Yes, they asked many questions, he guessed many different things.

So, a few posts ago it was a huge deal to you that SA was clearly the one that deleted the VMs, but now it's just, "meh, red herring"

Bikepeddlingbackwards.jpg



I have yet to really see a motive for SA to murder TH. Or for BD to rape/murder TH.

So if you were a Manitiwoc County juror, this would be enough to let Avery free and you would just pray that he didn't rape and murder your daughter or wife and then burn her like a piece of trash? Everyone knows that the Manitiwoc County cops/prosecutor are incompetent so Avery has a license to rape and kill indefinitely because they will inevitably screw up case after case?

Yes, he's saying if he had reasonable doubt based on police incompetence, he would vote not-guilty. You know, because that would be his job.

What, you can't throw someone in jail for what they might do??!!

But the sole basis of his reasonable doubt is police incompetence, in and of itself. This is clouding his judgment and causing him to ignore the overwhelming evidence that points to Steve Avery's guilt. The juror must seek the truth, even if they don't like the people presenting it.

Very scary to see just how many people don't understand reasonable doubt.

No, they don't seek truth. That's not their role.

They review the evidence and testimony present at trial, and render a verdict based on that alone.

I would hope that police incompetence and conflict of interest would be something they would take into account when rendering said verdict.

You understand that there are protocols and best practices etc... for a reason right? No just for show.

You do realize the the reason the jury is instructed to vote the way they do is supposed to serve as a proxy for the truth since the truth is never absolute(or if it is wouldn't go to trial). The court system was designed under the belief that the side that was pushing the truth(either prosecution or defense) would have the ability to convince the jury of their case. And in the cases where it isn't conclusive, innocence is favored.

A simple thought experiment would be to ask you the question of the actual murderer in a case happen to be on the jury but he framed the defendant really well. Should he vote guilty? By your definition he should.

Obviously the jury is supposed to have no conflict of interest so their understanding of the truth is derived from what they see and only want they see presented in court.

the problem here is that there are no overwhelming evidence, everything is tainted by incompetence and/or framing.

- The bullet that link theresa to his garage, was found in a weird way and tested with total disrespect of protocol, is vaguely linked to avery, and anyway could have been planted with dna by the killer and/or framer.
- the key found in the room is suspicious as ****, found in a last chance to convict way and with no DNA of theresa
- blood in the car is the most damning evidence but still shadowed by police malpractice
- DNA under the hood is ridiculous at best since the police ****ed up again
- brandon confession is most likely what got him in jail, do i really need to say why it s super concerning.
- some supposed harassment from avery to the victim that are hearsay at best
- A theory of the murder that nothing support appart from the ****ty confession of his nephew that were not even usable in his trial.


I dont blame anyone from the jury who would let a murderer go in that situation. On the other hand i d blame fully the DA and the police for ****ing up everything
I do think avery might be the murderer and yet still deserve a chance to a proper trial.

I think the theory of the serial killer framing avery seems more credible than what the DA told the jury, which as i said earlier is a longshot but still show how bad the DA narrative is.

In fact, they're instructed to only base their decisions on what is presented in court.

It sounds like you're agreeing with me in a very roundabout way.

And welcome to the reality were the police shouldnt **** up their job because criminal can escape the system if they do, that s why they have strict protocole that wasnt followed at all in avery investigation and yet they got promoted instead of fired and/or sued

Semi-grunch, but jurors decide on their own whether witnesses are credible or lying sacks of ****.

This

I agree.

Jurors are under no obligation to let a murderer loose because of incompetent policing when there is overwhelming evidence pointing towards his guilt. If the police incompetence in some way violated Avery's constitutional rights then he can take it up with an appeals court.

Ok thanks guys. I was actually just basing these thoughts on reasonable doubt from an excerpt of the judge's instructions to the jury during the Avery Trial. As you guys have pointed out though, this is clearly wrong. I guess the judge didn't know what he was talking about. Thank you again for providing your expert input and clearing this up for me.

I don't know whether SA is guilty or not so I'm open to arguments from each side, but holy **** are Skillz and Fraley the nut low.

It's literally "who cares if the bullet was planted?" itt.

So, basically everything I said is in that first paragraph.

I don't really see where you're going with this?

I agree, think how many violent criminals are freed as a result.

So pwn's position is basically "to hell with good police work, and people's rights under the law"

Yeah, it's especially funny that RicGangi is the one saying that, as he even disagrees with the judge's own thoughts on reasonable doubt.

I feel like way too many people ITT think that as long as something is possible that means there's reasonable doubt.

My position is that bad police work actually benefits the criminals to give them a chance to get off so the outrage in here is misguided, and I trust the courts to decide whether Avery's rights were actually violated rather than people biased by a very slanted documentary.

WAT?

So, there was clearly some shoddy police/lab work in this case.

I don't see how you think that's benefitted SA at all?