It is possible the judge was referencing the cat incident and gun/car incident with his cousin. I assume the judge would be very careful in how he worded his statement, making me wonder if the film edited it to come off as really unfair to SA.

Well, let's say some celebrity (allegedly) drugged and sexually abused 34 women. Would it be OK for the State to say to the 34th one "No WAY can anyone here believe that good ol' Bill did any of that stuff" and refuse to proceed?

The only question should be "Do we have enough evidence to continue?" whether that is in the investigation, arrest, indictment, or prosecution stage. Belief really shouldn't enter into it IMO. (That's very different from planting evidence and coercing a mentally challenged kid to confess.)

For Brendan's case, the methods are highly questionable, but once the state HAS the confession, I don't blame them one bit for prosecuting. I just don't understand how the jury could convict.

Belief is central to proceeding with arrest or indictment imo.

The state does not automatically prosecute because of confessions. In high profile cases there can be loads of people who confess who are not prosecuted because prosecutors don't believe they did it.

If you want to be a lawyer, instead of using the word "believe" you can say probable cause or, well...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

Standard for indictment refers to "fair probability."

It's pretty vague, and yes, you could say there's a fair probability that SA killed her and that BD killed her.

But, presumably after SA's conviction where the State supposedly proved that he killed her in the garage, there wouldn't be a fair probability that SA and BD killed her in the trailer.

(setting aside the fact that it's virtually impossible that she was killed in either place.)

Relevance?

I don't think it would be ok for the State to proceed against Cosby without evidence. Also, I don't think it would be ok for them not to proceed against him if they have evidence, believe they have a reasonable chance at conviction and believe the evidence points to his guilt (iow believe he did it).

I am a little worried that I'm more fired up than I should be and that the documentarians left out important stuff.

The cat incident definitely makes me wonder about SA.

I guess like most people, I think the blood and bullet were 100% planted, the key like 99%. She wasn't killed in the trailer or the garage. But, that doesn't rule out SA. There's just no evidence pointing to him, at least not more than anyone else who had access to the junk yard.

It is obviously just a theory of a redditor and I admit that that link probably was not the best to make my point.

To me it just seems really intersting if Brendan tells (mostly) the truth in the first two interviews since he seems to be the only witness really (If in fact he is a witness at all ofc).

Just thought that was intersting since for example he says in both interviews that SA planned to move the firepit which seems to at least come out of his own head and not from the cops putting it into his head. Just a detail but I tend to give his words some credit. Of course i can be dead wrong.

One reason I found the first two interviews so interesting is probably that they weren't really presented in the documentary which I think would have been important.

This is well put.

Add the "off the charts" conflict of interest by investigating officers (who BTW were ORDERED to not be there for this very reason) and "fair probability" becomes unlikely.

Now lets add the clearly documented instances of admitted and proven poor police work by Manitowoc law enforcement and "unlikely" starts to approach extremely low probability.

Further, just for funsies, lets add to the mix the shear number of unproven or circumstantial coincidences surrounding this case such as Lenk happens to find the key, key has only SA's dna on it, it is a SINGLE key found on the 7th search of same area, prior searches by investigators without a conflict of interest yield nothing and officers testify on the stand that the key was not there, Lenk happens to have ordered the blood samples, Lenk happens to admit being on (forbidden) crime scene moments before "magic bullet" is found, questionable vehicle discovery within minutes of having started search and being the only searcher given a camera, crime scene log inconsistencies (Lenk is the only offending party), licence plate call in by Colbern 2 days before vehicle is discovered, 6 searches by Columet County and no evidence found, single bullet alledged to pass through victims skull and brain has so little dna on it only 1 test can be performed according to technician, technician is same technician that wrongly tied SA to rape in first case, technician ruins test by somehow inserting her own DNA but allows test result to be conclusive anyways, written phone records proves that detectives who were not supposed to be on the scene have called her and requested (ordered?) her as to what she should find, same detectives on many hours of recorded interrogations clearly coercing BD's confessions, BD's confessions coerced to change when detectives discover they wont be able to prove original confessions (lol), blood evidence in car but no fingerprints, SA alledges planting and the evidence seal of blood vial happens to be cut AND re-taped shut, bone's having been moved, bus driver's conflicting time lines, SA very normal, non-nonchalant attitude in recorded phone convos, time of SA's recorded phone convos conflicting with amount of time to commit alleged crime, TH's vm is accessed days after crime is alleged to have happened, no other suspects investigated including the most obvious (people close to her), people with direct connections to County sitting on jury, DA's shady records and forced resignation, DA's suggestive emails after the fact, edta tests happen to be able to be created and performed in record times (by a factor of 12x) but judge does not allow defense to do their own tests, defense destroys FBI agent who "invented" and performed tests makes certainty claims about the test that are not possible and not consistent with scientific methods, FBI agent is also found to have "invented" a similar test that "proved" a man poisoned his wife only have the man fully exonerated through DNA evidence later (think about this one for a minute), only 2 judges presided over everything and ruled in the defenses favor on every single important decision when it came to allowing or disallowing evidence and further forensic testing. "fair probability" is approaching near impossible.

And since this is my post I'll just add a bit more to the equation and that is the disgusting behavior in and out of court by law enforcement and the prosecution. I hate to put it like this, but "just LOOK at them!" Ken Kratz and his disgusting demeanor during the press conferences, Fassbender and Weigert during the interrogations, too much to list about Kachinsky, Kachinsky's investigator's interactions with BD and his putrid fake tears on the stand (I mean wtf?), both judges and their clear disdain towards SA and BD, DNA technician's DGAF face when asked to explain the shear number of non-standard actions she took in this case, FBI tech's overly confident demeanor when stating that he was able to miraculously develop this test "to make sure he helped the citizens of Manitowoc County in case there was Police Corruption". Yeah, near absolute zero probability for me now.

One more thing... did I mention that they have already been caught doing this once before to the same man and stand to answer for their egregious errors and malevolent actions (crimes?) to the tune of $36,000,000 and careers and reputations ruined?

NioNio was less of a conspiracy/coverup than this. Do you think T high call downs FTW are just Mike Caro-esque online reads? What are you SA and BD innocence doubters seeing that I am not? It is NOT just that there's reasonable doubt and therefor he should not have been convicted. It's that there's so much evidence to him not having done the crime and so little evidence supporting it AS WELL as extremely clear indications of criminal activity by investigators that should not have been there in the first place who stand to lose everything if they don't convict him of this.

First time posting in this thread.

After having watched the series in it's entirety, I came away not know if either of the parties were involved or committed the murder.

To those that have an opinion, especially those that say they would acquit, I don't see how that conclusion can be made by watching a documentary that is slanted towards the defense ( I think that the reason for the bias in the documentary has more to do with the state not taking part in it and not an agenda by the filmmakers).

However, the biggest take away from this documentary is just how bad poor people, and especially those with limited intellectual capacity, have in in the judicial system and the constitutional right of the presumption of innocence is sometimes just a fallacy. A defendant almost always has to prove he is innocent and is always fighting the current of the presumption of guilt. After all, the cops are the good guys right? The dude wouldn't be here if he wasn't at least likely guilty.

As a Wisconsinite I remember this case, but not all the details, as this series showed. I basically watched it all in one day as I tried to get over my new year's hangover. Best thing I've ever watched on Netflix.

The defense lawyers were the "stars" and just brilliant. I knew what the verdict would be, and I was still riveted while questioning if it was the same case even! Surely he must be found not guilty!

While I can't say SA is 100% innocent, there is surely enough there to place reasonable doubt. The entire guilty side of the prosecution, cops, judge, etc. couldn't have been worse. I'm shocked that he was found guilty but OJ was found not guilty.

Lol justice system.

@ncboiler,

Well, we only have the info we have. I'd acquit for sure with what I've seen and so should you if you say you don't know if either of the parties were involved.

As far as how badly poor people are treated, yeah, that was striking. Also how badly you get treated if you aren't smart. When Brendan was worried about getting back to school by 1:29 to turn in a project, that was pretty sickening. He had no clue about how serious the trouble was.

i would say there is absolutely zero evidence of theresa being killed on the avery property. that alone should be enough to cast reasonable doubt that steven is the killer.

I imagine in a county that size it would be difficult to find 12 jurors without some connection to either side. Who knows, there could be one or two jurors with a connection to the defense in some way.

this is answered in one of the last two dean strang videos i linked

Teresa and Steven's blood are both in her Rav4 on the property.

Teresa's burnt bones are on the property where Steven was having his bonfire the night she disappeared.

If you want to go ahead and say the evidence was all planted, go ahead.

But you can't say there isn't evidence.

I agree. Based solely on the documentary I would acquit in a heartbeat. Brendan Dassey says her throat was cut inside the trailer, and anyone with common sense would know that something like that would spew DNA all over the room (among many other reasons). However, like I said, the doc was slanted towards the defense and sitting through the entire trial may have led you to another conclusion. Maybe, maybe not. But who knows.

I just think the biggest take away is being missed here. It's not that two people may be serving time for something they did not do, it's that the judicial system has the capability of working as portrayed, which effects more than just these two people.

11 .22 caliber gunshots by a bunch of rednecks with a large amount of property, I would assume they were heard, but just another random weekday in the country. Definitely, during hunting season, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary.

One thing my wife and I thought was strange, do 25 year olds (or less) make random videos talking about if they die, to tell their family that they were loved and had a great life. Especially in a time period where everybody didn't have a camera in their pocket. That certainly added another level of mysterious feeling to an already crazy story.

Great Post...... I'll add a small bit that nowhere was blood of TH ever found on SA property or garage(or BA dna in steven's property) & was also never cleaned Dexter like if you wish & at no time was any Hair skin particles found in TH car.
The car key was obv a spare key which the family had to know was taken by someone, no wonder they dropped the civil case.

TBH I think it was the ex-bf that killed her imo, then he convinced the brother that it was SA.

http://www.wkow.com/story/30834876/2...ol-city-sunday

I just saw where Yeti posted this video. 7:36 to 9:20 they are talking about this and the man, Dean Strang, nails it.

I don't disagree with this. However, Avery had a couple of the best criminal lawyers around and were quite expensive. That's where the money went from his settlement with the state on his first wrongful conviction for rape.

The point was that one's PERSONAL belief is irrelevant. Is there credible evidence? If so, let's continue with the process. If not, let's stop. That's all the state needs to know, whether the person of interest is a celebrity or trailer trash.

A prosecutor might PERSONALLY believe that a case is a total piece of **** and that Perp A shouldn't be found guilty, but that doesn't matter. If there's credible evidence, his job is to present it as best he can. If the perp gets awful representation from some public defender, oh well, them's the breaks. If he gets a clueless jury, oh well, life sucks, then you die. If he has Johnny Cochran defending him and gets off, whatever, next case. None of that is his problem.

Presumably belief is based on evidence. I don't see how a rational prosecutor would personally believe a case is crap when the evidence indicates a fair likelihood of guilt. Maybe this is just semantics.

I hope you find yourself in court some day. I wonder if you'll think the same way...

I definitely think you're arguing semantics you some extent but busto is still just wrong.

A prosecutor's job isn't to try everything that crosses his desk as best he can. Prosecutors and DAs have say in what they actually bring charges on and can and should reject cases that lack credible evidence. It is on the prosecutor to determine if the evidence they have is credible, relevant, and "enough"

Lol just got done reading some of transcripts from very first interview of BD. He clearly has no idea wtf the cops are even talking about. They indicate they know he's upset about something and to just go ahead and tell them what its is. He says, "yeah, my uncle is gone. I used to work on cars n' that with him."

The first three pages are just sickening because I know results. It's just an innocent teenager talking about helping his uncle burn some trash and that he's sad that his gf broke up with him.

To go from that to where we're at now is beyond comprehension.

Just so damn sick how tragic this is.

Correct on Steven Avery's second conviction. In the case of his first conviction and Brendan Dassey's conviction, it's just poor, dumb people getting steamrolled by the prosecution. That should be the focus here.