You seem to be agreeing with me. He either did it or the evidence was planted.

Watching the series atm and feel this is just wrong.
To many things are out of place, the key, blood being tampered with, times etc... but the thing that make me believe him is watching any of his interviews, how he talks without ever thinking or stopping to pause, he never once slips in any interview and says anything that they can use against him which is unusual in most murder cases and lets face it he's is not the smartest man in the world and spent 18 years in prison not getting any smarter.
Just feel like there is a lot to point to him being set up as an easy target.

Agreed. Can't be both. Probabilities of him having done it AND evidence planted (combined with all the other coincidences) are just way too low.

Yeah but he has a:

Where he never actually hurt anyone in his life.

(What about the cat?!?!)

^^Can You Spot PoorSkillz relative?

How would you feel if a woman was telling fake stories of you committing sex offence's in & around the county were you grew up. SA actions were not the best Nor should they be repeated by anyone but at least I understand as his 1st lawyer said in the doc why he did.
Don't you find it more unusual that a victim of an alleged sex crime was telling everyone she knew about it before calling her PD friend.

lol a cat, ya it's funny comparing a cat to a human life, but them people are angels in life and can do no wrong.
And who has never being in a fight and not said your going to kill the other person but you actually mean just punch the head off them and not actually kill them. People wrapped in blankets as kids I guess.

Yeah?

I suspect you'd feel differently if someone pointed a gun at your head and threatened to pull the trigger.

And yet we know that the story he told was a complete fabrication. He was trying to please these cops, who told him that if he wanted this to be over with he had to tell them a story.

Too bad this thread didn't have a poll associated with it. I'd be interested to see how many here would vote to convict or acquit. (I'm an acquittal.)

I would not run her off an icy road and pull a gun on her. Ever. And there's also the DUI gf (Jodi?).

FYP

That's not anywhere near the same as running someone off the road and pulling a gun on someone and threatening to kill them or punching the **** out of a woman then wrapping your hands around her throat and telling her you should kill her (I believe that was the court records for the Jodi restraining order).

Thats better guess i replies to quickly, I should have let You realize the mistake.

What about the DUI-Is it that it is pretty noble of SA to lie in court for her even if it could have affected his law suit.

How many times have you lied for the love of your life?

Sick week*



Sick 4 years.

Poorskillz?
What your take on Strang's statement that the county coroner Debra Katatsch was "walled of entirely" from the crime scene by calumet county authorities. By state statute, she should have been allowed to investigate bones being found outside Avery's trailer and that she received calls from the mantiowoc county executive and the country's top attorney not to investigate case.

I was referring to him beating her, threatening to kill her, and having the court issue a restraining order against him. It wasn't the great star crossed lover scenario the movie portrayed.

Edit: Actually, that's three women he threatened to kill if you count the letters from prison to the mother of his children. Yeah, he seems like a stable sweetheart of a man.

Regarding Avery's trial, I've made a rough spectrum of how I view people's reactions after watching MaM. I believe only #5-7 are reasonable reactions (with 4 and 8 tolerable); I've firmly stated my position at #7 on this spectrum.

The key issue to me is realizing the limits of our knowledge.

Serious question: what do you think is the range of reasonable reactions here and where do you stand on this spectrum?

1. Avery’s definitely innocent! Obama pls pardon asap
   .
2. Avery’s definitely innocent! Walker pls pardon asap
   .
3. Idk about Avery, but I’d definitely find him not guilty in the trial, I demand a retrial now!
   .
4. Idk about Avery, but I’d definitely find him not guilty in the trial, I hope he can prove his innocence
   .
5. I think Avery is definitely innocent, but this is just based on a Netflix show and cursory research, so I’m not sure what I’d do as a juror because I don’t know everything the jury did
   .
6. Idk about Avery, but this is just based on a Netflix show and cursory research, so I’m not sure what I’d do as a juror because I don’t know everything the jury did
   .
7. I think Avery is definitely guilty, but this is just based on a Netflix show and cursory research, so I’m not sure what I’d do as a juror because I don’t know everything the jury did
   .
8. Avery’s definitely guilty, and I know for sure that I’d find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
   .
9. Avery should fry, bring on the death sentence

"I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know." -Wikipedia

(note: I made this pretty quickly, so I'm sorry if you don't think your reaction is represented)

https://imgur.com/a/vgV9B
Poorskillz?
Or this photo, did Colborn replace the remote,paper & the objects back into the cabinet before he took the photo?

Manitowoc County was not leading the investigation in any way, this has been established. They didn't want her investigating because she was the Manitowoc County coroner, so they used the Calumet County coroner instead for the obvious "conflict of interest" PR reasons.

If they had used the Manitowoc County coroner, I guarantee she would have been dragged through the mud by Strang & Buting.

Good question. Maybe the defense asked this question at the trial and the witness answered it. That would then be one piece in the puzzle of what the juror's ultimate decision is based on.

1: Do you have kids dalerobk2?
2:Have you said anything in the heat of the moment?
3:Have you ever been locked up for a crime you did not commit & have the love of your life leave with your kids & known that you will likely never see them again & considering he was LOCKED UP AT THE TIME, with no way of getting to her any other way other than a RECORDED JAIL CALL.
On point 3 if you have never experienced this then its hard for you to comment on it.
BTW we have been over this in the thread before.

Source?

Idk about the restraining order, unless he means Jodi's probation conditions, but the other 2 are covered in Griesbach's book that you're reading (I've posted the excerpt earlier).

I see what you are getting at, but again, this was the state's reasoning that he could have become violent or murderous. Hard to use this justification for one scenario and not for the other (even though one scenario = prison for life and the other equals, well, nothing really).

Yes, and I wasn't even referring to the mother at first (I added it as an edit). I had actually forgotten it.

I have a question for you, have you ever run someone off the road and pulled a gun on them?

It's like you guys are determined to see him as an angel.