it was dangerous for them in case he wasnt innocent they d have problem getting money after defending a murderer rapist

Ya this exactly

Their specialty is using dna evidence to overrule convictions. There is no dna evidence available to overrule this murder conviction so it isn't a case they would take.

I'm not sure what you are saying... you can't overturn a conviction until he GETS convicted, exhausts all reasonable appeals, and THEN something new turns up.

As far as marketing, etc. of course they are going to pull him off their Web site once he's been indicted for a new murder. That's just PR 101.

An omitted interview transcript: https://www.docdroid.net/80khPqQ/two...cript.pdf.html

Just finished. I put some comments already in the Netflix thread. I guess spoiler tags not needed here?

Aside from whether or not SA or BD had anything to do with the murder, it's just so infuriating that the State can try and convict SA on the theory that the murder happened in the garage with SA alone and then even attempt to try BD on a different theory.

How can it be that the entire public doesn't call for the firing (at least) of every single person involved in that happening? Does anyone think that the role of the State is to convict whoever is accused, rather than to find the truth?

A question I have: She was shot 11 times. Was anyone even in the remote area to hear that? If all these Avery's were on the plot 11 gunshots should be easily heard and noticeable, no?

Really no good reason given to think that she was shot 11 times. They found 11 shells the garage. Really no chance she was shot in the garage, but w/e it was at least implied that there were shells all over everywhere on that property. Forensics shows (don't know how well) that there were one or two shots to the head.

So they've never confirmed the actual number because I have heard or read the number 11 somewhere?

A commenter on the NYT article alleges that there was some info that SA had more of a relationship (stalker) with the victim than let on and that this info was out there in the trial. If he was the stalker, then he could have deleted the voicemails.

If that's true it was pretty BS of the filmmakers to leave that out.

The info in the documentary was that they found 11 shells in the garage. They found one flattened bullet. The only forensic evidence regarding cause of death shown in the documentary was the semi-circular part missing from a skull fragment that was interpreted as one or maybe two bullet holes.

you think TH's brother testified to having deleted them in order to cover for SA? Or you think he deleted some and SA deleted others?

I'm not really sure what you are asking...

In the U.S. the system is built from the ground up to be adversarial. By design, there IS no seeker of truth. The police gather evidence. The DA makes a case. The defense pokes holes in it. A jury decides whether or not to convict. The judge is supposed to be impartial, but that has nothing in particular to do with truth.

At least in the documentary he didn't testify to deleting them. He testified that he listened to them. He thought he listened to all of them. The reason we know, or think at least, that there were deleted messages is because of people calling that day and getting a message that her vm was full and the testimony of the cingular wireless guy that there weren't enough messages on there to fill the vm.

I'm supposing that the ex-bf, who said he had the password (claimed to have guessed it) deleted the messages before the brother listened to them.

(if there's any truth to SA stalking Teresa, maybe he got the password from her and deleted threatening messages, but I think the ex-bf is much more likely for this.)

There is an obligation for defense, either by the accused or provided by the State if necessary. There is no obligation to prosecute a case. The DA/Police should never prosecute a case they don't believe in. Isn't that obvious enough? Is it ok if they just prosecute anyone for anything at any time and it's just fine because there's an adversarial system to provide defense?

Whatever the system is supposedly built around it's patently disgusting for the State to have two contradictory cases against two different people.

Not really. Their whole JOB is to make the best case they can, given the evidence on hand. If they KNOW a defendant is innocent, they have a professional obligation not to prosecute, but that's a pretty high bar. Otherwise, it's not their job to decide "truth" or to "believe" or not. It's their job to make a case and let the jury decide.

As for jury trial vs. plea bargain vs. no charges, that's a complicated and highly politicized process, for better or worse. But "truth" rarely enters into it.

(This is all from discussions with my brother, who's a DA, FWIW.)

Yeah, pretty much. As a practical matter they won't bother with weak cases, but they COULD. Too much of that and they will be kicked out of office, but again the bar is pretty high.

That's more debatable. Apparently there's a fair amount of case law on the subject. I won't pretend to be an expert on the issues involved, but if twins (for example) gun down their parents, I'm not so sure they should walk because the police can't prove which one did it.

EDIT: To be clear I'm no fan of the State's behavior in the Avery case. But it's hard to draw sweeping conclusions from it.

these two reddit threads are really interesting imo:

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

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

Could obviously still be a false confession after all but it seems much more likely he tells (mostly) the truth in the first two interviews than in the further ones which eventually convicted him.

That said obviously both can be bull****. Very confusing.

I'm mostly speaking in moral terms and not legal. Imo it's grossly wrong for the state to pursue a case where they don't think it's likely the accused is guilty.

i thought (and still think) this was one of the best pieces of television ever, but at this point i'm completely done with the online discussion of this show.

you have the clinically insane dude showing up at the avery's house on christmas day, the illiterate anonymous dude libelling everyone in sight without a crumb of evidence, and the endless stream of reddit detectives, again throwing guilt at anyone and everyone based on fifteen seconds of court footage.

my favourite recent example of 'lol reddit' is this, where these morons are trying to identify what computer games and tv shows brendan was watching on the night in question, as if it's somehow going to blow the case wide open. it looks like arrested development was showing that evening, so presumably if brendan can remember the ingredients of a skip's scramble 12 years later he can be exonerated. quick, somebody alert his lawyers!

and all of that is before even considering the hundreds of people showing up daily with the same tired thoughts that have been repeated thousands of times before.

an incredible tv show, but one that has sadly illustrated the absolute worst elements of the internet.

with that said, this is good and should hopefully make people stfu about the towel incident:

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

I haven't gotten through all that, but the first one says there's evidence showing SA raped someone in the past. That is a wtf. Even the judge at the sentencing talked about a pattern of behavior. Isn't it clear that the rape case in the past was 100% absolutely not him?

And then, it suggests that the police found the RAV4 from a helicopter and then, having that evidence, they told a relative of the victim to go check it out? Ugh. Does not encourage confidence in any arguments from that author.

I just finished the show this morning. Crazy how I marathoned a 10 hour series just a couple weeks after release and I'm still way behind the times.

Internet sucks.

Smacc's interpretation of the article is that Calumet PD investigated SA when they should have passed it on to another dept, the article is also poorly written with dates & FACTS missed out or left out.
I am also willing to say that unlike yourself the I will wait for evidence to summarize before making a judgement especially when 3 members of the avery family were found out to be lying on previous statements(Bobby dassey & the other man in stevens case who I forget his name who got the timeline wrong that they had seen teresa Halbach on the property which was verified by the school bus driver & also kayla Avery).
I realize that the whole avery family was under extreme pressure in the local community as fingers would still be pointing at the avery name alone, maybe some of them just wanted a way out, others may have had a financial motive to get steven in jail again.
So when i said give this man a break what I meant to say is that everyone deserves to be seen as Innocent until proven guilty especially Steven & until I see FACTS about the alleged rape then I reserve judgement.

BTW PoorSkillz you should apply to any WI PD I am sure that a person such as yourself is what they are looking for to protect & serve the local community.

Just to clarify.

The brother hacked/opened her VMs, and may or may not have been the one to delete them.

People reported getting a VM full message, but later (days later) a new VM popped up, so some must have been deleted.

The ex-bf and her room mate hacked/opened her online phone records by apparently guessing both her username and password.

Apparently in order to see who was calling her.

Well I wouldn't think ex-bf and roommate could have deleted VMs online like that, but if they could get to her online records they could have also gotten to the phone VM perhaps.

I guess the deleting VMs could also have been innocent. If the brother were listening to multiple messages from himself asking where she were, he might delete all but the last one.