Yes, I suppose your accusing me of begging the question is also a red herring.

**And if you ever want to read an opinion, by the way, that will show you how strongly this system is designed to perpetuate a conviction, as opposed to examine whether or not somebody could in fact be innocent, read the court of appeals decision in Steven Avery's case.
You would think that this was the guiltiest person that had ever been uncovered in a criminal case in Wisconsin.
It's now '96 or '97.
You have exhausted every legal proceeding that is remotely available to you.
You've now been in this system for 12 years.
You are a son who cares deeply about his parents.
And his parents are getting older and older while he's sitting in this joint, who cares about his kids who are getting older and older.
The pressure of that on a person to wrongfully confess, if you will, and to say, "OK, look, um I've I've fought the good fight, I've gone through all my appellate stuff, I'm not getting anywhere with it, it's time to level with you guys.
I really did this crime.
" I mean, those pressures have gotta be more intense than we can imagine.
[Steven on phone] They always told me, "If you admit to it, we'll let you out.
Otherwise, you'll be here until your MR.
" You know? So I guess I'll be in here 'til my MR, 'cause I ain't gonna admit to it.
I'm not gonna lie.
Here's the court of appeals.
Sentencing papers.
This one must've been in '98.**

Who offered it to him, in what way and when?

Steven comes across as a man of some integrity, which is a stark contrast to some of the lowlifes who set out to convict him.

Lol, ok sir. He told a bunch of lies in the doc, why would this little excerpt be any different? He completely misrepresented the thing about the cat and made it sound like he admitted to holding the lady at gunpoint, when he didn't. He denied it.

I don't know how the plea negotiations work. You have his own lawyer going on TV and saying it and talking about the pressures to just admit it which would be done for a calculated reason.

I think they absolutely would have let him out if he admitted to his own guilt. There is nothing better for the justice system and those that put convicted people in jail to have themselves admit to their own crime.

"The truth shall set you free"

LOL cat.

More red herrings? No thanks.

So you believe they convicted him for a rape they thought he committed, then just told him if he admitted to doing this crime he was already convicted of theyd let him walk out? Doesn't sound the least bit believable.

Not to mention 6 of those 18 years were for two felonies he did commit. So was this offered in 91 after he served those 6 years? None of it makes sense.

Not a red herring, you are saying he has integrity and is honest. Both of which can be shown to be untrue based on the two examples I provided. He lied in the doc on several occasions, why do you believe him here?

We know that Steven did not commit any crimes against Penny Beerntsen.

Yet he was convicted.

The evidence indicates that if he 'confessed', if he 'admitted his guilt', he could have gotten an early release.

Yet Steven did not lie to get the early release.

This has nothing to do with any other red herring issues you might try to introduce.

This would not have been part of a plea.

It would have been a condition that would have furthered his cause for parole. He was probably advised by a lawyer that he would not be released unless he confessed and repented to shoe the parole board he had been rehabilitated.

That is what I thought.

Once his appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court, that was it. No more hope. You are in jail and that point the only hope you have for early release is by admitting guilt. Not a sure-fire way out, but better than 0%. And there really is no downside.

The only thing we have to go on from the documentary is SA saying that **they always told me, "If you admit to it, we'll let you out.**

I am not sure who they is. Is it his lawyers or the parole board? Or is just insinuating that his lawyers think the best strategy is to admit and he takes that to mean they will let him out vs. they may let him out?

Regardless, his lawyer agrees that "the pressure is more than we can imagine". I agree. Even if there was a 1% chance that admitting guilt would aid in an early release, there are few folks who wouldn't just wrongly confess. You are in dark place surrounded by criminals. Most of us would do anything and everything to get out, which would mean we would admit to any crimes that you want us. Kill JFK? Sure I did. Let me out!

And you know what? He admitted to pointing a loaded gun at his cousin. Did not deny it once. And he served his time for it.

I give a lot more credibility than 99.9% of the population. Doesn't make him a hero or a saint. I am just more likely to take his word over others.

This isn't true, he denied it. I can dig up the police report if you need me to.

So it is unfair to say if he admitted to doing it they would have let him go? Its a lot more nuanced than that correct?

Generally speaking, I am aware you don't know the specifics here.

This is true because SA said it is? The dude consistently lied throughout the doc, why should we believe anything he says?

Avery wasn't up for parole until 2004, so him admitting to doing it would not have gotten him released any faster. I can provide proof if needed.

Looks like avery lied again, what a shocker.

You seem hopefully obsessed with painting him as a terrible person but brush over the inadequate law enforcement investigation and prosecution.

What you should hope for is a crystal clear, transparent investigation and prosecution that leaves little doubt that 'abc' committed 'xyz' crime. We all don't want a justice system where we are left significantly doubting that things were handled properly.

You can keep saying "the documentary" made people believe. No it didn't. It could have been a lot more sympathetic to him. It shows the actual courtroom testimony. We heard the most compelling part of the "confession".

I didn't like him. I hope he was guilty. It was use of the "confession" that instantly made this case a total joke. The kid was brow-beaten to give the cops whatever they wanted to hear.

There was ONE aspect of the confession that the police said was the most critical part for BD to let them know. That only they knew she was shot in the head and if BD would admit it that, it would show a very high likelihood he was involved.

He wildly guessed 8 things until they finally had to inform him. Like he would have forgotten 10 gunshots.

It just might be that a bunch of federal judges, who also have no interest in the outcome either way, are universally ruling that the "confession" was completely coerced.

I have pointed out things the state did I don't agree with, youll have that in any case. Doesnt mean there is any reasonable doubt, because there isn't. For either BD or SA imo. Id have a tough time voting not guilty in either case.

BD knew where she was shot, what gun was used, how the mess was cleaned up, where her body was after she was dead, knew why there was a specific type of blood stain in the back of the rav 4 (her hair making contact with the trunk when she was thrown in the car) was with avery (the person who has a mountain of evidence to show he killed TH) the night of the murder, Assisted with a bonfire that evidence shows she was burned in, and lied several times to investigators since november. Both are guilty and there is no reasonable doubt for either. But honestly, I don't care if BD gets released. Hes just as much of a victim as TH as far as I can see it. SA ruined 3 lives that day and for that he deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison.

Also the doc was one sided. It was originally much worse, and had to be remade. Netflix asked them to remake it and tone it down on the conspiracy theory stuff. The first movie was made in 2008 and never released to the public. This is why people like kratz didn't want to participate in the doc.

Think about it, if you were george bush would you take part in loosechange?

Let me tell what you should also want. And get away from SA/BD which you are obsessed with. I really don't feel for them that much either. I do feel they were railroaded.

You should not want to be put in a room with your own investigator that is working solely for you and to be presented with a sheet that says.

Option A: "Yes, I did it and I am sorry"
Option B: "Yes, I did it and I am not sorry"

When you go for option C: "I didn't do anything" and are told, no, that you only have option A or B, otherwise I can't help you, you should be able to run out of the room.

It is one thing for seasoned investigator to get a confession. Your own people should not be working also in concert with those investigators, especially when you say you didn't do anything. Instead his own investigator calls the police all happy that he got his own client to confess to murder. Against his own will.

I don't think that is a system you want for yourself, family or friends.

I am sure you are ok with a public defender being too busy to show up to a 16-year old client's confession. Like he couldn't ask them to reschedule it later in the day or the following day. Nobody cared about BD. There should be a system in place to protect those that cannot protect themselves. Which is why we have public defender's since everyone has a right to a defense. In this case, the defense checked out completely and gave TV interviews.

In suborning perjury from Brendan, the cops tipped their hands. This was how badly they wanted Steven framed that they were willing to manufacture evidence to put him away.

I don't see how anyone can put any faith in dirty corrupt cops like these.

Without BD, the case against SA was flimsy and the public was greatly split on his guilt. He was languishing in jail.

At that point, they had three drops of his blood in her car, a key picked up by a cop that shouldn't have been there with no traces of TH DNA on the key, and inconclusive, or at least, debatable, bone evidence that was never photographed.

There was not a single drop of her blood in his residence and SA wasn't talking.

Now, the problem with BD is that none of his narrative could be corroborated with evidence. BD claims she was knifed and shot. There would be blood everywhere. It would seep into the mattress and the floorboards. They took EVERYTHING apart and there is not one single piece of evidence that she was ever in the residence.

If you are going to go on TV and say someone definitely committed a crime, there should be more than a 16-year old's convoluted and extracted story telling be the sole source.

There for but the Grace of God go I...

*A recognition that others' misfortune could be one's own, if it weren't for the blessing of the Divine, or for one's luck.*

So, I suppose Penny Beerntsen is a liar too?

[By the time the DNA testing was done but before the results came back], I think I had calmed down a little. A part of that was thinking, Gosh, Steve got a 32-year sentence. That’s a pretty long sentence when you’re 23 years old. The next time he comes up for parole, maybe I won’t write to the parole board objecting to him being released.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2...out#.VfdacHjCy

Penny wrote the parole board to block his release, which would seem to indicate they were considering whether to release Steven if he was sufficiently 'rehabilitated'.