Are you going to ignore the fact that I addressed this here:

Be honest: did you first hear "the car's here" before or after someone told you that's what was said?

And are you going to ignore all my other questions in that post where I addressed it?

Not really from a distance & only for a short period of 36 hrs, basically 1 working day. Covering it up from potential customers.
I mean why would SA disconnect the battery?

There was wood/branches on some other cars as well.

Do you honestly think that is being said or do you think you hear that because it was suggested thats what was said?

all good choices. I think I enjoyed the staircase the most and that follows the defense much like mam did.

Because it 100% is being said? Are you going to answer any questions or keep deflecting?

First you have to demonstrate it is being said. Have you had this tape analyzed by an audio expert? Because, honestly. I don't hear that being said. Are you going to answer skillz question because it is important. What came first..

You hearing "the car is here"

or someone else telling you they say "the car is here"

if it is the latter this is a common audio illusion we humans have. Skillz posted a link for you.

Also, even IF they did say "the car is here" like that could mean literally 1 million things. Is it just because it is in the colborn call that makes it interesting to you? Kind of weird to even be talking about this tbh.

Think about this seriously. Lets say I said they said "artie's here" could you honestly tell the difference? or "hard to hear" or anything that sounds like that.

Steve Avery may or may not be guilty. He was not afforded a fair investigation or trial.

Can anyone defend that a prosecutor is allowed to go on tv and say definitively how a crime occurred without any corroborating evidence besides a story.

This press conference hurt the state's case (perception at least) that they were boxed into this torture, rape, murder scenario. They really couldn't deviate that much from it or they would have lost total credibility. But the state 'won', and that is all that seems to matter. Just like they 'won' in 1985.

***Kratz: I know that there are some news outlets that are carrying this live, and perhaps there may be some children that are watching this. I'm gonna ask that if you're under the age of 15, that you discontinue watching this press conference. We have now determined what occurred sometime between 3:45 p.m. and 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. on the 31st of October. Sixteen-year-old Brendan Dassey, who lives next door to Steven Avery in a trailer, returned home on the bus from school about 3:45 p.m. He retrieved the mail and noticed one of the letters was for his uncle, Steven Avery. As Brendan approaches the trailer, as he actually gets several hundred feet away from the trailer, a long, long way from the trailer, Brendan already starts to hear the screams. As Brendan approaches the trailer, he hears louder screams for help, recognizes it to be of a female individual and he knocks on Steven Avery's trailer door. Brendan says that he knocks at least three times and has to wait until the person he knows as his uncle, who is partially dressed, who is full of sweat... opens the door and greets his 16-year-old nephew. Brendan accompanies his sweaty 43-year-old uncle down the hallway to Steven Avery's bedroom. And there they find Teresa Halbach completely naked and shackled to the bed. Teresa Halbach is begging Brendan for her life. The evidence that we've uncovered... establishes that Steven Avery at this point invites his 16-year-old nephew to sexually assault this woman that he has had bound to the bed. During the rape, Teresa's begging for help, begging 16-year-old Brendan to stop, that "you can stop this." Sixteen-year-old Brendan, under the instruction of Steven Avery... cuts Teresa Halbach's throat... but she still doesn't die.***

I'm done then because it's not even up for debate that somebody says it

Hahhahaha "not even up for debate".

I've got a challenge for you:

1. Find a few people that haven't watched MaM
   
   
2. Tell them you are going to play a brief audio clip for them and that you want to know what it is they hear, but give them no background info
   
   
3. Play them that 2 second audio snippet only and ask them what they hear (let them listen multiple times if necessary, but their original answer is their final one)
   
   
4. Report back with their answers
   

I feel ya yeotaJMU even when we have actual proof like a email to SC by KK to put TH in the garage, its just waved away, nothing to see hear.

And that press conference above is just ****ing wow.

or writing to the FBI to say that the purpose of this EDTA test is to eliminate the allegation that officers planted blood.

I think the most relevant point is that it is not normal to call in plates on a cell phone, its normal to call it in on the radio and, 2-your premise, to assume that its normal on Colborn's behalf, is ignoring that Colborn and everyone else with MTSO, was expecting a Len Kachinsky type lawyer to be defending Avery. No one was expecting Strang and Buting. So for Colborn to call in on his cell-phone, he may absolutely have been trying to keep from appearing in the normal dispatch radio calls, where I highly doubt a public defender would go to the trouble of getting the reg calls, if they'd even be bothered with getting the radio calls.
Q And this would be done, typically, over the radio?
A Yes, sir.
Q Road patrol officers have a radio unit in their car? Their squad car?
A Correct.
Q And then, also, have a collar mike?
A Some wear the collar mike, yes.
Q All right. Some of the telephone lines that the dispatchers answer also are tape recorded?
A Yes, sir.
Q That's not something known by every officer in the Department?
A I wouldn't know if they all know about it. I mean, the majority probably know about it.
Q Okay. Something you've learned in your management position?
A Yes.
It should probably also be noted if Colborn is calling in the plates on the cell phone, because he doesn't have his radio, that implies it was after he left the station. I would imagine Dedering and Remiker would have had that information, given they were the ones assigned to interview Zipperer (after Colborn decided not to), and Colborn was merely 'assisting' them.
So then begs the question [if it was indeed at this time], what was he doing calling in the plates so late, and if he did it while with the other officers, didn't they have it? if it was after, why would he need to on his way home, after his duty shift was over, in his street clothes, nowhere to go but home?

No most people think this was all just an abortion of how the criminal justice system works and it is a few people who got deputized as ten year olds who keep acting like all of this was competent and standard. So then it digresses into discussions of various theories and thoughts bevause for some reason we are catering two three delusional people who don't understand the law or how the system should work.

Most people, I suspect don't know if Avery was involved but clearly know his trial was unjust and most people think Dassey is completely absurd.

When legitimate questions can be raised in the way and manner evidence was collected and with the competency of those involved reasonable doubt is not even a stretch. That is what is so dumb about this case. It is not like people are nitpicking. What happened here was an egregious tragedy driven by ego and gross incompetence. So it's not like we are arguing a 51/49'case.

But since three of you have no rational basis other than "police good" the thread continues to grind into nonsense. However it is entirely disingenuous for you to act like most people here are crying innocent or frame job. Pretty much everyone is agreeing that it was a miscarriage of justice because gross negligent mistakes, incompetence and perhaps intentional deception marred literally every single level of the investigation.

None of you three still understand reasonable doubt. It's absurd your positions along with you knowledge and understanding of the law have not progressed even a tiny amount in this whole process.

That you guys think the way this investigation was run was ok or standard has always been ludicrous. Nothing about that has ever changed. There is nothing legitimate or normal, for an above board law enforcement agency, in this entire process. Yet you guys remain the three blind mice and keep acting like a base position of the way this unfolded being okay is even a little rational.

Mark, this is a serious question. I am not goading you into a fight but you keep posting this so I want you to tell me what you think I don't understand about reasonable doubt? And please don't give some sarcastic null answer like "everything" just point out where you think I have trouble understanding the term and I will tell you what I think.

Well wait, that isn't fair. One of my posts even entertained the idea that was said and I asked you why it matters since saying "car is here" could mean a million things.

Also, I am willing to put some money up on a bet that we don't get more than 60% of the people hear the phrase "car is here" if we do this. Not a lot of money but maybe $100 and I am sure others would be interested too.

I should get odds though since it is 100% said according to you and easily heard.

Has any big information been revealed since the documentary come out? Anyone generous enough to give the cliffs on what's going on.

yes,

All transcripts are available here: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/

This includes the entire 27 day trial, some photos that were presented, documents and statements from police during the investigation, appeal paperwork filed and steven avery's criminal history.

SA has a new lawyer "zellner" who claims he is innocent and that she will prove this in court.

Thats really all the new stuff you can check out. Don't know how involved you want to get but its all there.

Lol yeota

Like a baby. "If I don't get my way I'm going to whine!!!"

But here's the thing. If you have reasonable doubt of guilt it means you believe there is a reasonable probability of Avery's innocence. There is pretty much no way Avery is innocent unless there was some an elaborate conspiracy involving planting blood, planting car keys, planting bones, faking DNA and EDTA tests, covering up evidence of the real killer, and so on.

I don't necessarily think that anyone is arguing that there weren't mistakes made in the investigation. However I think the points people are arguing are the following:

1. In any case of sufficient complexity, you will be able to find irregularities if you go through it with a fine toothed comb. If it wasn't two detectives who were deposed in Avery's civil suit, it would have been a detective with a drinking problem, or an evidence tech who once got into a bar fight with Avery's brother, etc.

2. If anything, the irregularities reported (in the police's own documentation), are signs of a lack of pervasive corruption in the investigation. Certainly in the finance world one of the red flags of fraud is records that appear too clean, with few or no mistakes. I would imagine it would be similar in criminal cases.

And finally,

3. Whatever irregularities there were do not raise sufficient doubt to acquit Avery of murder.

I listened and didn't make out a damn word from anything in the background.

Everyone understands reasonable doubt

That 18 ppl have to be in on a conspiracy and 24 different 5% chance things all had to happen for him to be innocent is not reasonable

I disagree you have to have any level of certainty someone is innocent to have reasonable doubt they are guilty. That isn't how burden of proof works.