Zellner blood analysis was solid enought that it would have been enought to save Avery from jail if they had it at the trial imo, the DNA analysis on the key and hoodlatch not as strong imo and i can see how you could wonder if her testing was exhaustive enought to prove the planting without asking the state to do some similar testing and not being able to replicate themself the results.

I can't remember it word for word but someone on Zellner's team made a rather personal remark about them not investigating the blood splatters.

On a side note, I wish I had the enthusiasm/passion that Laura Nirider has, in pretty much any aspect of my life ever. I imagine it's contagious to the people working around her also.

The bullet wasn't something Brendan brought up - the police confessed to him, not the other way around.

Wiegert had to inform Brendan that Teresa was shot. Brendan couldn't give them that information because he knows nothing about Teresa Halbach except what they are telling him.

I think they were overconfident that they would find edta in the blood and neglected some more basics testing.

For a sensible juror you are correct - demonstrating that the state can't prove its case should be enough to result in a Not Guilty verdict.

The demonstration with the pattern of Teresa's blood spattered on the cargo door of the RAV4 also shows the prosecution claim is wrong there, too.

It's unfortunate that many people think any half baked theory by a prosecutor will do.

One of Teresa's friends says something like 'Do we want the right person convicted? Yeah, I guess...'

There were only two sites with human bones, Avery’s burn pit and The barrel from barbs house. The quarry didn’t contain human bones. It was animal bone with a couple of small chips that couldn’t be identified conclusively. This doesn’t help your case any.

You do realize the pictures of the garage are from March? Furthermore there is no theory that fits the bullet that has Avery remaining innocent. Did the police fire bullets from his gun in October then go retrieve them in March? Did they just guess which fragment came from his gun then plant it? Did they just have the bullet ready to plant in case Dassey didn’t play along?

Maybe it’s you who needs to stop fighting the most stupid facts.

This is a typical moving the goal posts fallacy. Of course his blood is in the car (unexplained under any innocent theory) but let’s demand more blood to be convinced.

You guys suck at basic deductive logic.

Yes. Which may have meant something to me until Zellner's team came up with the theory that Steven Avery's blood was obtained and planted from his sink.

I'm not on either side really here but evidence does point to Avery and Zellner's over the top conspiracy theories really weren't convincing me in the least in Season two.

I did go back to watch Steven's initial reaction to the news that Theresa Halbach was missing from Season One and in those interviews he doesn't come off to me as overly suspicious or uptight but then again I do realize that the documentary probably was trying to portray Steven in that light. Also, I'd not be an expert in reading a person that just murdered another human-being. I just have assumptions on how a normal person might react in that situation.

Zellner though, I enjoyed her in the beginning but in the end I found myself asking who else was she going to desperately point the finger at in this case. I was surprised that Netflix and her weren't liable for some of the people she had accused for wrong doing in this case but apparently she protected herself enough in the wording of her accusations to keep herself from being sued over those accusations.

I'd feel like total crap right now if I were Bobby Dassey with my kids and family and some woman were saying this stuff about me on a worldwide broadcasted documentary.

I think it s hard to wrap our head around what is needed to beat a conviction and what the lawyer should do.
As she explain all of this is very strategical, she has 2 or 3 possible angles that she is exploring and she is pushing everything untill something stick. That seem super awkward to watch but that s how a broken system looks like when both sides have to follow some stupid laws.

I was not 100% convinced by the cargo demonstration, but as i commented for the hoodlatch, when it s a bit unconvincing like that the only way to really answer the question is an expert vs expert demonstration where the state show their theory like zellner expert did. What the expert said and demonstrated made sense, but that s why he is paid for by zellner aswell and there s a decent ammount of bias to account for.

If the prossecution had to replicate all the blood and DNA traces like zellner did i doubt they could do it without some really stupid and awkward looking demonstrations and i doubt a jury would convict Avery.

Agreed, if avery killed Teresa hes a sociopath with absolutely no regard for other humans. He would be very good at hiding emotions when it suits him.

You guys suck at basic deductive logic.

There's blood where there is no logical reason for it to be (random spots inside car), and no blood where it should be if the prosecution hypothesis was correct: all the places Steven would have touched the RAV4 if the blood came from a bleeding wound on his hand - the key, the door handle, the gear shift, the steering wheel, the hood latch, the hood prop, battery cable...

After all the shrieking you all do about 'conspiracy theories' you forget that one theory that supports innocence is that Steven was framed.

You can't even keep your own story straight.

She said Bobby Dassey was the likely killer

There exists no place the blood could have came from but Steven, there was no edta in the blood, it wasn't applied using an applicator because there is a long dripped stain on the door frame and similar stains are found in averys own grand am.

There is no other reasonable explanation to this evidence so instead of actually addressing the very damning evidence against Steven you demand that more evidence should be available. That is textbook fallacious reasoning.

The cargo door explanation by the blood spatter expert was convincing to me, but I was prepared having followed a number of cases where blood spatter was an issue. The prosecution theory makes no sense on the face of it - that the blood was flung off Teresa's body when her body was placed into the back of the vehicle. The idea of whipping around 130 pounds of dead weight with enough force to cast off droplets like that doesn't ring true. Whereas the pattern does seem consistent with blood cast off by a weapon.

It would be interesting to see Kratz try and reproduce the pattern based on his theory. I doubt his luck would be any better than Zellner's team had.

I agree, the state got away with a very vague theory of the crime. But then they did convict two different people for the same crime on mutually contradictory theories.

But I suppose the judge would simply rule that demonstrating the plausibility of the prosecution claims might 'confuse the jury' as to the finding the court wanted.

Yes, Steven's blood would be expected to come from Steven's body at one time. Some of Steven's blood eventually made it to the Wisconsin crime lab though he was never there, either. Unless you are suggesting Steven Avery snuck into the lab?

No EDTA was detected in the blood by the test invented just for this case in a big hurry by the FBI. True enough.

Assuming that this was not a contact deposit, blood (being liquid) can be dropped from an applicator in exactly the same way blood could drop from a bloody finger. Capiche?

In the same sort of illogical random locations?

That is textbook fallacious reasoning.

The planting of evidence is a reasonable explanation since it is A) physically possible, B) has been known to happen as a matter of history, C) people with means, motive, and opportunity are in full possession of the RAV4 when this blood was allegedly 'found'.

Since we have blood where it has no logical reason to be by the state's theory, and none where we would expect it to be by the state's theory, the state's theory fails on both counts of scientific rigor.

I am only demanding the state's theory explain the evidence we do have and explain why we don't have the evidence its theory would require if it were anywhere near the truth.

Please provide a theory that explains the blood. it doesn't have to be right, just reasonable. Lets hear it.

Your blatant misrepresentation of the facts doesn't do your cause any good.

It would be easy enough to find a spent bullet someplace where guns are often discharged. I find them when I go hiking in the national forest near my home.

A nice bunch of rhetorical questions, but you should realize rhetoric isn't evidence of anything.

The main difficulty with trying to use this bullet for any serious purpose is that there is no evidence this one ever struck any living thing - let alone was part of a murder.

But deep down you must know that already.

A) Someone obtained a small amount of Steven Avery's blood and dribbled a few drops at random places in the RAV4.

B) On the other hand we have someone supposedly bleeding on their hand who leaves no blood on anything he touches with that hand.

I know which theory more readily explains the facts.

How would they know which bullet fragments are from which guns? Wouldn't it start to poke giant holes in their plans if the bullet fragment came from a gun owned by say bobby?



Teresas dna was on the bullet. The best explanation to that fact is that it passed through her body.

Who and how? Give me a theory.

I mean, these problems you have with "theory b" are easily explained.

1) he wiped up all noticeable blood and missed some
2) he didn't get blood in all the places you think he did
3) a combination of 1 and 2

its really not that difficult. PERHAPS his thought process was similar to yours and he didn't think to check those places where blood was discovered because he didn't think hed leave blood in those places and wiped down the more obvious places IE: The shift, handle etc..

That's why a fragment that is badly mangled is a perfect candidate.

Since the prosecution is adept at pulling far-fetched theories out of the air, why not claim Brendan brought Bobby's gun from the house they both lived in?

As we both know Culhane botched the test via contamination of samples in her slipshod sloppy lab.

Best explanation is that her lab is incompetent and untrustworthy.

Hilarious! Steven supposedly wiped down areas like the key and the hoodlatch, and that only wiped away the blood and Teresa's DNA, but not his own magical DNA.

I mean you're not really thinking this through. They already had a ton of evidence before they discovered the bullet. Not to mention that the garage had all calumet officials searching it.

I am really confused why they would plant a bullet that would do nothing but raise more questions if it wasn't his bullet.