I hear ya, I just think some of the facts Im hearing that were not mentioned in the doc or spun by the defense cause me to not see Steven in the same light plus I think the number of things that would have to happen perfectly to pull off the conspiracy of convicting him is hard for me to believe happened.

My main point is I think we're missing a lot of the story and I would need to hear all the facts before I drew a final conclusion but I understand the point you're making

ha, sounds like his email is set to send this reply automatically

Only notable difference:

How many documentaries of law enforcement corruption and cases of law enforcement covering up/ignoring crimes(including murder) they committed before people stop giving them the benefit of the doubt????

Unless we believe the police killed Teresa, in order for the local police to have framed Avery, one or more people from law enforcement had to have been planning to frame him prior to this crime so they could take advantage of circumstances when they arise or are we to believe this was a spur of the moment decision by a few in LE to frame Avery?

Teresa was last seen on 10/31/05 on Avery's property (IIRC, neither side disputes this)

11/3 Teresa is reported missing

11/5 Teresas car is found on Avery's property

11/6-11/14 police investigate Avery & his property

11/15 Avery was charged for murder

Teresa is both conveniently on Avery's property and ends up murdered plus Avery conveniently had a bon fire around the time she went missing. Despite these facts that are apparently not in dispute, Avery is innocent of this crime.

Law enforcement frame job is implemented somewhere between 10/31 and 11/15 which would require them to discover Teresas body (& burn it) or the bones and move them to Avery's property.

Does this sound about right, if not, what am I missing?

it was made clear that they burn stuff all the time. they have multiple fire pits on their property.

Wasn't the Sgt's phone call to dispatch asking about the Rav4 plate and model year on 11/3 or 11/4? I thought it was definitely before the "discovery" where some random enters a 40-acre car lot with hundreds or thousands of cars and walks right to it.

The idea is the original al killer was framing Steven and the police planted evidence to push this theory. Not that they did the entering framing although that is Longshot possible I guess.

True but I thought Avery, etc admitted to having a bonfire around the day she went missing, no?

LE knows the killer and is working with him to frame Avery?

More like the real killer left the Rav4 on his property, the police take advantage by planting blood in it.

What you are missing is that there is no onus in our legal system to prove the defendant innocent of the crime, only in the prosecution to prove that he is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

No, he is saying the killer attempted to frame avery, and the police, possibly due to their bias and pending litigation believed Steven was guilty of the crime but they did not have enough evidence and created evidence to cause others to believe he was guilty. To help do this they framed and bullied an innocent kid into a completely bull**** "confession" which they then released nearly in full to the press before the trial in order to poison the jury well

this isn't a courtroom and we are free to discuss whatever we like, having said that, if the prosecution presents damning evidence but the defense says it cant be trusted because LE is framing the defendant then I feel its reasonable to start to question whether LE framed Avery.

If we believe LE framed Avery we should be able to set up a logical timeline/scenario and thats what I'm trying to do here to see if it makes sense because if it doesn't and we don't conclude that LE framed Avery, would we be questioning his guilt?

If we want to acquit Avery because LE is not trustworthy in this case, I can understand that argument. However, I'm just as concerned about letting a dangerous criminal go free as I am putting an innocent person in jail. Its a fine line with horrible consequences for either scenario.

Gotcha, is this more accurate:

Teresa was last seen on 10/31/05 on Avery's property (IIRC, neither side disputes this)

10/31/15-11/05/15 UNSUSP murders Teresa, burns body, plants vehicle & bones on Averys property

11/3 Teresa is reported missing

11/5 Teresas car is found on Avery's property

11/6-11/14 police investigate Avery & his property, find evidence planted by real killer, add some of their own

11/15 Avery was charged for murder

Real killer is free (unless caught for another crime)

I guess the question then becomes who has the motive to frame Avery?

The Cops--kind of makes sense especially with the lawsuit/corruption going on--with the planting of evidence or at least the appearance of it--seems like it's most likely.
His family--obviously in the documentary they show the family that loves him but there seems to be a number of family members that hate him.
Her family/ex-bf--seems like with all the attention that Avery was getting before the case, framing him would be easier than most.
Random--with all the attention Avery is getting in the media, seems like the perfect stage to frame someone if they could.

The first two kind of make sense, the last 2 do not as much.

It's The German

Someone who likes to kill and knows/hates Avery

Teresas ex boyfriend who uses Avery as a scapegoat

the police

other?

The wife seems like a pathological liar and has scammed a lot of people on a dog forum. It's amazing what people on the Internet can uncover.

Whoever was stalking her. No one had to have a strong motive to frame Avery
The convenience of it and the knowledge it would very easily work was enough.

Just from watching the film, the police had more of a motive to frame Avery than Avery had motive to kill her. Did I miss it or was there never a motive put forth other than, "Rape is fun?"

Finally finished. Will make a longer post when I'm on my pc but my instant thoughts from my phone are:

-I think it's unlikely (even very unlikely) Brendan was involved
-there's certainly a chance Steven did it, but based on the documentary, I have reasonable doubt
-I do believe the police planted evidence

Need to spend some time looking at stuff outside the documentary.

As an attorney who has spent his (admittedly short) career in administrative law and civil litigation, this documentary was a real eye opener to me. I instantly ran to my friends in criminal practice to ask if stuff like this (especially re: Len) really goes on. Their answers were sobering.

Brendan is a ******ed minor who was interrogated on multiple instances without parental or legal representation. At trial, the State relied nearly exclusively on his coerced confessions and claimed that innocent people do not confess. His incarceration is a total travesty.

Why go through the trouble of burning her body? Why not just leave it in the car? Let's not forget Avery had a bonfire that night so it couldn't have been that day. Bones were found in three different locations so the killer would have had to wait for the fire to die out then transport the bones to two different locations.

You first points are good, but the last: there's reason to suspect the bones at the bonfire were moved there, so there was plenty of time to burn the body and then move the bones.

I did think it was a little nuts how serious everyone treated Avery having a fire, though. Rednecks love to burn ****, and every field party needs a giant ****ing fire. Tires don't make for a good field-party fire, of course, but **** is burning all the time out in the country.