This is sadly true. And even his great defense lawyers are in on "it" too. You don't see them defending him anymore because they are not being paid. Too busy writing books and going on TV.

The system is about winning and losing, not finding the truth.

Why on Earth would they do this? That's just ridiculous. Just because he absolutely looks innocent, doesn't mean it was biased.

You're claiming that they spent 10 years filming having no idea what the outcome would be, and in the end just decided to make him look innocent. But you're not going to fooled. You see right through their attempt and can conclude that this is a failed attempt to twist the facts of the case and he probably is, in fact guilty, despite what they've shown you here.

I never said any of that. You should read my posts.

The main bias comes from the obvious sympathy attempts during all of the out of the courtroom footage being used with the family. This wasn't an attempt at an objective view of the case.

Also yes it was edited in a way to create the most compelling story. I am not saying they twisted facts of the in court proceedings, but the entire series, was edited after everything was shot, and in a way to generate the most emotional attachment from the viewers.

The title? WAAAT?

Who is the title referring to? Brendan or Steve? Or both?

If there are monumental problems displayed in the documentary regarding the justice system which they did a fantastic job of showing, then how did the entire jusry decide both were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

Seems kinda like the prosecution had to Make a Murderer out of both of them doesn't it?

Is English your first language?

FMP

You're claiming that they spent 10 years filming having no idea what the outcome would be, and in the end just decided to make him look innocent. But you're not going to fooled by their out of courtroom footage being used with the family. You see right through their unobjective attempt and can conclude that this is a failed attempt to twist the facts of the case and he probably is, in fact guilty, despite what they've shown you here.

Nice one.

It wasn't an insult, you have understood none of my points so I am just wondering.

You either need to reread what I have been saying or something because you are definitely not understanding anything.


Like not even close. You not only misread a sentence of mine but then extrapolate so much random **** I didn't even say from it.

You seem to think that bias means they are twisting facts. That isn't even close to what it means.

Almost as lulzy as you thinking because I say it's biased that must mean I think he is guilty.

Lolololool.

K.

What makes you say this?

Nailed it, haha.

You could flip a coin on this. Heads guilty, tails not guilty

Now we have a definite proof that avery is innocent : Custer will argue for the other side

Except I have said before I believe he is innocent.

Lol at all the people thinking because I call the documentary biased I think he is guilty. Not even close to what the word bias means.

Decent youtube on edward wayne edwards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHF1uqRX1vQ

How do you explain the lack of dna evidence on the property

I just can't quit this thread.

Do you guys think that SA would ever have been caught if one of his family members didn't let the search party onto their property?

When the cops first showed up they searched the property and found nothing. You can either conclude that the car wasn't there at the time or it was just sufficiently hidden. Remember this isn't a tiny parking lot behind his trailer, the lot was huge and stuffed with junked cars with missing plates.

I also wonder if crushing the car would have been much help in hiding the evidence once he was under real scrutiny. Look at them ripping through the junked cars looking for evidence, searching the pond with scuba gear etc



It was actually SA who said "why would I leave the car there and not crush it?" in one of the interviews with the news after the car was found. Could be this excuse was always factored into his planned responses if questioned and as proven by everyone's response to the documentary, is actually very effective at introducing reasonable doubt.

That's the best you have?

They found quite a lot. They don't swab and test every inch of every surface, though -- there is some triage going on. You could suggest that she was shot in some other place that also doesn't have a big blood pool, I guess.

But I don't see where you're going with this question -- Avery's and Halbach's DNA are the only two they found, and they found it all in locations relevant to the presumed scenario. That it was all planted is the defense he presented at trial, not that they didn't find any.*

More importantly, they didn't find evidence of anyone else, so if the theory is that someone else murdered her on the property (per Avery's filing) then this becomes even more difficult to sustain, does it not?

This is why his third-party-liability claims are doomed except if he accuses Brandon of acting alone: there is no evidence of anyone else on the property (including Brandon, whose participation was very limited in my estimation) but they do have Brandon's admission of his involvement/presence.


* On this point, can someone tell me what the Avery team did with this information, if true? Like did they file any complaints with the lab licensing bodies, DOJ, the press, etc., that this was going on? Surely in ten years they might have found time to mention it to a higher authority and didn't just do nothing after that line of argument failed...?

I actually went to elementary school with someone had some kind of mental/learning disability and transferred to a special education school at some point. As a young adult he confessed to a rape-murder that he did not commit.
The police observed the location where the body was found under the theory that the murderer might return to the scene of the crime. When this former classmate showed up the police considered his behaviour suspicious and took him to the station. After long hours of interrogation he broke down and confessed to everything.
The local newspapers reported the murderer was caught. To the credit of the police they didn't stop there and kept investigating. They determined that what he had confessed cannot possibly be true and there was other evidence that he excluded him as the perpetrator. That took days if not weeks though.
In an interview for the local newspaper he explained the reason why he at the scene of the crime was that the heard/read about the body where was found and he was curious so he decided to take a look. He confessed because after hours of interrogation he couldn't take the pressure anymore.

After that episode I realised how unreliable even confession can be.

I bet laying down a tarp defeats the worlds best forensics a significant % of the time.

According to BD they moved her around on a 'creeper'



I wonder how effective that would be at preventing blood spillage.

Just finished watching this docu and was hooked to the finish line.

there is so much in the parts we see that raise questions

the key being found only after several searches by Lenk the guy who has it in for him.

the car being left in such an obvious spot to find it and not being crushed.

the creepy ex boyfriend who checks her phone records?(never knew it was that easy to do and to guess her PW )

the fact they hand the woman a camera and say several times dont touch it if u find it. (like as if they knew it was there and not to contaminate the scene cos SA dna is on it)

the fire behind his trailer to burn the body ,i dont think he (or anyone) would be that stupid yet be smart enough to completely clean everything of her blood.

i dont understand Law i didnt understand how they can say at SA trial he acted alone and convict him then trial his nephew and convict him too?

the cop lenk not signing in to the secure area where car was found and forgetting the time he did enter by hours.



i go back to the first rape and i really believe them cops had it in for him, and with him now suing them they set him up.Also when the other cop i forget his name was phoning in about the car reg plate? how did he know it , and how did he know car model make from a reg when hes asking the operator about it. was all very fishy to me

who killed Theresa , id say the ex BF and/or/with the flatmate they look dodgy lol