I don't always get drunk, but when I do, I have sex with women, eat bad food and play video games. I don't gas fire cats. I'd rather douse myself with gasoline and jump into a fire than do that to an animal.

Sounds like the first steps towards becoming a serial rapist.

Everyone sees you still don't understand how reasonable doubt works. But you are a Wisconsin prosecutor/author so it's not that surprising.

Being not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is not part of our justice system. Until you actually understand what the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is and why it is so vital in order to have our justice system work you continue to just talk nonsense.

Until you understand that basic, albeit cornerstone, concept it will be impossible to understand why most people have an issue with what happened.

Well Said ^^
The main reason that I dismissed the incidents of SA being A sociopath was that HE HAS A IQ LEVEL OF 70-80.

To be fair, cruelty to animals is on the resume of just about every sociopathic killer you've ever read about.

Doesn't make one a killer but it helps.

So the appeal has been filed:

CNN

"Steven Avery, the subject of the popular Netflix documentary series "Making a Murderer," wants to be released from prison while the Wisconsin Court of Appeals considers his latest challenge to his 2007 murder conviction."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/12/entert...eat/index.html

I meant not "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" aka "not guilty". This has already been clarified. Sorry for the confusion, mark.

I just watched the first 8 episodes and am only up to post #200 of this thread, and I have a theory.

Steve Avery did the crime and covered his tracks pretty well. Because of the first wrongful conviction, and other drama, the police (who are not very bright) decided to take matters into the own hands and try and add evidence that made Steven Avery more guilty, out of fear he would walk since the investigation had been so slow moving.

I was 90% thinking he was not guilty while watching, but taking a step back from the bias of the show and reading about his background I've come around to the other side.

I think the police corruption was possibly actually incompetence in trying to make the case stronger, which was mega dumb, but these are not smart people.

The Innocent Man is a good book. This is a pretty good one too: http://www.amazon.com/False-Justice-.../dp/1607144670 written by a former prosecutor and Ohio Attorney General.

What you find from reading about wrongful conviction cases is that you see patterns in our criminal justice system that allow these types of things to happen: cops manipulating confessions out of vulnerable individuals, shoddy police work, overzealous prosecutors, faulty eyewitness recollections, etc.

Do a little more research. Sociopaths can have a full range of IQs, tho yes, the ones we tend to hear about are usually very intelligent.

Those IQ tests are culturally biased though. They underrate white trash as a rule.

Admittedly I've only read the last few pages of this thread, but is this idiocy seriously the only response to the fact that Stephen Avery's blood sample a) had the seal broken and b) has a small hole in the blood vial consistent with a hypodermic needle?

I hope not to spoil the last 2 episodes for you but:

I see nothing wrong with this.

That's an interesting position. "Why shouldn't a blood evidence sample have the seal broken and a hole in the vial?"

I'll save the suspense: the hole in top of the vial is standard. The broken and retaped evidence seal, however, is not.

No, just the hole part. I see nothing wrong with the hole in the vial just because the documentary told me it was wrong.

Those two facts aren't really separable skillz. If we take your word for it that that parts normal it doesn't mean you can dismiss the matter of the broken evidence seals as only something 9/11 truthers would find interesting.

Anyone really annoyed by the reporter with the salt and pepper hair helmet?

Great post.

Yes, the box being shoddily taped is suspicious. No, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was broken into. I think I've discussed this all before somewhere in the thread.

The original post of yours I quoted implied that people who think that tampered with blood sample is significant are crazy like 9/11 truthers, north koreans, etc. Is that an inaccurate characterization of your post or are you changing your view?

Note that it isn't necessary to prove that it was broken into the be significant. It's only necessary to show that it's both possible and not crazy to think there's a significant chance that the police could have used it to tamper with evidence.

Does everyone in Wisconsin really have such bad hair? They all look like they shampoo with engine degreaser and let their cat lick their hair into shape.

Yes, I think you've misinterpreted that post a bit, and I'm sorry if it was unclear.

I used this guy's post:

as an example of how a bigger problem than omitting info is how the included info is portrayed. Note, the above poster believes the same thing about the hole in the vial as you did. Note, he thought one way about Brendan's interviews from the show, but felt differently when watching the actual interviews.

This part:

did not have to do with the blood sample thing, but rather a bigger point about how we can all be manipulated by film and be susceptible to all sorts of cognitive biases.

We see it happen to 9/11 truthers etc. and think that never happens to us, but it's human nature.

Hundreds of thousands of people are signing petitions to have Avery pardoned based on watching a 10 hour show. What do you think about that?

My main point is this:

The show is heavily slanted and meant to portray a specific narrative of a flawed justice system (in some instances the flaws are true; in others they're manufactured). It uses classic techniques to manipulate our emotions and shape our beliefs.

We have only seen maybe 5% of what the jury has seen, and it's a carefully selected and edited 5% at that. Without at the very least reading the trial transcripts, I believe it's arrogant and foolish to think we know better than the jury who has been able to weigh all the evidence.

I've seen no proof so far of any significant wrongdoing in the investigation. I've seen no evidence so far to make me feel the jury was not capable of their duty. Therefore, I have no reason to doubt the jury's decision at this time.


This article, while not perfect, captures some of my feelings on the whole matter:
http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2016...use-women.html


I've read a lot on the case, and I think Steven's definitely guilty, but I don't know what I'd decide as a juror because I don't have all the info. This makes me the most biased man in here according to some.


From everything I've seen (not just in the show) I have no reason to believe the police planted blood in that Rav4. If you want to know how I can think that, some of it I've explained in my previous posts on here. I just hope you keep an open mind.

Sorry for rambling.

Why do you think Steven Avery put her in the Rav4 after killing her?

Linking Avery to the only place she was factually known to have positively been is enough reason.

Why would somebody in law enforcement break the security tape on the blood they had in storage?