where is the info on this? surely if police had warned him to stay away/stop harrassing her there would be a note of it somewhere and then why did she go there anyway?

Lol ya I don't know where he is getting that. I said he was right in that he never flat out called you a pyscopath. He just heavily implied you have problems.

What happens in situations like this is both sides eagerly want to prove their point and they reach conclusions unjustifiably then just assume they are true. There is a lot of confirmation bias when people research this kind of thing. To my knowledge the only thing that was said by her coworkers was that he was weirded out and I couldn't even find a good source for that. Pretty much if it wasn't used in the trial as an argument by either side or if it was never asked to be used it is probably bad evidence.

IE: the blood vial. Never brought up or used by the defense.

Another strange case in Milwaukee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/us...enek.html?_r=o

#Reasonabledoubt

Dead link. Use this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/us/22bembenek.html

You are throwing around "Doused his cat in gasoline and enjoyed watching it burn" like it was a stone cold fact. His own account of the event is much different. I'm not saying we should believe his account, but we shouldn't choose the most incriminating version of the story and tout it as fact. You have been doing this exact thing with a lot of the "facts" about this trial.

Anymore other sources on this guys?

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/m...en-avery-87839

"Mahler was allegedly intimidated by fellow juror Carl Wardman. “He made me feel uncomfortable and interfered with my duty in an indirect way,” Mahler explains, hinting that Wardman’s disposition may have also gotten to other members of the jury.

“Something didn’t seem right that he wasn’t taking notes in court, that he wasn’t participating,” Richard says. “I figured something was fishy. In my opinion, his mind was already made up.”

When In Touch approached the 70-year-old at his home on Jan. 7, he exploded. “It’s all b-------,” Wardman snarled, “He’s guilty, that’s it.”
"



this is the same guy that was himself a volunteer Manitowoc County Sherriff, and his son was a full time Sherriff.

Avery never had a chance at acquittal. Hung Jury was his best chance, which would have sunk him anyway as he couldn't afford his lawyers for another trial.

It is pretty easy to detect bull**** if you try. Listen to how he tells the story, then understand he was charged with animal cruelty and got 9 months in prison for it. Now think about it for a second.. Do you think he would get 9 months in prison because he was trying to throw a cat over a fire and it "lit up" also, what caused it to "light up".

There is a spectrum, There is always a spectrum. On one end is "He doused the family cat in gasoline and threw it in the fire. He enjoyed watching it burn". On the other end is "he was there, but had nothing to do with burning the cat". The truth falls somewhere on that spectrum. You can't use the extreme worst case scenario and spout it as truth, and then use it as evidence that he is capable of murder.


Another spectrum? "Teresa was killed by Steven Avery's gun", and "the Bullet and the DNA were planted by the Police". Again, you take the most extreme side of that spectrum and use it as an argumentative tool. The truth is rarely black and white.

Considering he admitted to being the one that through the cat in the fire the "spectrum" you listed there is not accurate.

Teresa was killed by steven averys gun. That is demonstrably true. His gun was used to fire a bullet that had her dna on it.

This is false. The truth is always black and white. True or False. Yes or No. Right or Wrong.

Also, here is another thing to consider. I can find no reports dated before the DOC that tell the story the way avery does and they are either extremely vague IE: "Steven was convicted of animal cruelty for setting a cat on fire" Or they bring up the dousing gasoline or oil on a cat and watching it suffer. This means that the source for the version of the story you are telling is the doc. Nothing before the doc tells the story that way. So it is very reasonable that some police report or court document verified this and is no longer available because it was on non felony charge from over 30 years ago.

You misunderstood what he is saying. He is saying that the truth often lies between two extremes.

So have you seen Making a Murderer yet?

Yes you idiot. lol.. Holy ****, I was addressing someone that was using the doc as an authority.

lol, no it really isn't.


Here's what is "demonstrably true": An expert witness for the prosecution testified that he believed the bullet fragment found in Steven Avery's garage was fired from Steven Avery's gun.

That is not even close to the same thing as "Teresa was definitely killed by Steven Avery's gun"

If we are open to the idea that Police were willing to plant evidence, then that Bullet fragment is almost meaningless.

No, I understood exactly what he was saying. The ability to make people believe the truth is not black and white is exactly why cops can resort to planting evidence in order to put a man in prison for the rest of his life. It's the same reason a jury can be convinced it's okay to find him guilty even if he didn't do it, because somewhere in that gray area, SA should be removed from society anyway, right?

That bullet fragment also had teressas dna on it. And, the "expert" matches bullets to guns for a living. that is what he does.

Yeah, this. Already explained this to him. There was no response. Just some more ramblings about us not being reasonable. He also refers to the bullet fragment as "the bullet in her head", a move Kenny "The Trophy" Kratz would be proud of.

Don't know how you got there but ok.

Do you guys even logic? I can call it the bullet in her head in be justified because it had her DNA on it, there were bullet holes in her head and the bullet was found in the same location one of the people who confessed to killing her said she was shot and killed.

If you want to sprout this conspiracy theory that he was framed thats fine, but you are not justified in this conclusion. You are just speculating. I have physical evidence that is demonstrable to back up mine.

Fair enough, not exactly a snuff movie but now you realize how easy it is for some to construe your words.


#Reasonabledoubt

It's like this: If Law enforcement or somebody else didn't plant the key in his bedroom, and didn't plant his blood in her Toyota, then it is fairly likely that Steven Avery is guilty.

If they DID do those things, then believing they also planted the bullet and planted her DNA on the bullet does not require a giant leap of faith. Brendan's story doesn't corroborate anything if they just take the bullet there the next day and "find it" exactly where he said it would be.