded: I don't know what that means.

I have already stated that it is impossible not to watch the doc and not have reasonable doubt unless you have prior knowledge or a strong opinion.

I have also said, until I conduct proper research into the matter, I am not going to have a "real world" opinion.

So, for now, I am sort of just discussing the documentary and whatever else people bring to the thread; I am content (until I have enough time and interest) to see how it plays out.

However, I cannot stress enough how much of an impression Zellner's brashness makes on me. In my experience in this profession, attorneys that do this either have the goods, or they are total idiots. I know Zellner is not an idiot.

In general attorneys are very risk adverse and always want to leave themselves outs - especially in the public eye. Zellner is leaving no outs; she believes she has a strong case. Based on her past results, I have no reason to doubt her.

Her twitter feed suggests otherwise.

I find this strange.

Dont look too much into it.

Oh, so Zellner has not been brash. She has not been stating unequivocally she will win the case; she has not gone on record stating S.A. is innocent; she has not called out Katz; she has not taken issue with any of the evidence.

Okay.

I'm not planning on it. I just find it strange.

She has done those things but She has clearly been dishonest and anyone that has read her twitter feed should be able to tell she is just doing this for publicity.

Because this forum is not known for people looking into things.

WTF? What are you talking about exactly? What is your relationship with "people from the area"? (this is going to be good I think).

I read her twitter feed and I do not believe she is just doing this for publicity. If she really doesn't think she has a case, then exactly how will making such claims help her get publicity. "Publicity" for a professional only helps if it is associated with competence and winning.

Here, she specializes in this area and its not like she can just sneak away if she falls flat on her face.

So, again, as someone who understands how important reputation is in the legal industry, I do not believe she would do this unless she was certain she would win. She is basically laying her entire professional reputation on the line in front of the country. Given what she has to lose, this is a substantial bet.

Clearly? Can you at least quote something that was dishonest? More of the same...what is going on here?

I almost feel like you are an AI chat bot.

Not to mention Bushnell from the Innocence Project joining the team after they publicly dropped association from SA. To re-instate their intention to fight for him again is massive IMO.

One thing that is puzzling to me are those *67 calls to Teresa. Did Steven Avery have a history of *67'ing people? Was this something he only did when calling Teresa? Only that day? Did or are investigators even allowed to look back into previous phone records of Steven Avery prior to that day?

In my opinion if this was something he only did that day or had a history of doing only with Teresa then there was something more involved in Steven's mind when dealing with Teresa than solely business. I'm not implying he had murderous intentions but certainly could have had romantic feelings towards her and lustful ones.

In regards to the last call he made to her that wasn't *67'ed on that day. Did he ever provide a reason as to why he made that call? I'm assuming this call was made during the timeline where she was expected to have left his property after their meeting. What reason did Steven give for making that call?

"there is no dna in sweat"

"they just rubbed TH keys on his clothes"

"slam dunk evidence, got a letter from Kratz"

Etc.. its just half truths and meant to mislead.. That is how I see it anyway. Time will tell who is correct though.

Ageed.

I have yet to see an accurate phone record of his. I believe the defense argued that he had made several *67 calls though so it is reasonable to suggest he could have made a call from a blocked number just to protect his privacy.

constant # of making a murderer is annoying as well. It screams of some sort of publicity stunt. But Oski is the lawyer so what do I know.

As someone who's done nothing but research this case since watching the series a month ago, I'd really like you to enlighten me to the things I haven't seen.

My position after watching the series is pretty much the same it is now, we don't know. Steve could have done it. So could have other people. The police definitely dropped the ball in this case.

Can your eyes get aids?

Of course... but all the normal, rational people who share your opinion dropped out of this thread weeks ago.

To continue posting in this thread, I'm afraid you'll have to pick an unreasonably extreme position and then repeat yourself endlessly.

LOL none of this is a lie nor can it be called dishonest.

Or, if you wanted to continue posting ITT, you could always sit on the sidelines and throw jabs at people interested in the case.

Pretty much the best post you've made all thread.

I guess it all depends on your opinion of the case. I find it to be dishonest bc dna is in sweat, the letter from kratz is ultimately irrelevant and the suggestion that cops planted evidence by rubbing TH key on some of avery's clothes is silly to me.

also be sure to throw in that #makingamurderer in every tweet.

I'd say that this post from reddit regarding the civil lawsuit was pretty important.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...y_interesting/

Oski? Is this post fair.

Are my eyes deceiving me.

http://imgur.com/r/MakingaMurderer/HDRc5hr