Can someone go back in the thread to where I clearly acknowledged the film had bias.

But yes, I do also believe that a lot of that bias is attributed to the fact that one whole half decided not to participate.

Certainly seems like the dispatch lady thought the call was routine.

A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation. That's why Steven's in prison.

That is Ken Kratz argument. Even though this happens all the time.

And you have the kid who would plea to anything. 16-year old, mentally-challenged, being coerced for hours. And then Kratz goes on TV with that "confession" that leaves everyone thinking for sure Avery is 100% guilty. Good luck finding a jury that is unbiased after all of this.

coolstorybro

that was one point of the documentary aswell, that DA want a win and dont care much about truth

I agree the call is routine;

Finding the car of a missing person is not routine. You would think the dispatch would have done something besides make small talk about speaking Spanish.

A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation. That's why Steven's in prison.

Yeah that's not what dude is telling us.

He's double-checking a plate number to make sure he's got the name, number, model, year, etc. correct. That's it.

The bar for police conspiracies is exceedingly low itt.

Which do you think is more of a routine occurrence;

1. An officer calling in to run a plate during a routine traffic stop/having stumbled upon a car etc....

2. The clerk they call into questioning the officer on why he's calling in a certain plate

Absolutely false. That completely ignores the "guilt must be proven" part of proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It's backwards. You are saying innocence must be proven.

Actually, he told us specially he doesn't remember making the call, or the specifics of the call;

Prosecution: uh, I think he's guilty.

Defense: Maybe not. Maybe someone else did it.

Poorskills: that's just baseless speculation, not reasonable doubt.

coldborne on beeing added to the lawsuit :
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...0.pdf#page=163

14 A. I don't know if concern is the correct word, I
15 know I expressed that I didn't have any knowledge
16 of that case. I wasn't a Manitowoc County
17 resident at that time.
18 Q. My question, though, was whether you had concern,
19 the thought crossed your mind, that you might be
20 added as a defendant in that civil lawsuit?
21 A. Yes, the thought crossed my mind that I might be
22 added as the defendant.

And the morons will still pretend that no it was not a concern for him and tell us to read the transcripts

As Revots already posted:

This is routine for him. It's also why the dispatch takes no special notice of it. It also matches up with Wiegert's reports and testimony.

A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation. That's why Steven's in prison.

Well, there is all the evidence. I know, it was all planted. Buting and Strang said so.

OK he didn't remember it. So what? Do you remember every detail of every phone call you make over a year later?

I'm pointing out that you guys saying he was just calling to confirm the plate number given to him by Wiegert is *gasp* speculation.

Can you link to the part of Wiegert's testimony that talks about Colborn's call with Lynn?

Or are you just saying that Wiegert testified that he called Colborn and gave him TH's plate number?

It's routine for him to memorize a license plate and other details of a missing person case instead of writing down the info, then later checking in and repeating what he thinks it is to the dispatch to confirm? It's like a little memory test for him I guess. Assuming missing person reports are routine in that area I suppose.

I'm not getting where you assume he couldn't have written it down.

Write something down in a hurry. Call later, to verify that all your info is correct. Pretty standard.

What we're saying is based on Colborn's testimony and backed up by Wiegert.

Both in his reports and his testimony, Wiegert says he called Colborn about the missing person.

If Wiegert is calling Colborn about the missing person, we can assume he's giving him details on her, including her car information, instead of just saying "Hey Colby, there's a missing person named Teresa".

In Colborn's call to dispatch he asks to check if the plate matches "the missing person". Since he already has the information from Wiegert, if he saw the car, he wouldn't need to call.

It's much more likely he calls because he wants to make sure it's the right info rather than a vast conspiracy of both malice and stupidity.

A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation. That's why Steven's in prison.

Zellner: "Police reports: Only SA suspect but BIG RED FLAGS on others. Must have to do w/BIG GREEN DOLLARS. #MakingAMurderer"

That does not lead me to believe he was checking something he had previously written down. It's just a weird statement altogether imo. He had the information but calling it in cemented in his mind who the vehicle belonged to and the plates associated with it? wat?

Here's a good reddit post listing some of the quotes about the anger issues Steven had after his exoneration:

If you tell Brendan to do something, like confess, he'll do it.