I've got some questions.
>Does this show's obvious bias make it shit?
>Is Steven Avery actually a piece of shit
>did he even do it regardless?
also Brendan Dassey is an innocent retard.
No, because if it was unbiased it would be less interesting and shit. No one gives a fuck about PC both sides of the coin in mainstream documentaries.
I also think there isn't enough evidence to convict him beyond reasonable doubt and it all lines up too neatly for me.
I think the show's bias doesn't negate the shady fucking shit the cops were doing.
Also the DA and Len were obvious villains. Like, even though it was a documentary, they were CLEARLY the bad guys. There was no need to spin their characters at all. It was written all over their faces every time talked.
I enjoyed the ride, even though it was so beyond biased it's not even funny.
The blood vial is even pretty much irrelevant. Steven Avery is guilty as fuck. This documentary would have sucked ass if it was unbiased, because no one would give a shit about a murderer who's in jail for murdering a woman.
This show really highlights, among other things, the need for basic objective decision making and judgement training as part of an elementary school curriculum. If we expect each and every citizen to make an able juror, there should be some instruction on basic evidence judging techniques, emotional removal from situations and the importance and meaning of reasonable doubt instilled in each and every citizen at a young age.
This entire case, whether you believe Steven Avery is guilty or not, is circumstantial and contains NO piece of evidence that itself is beyond a reasonable doubt a piece of credible evidence.
>Guys I watched a biased documentary that only pointed out defensible evidence, and ignored all indefensible evidence.
>All 12 jurors made the wrong decision. I know this because I watched a 10 hour documentary and know way more about the case than the jurors who sat in a courtroom for 6 weeks hearing both sides of the story, and deliberated for over 20 hours over all of the evidence
You will defend anything no matter how wrong you are.
>All "unshown damning evidence!!" is just as circumstantial and easily rebutted as included "damning" evidence
>Just as much exonerating evidence not shown in the documentary
>Reports of improper juror proceedings including threats from multiple jurors, currently being investigated
>Consitutional violations and extremely improper and suspicious investigating practices permeate every single piece of "damning" evidence
>Steven Avery is a forensic genius and cleaned every single bit of DNA on the property after brutally and violently raping and murdering her guys!
I found the contrarian dumbshit, try think for yourself and make your own judgements sometimes you retard.
>He didn't say they made the wrong decision you ignoramus twat.
>Whether you believe Steven Avery is guilty or not, is circumstantial and contains NO piece of evidence that itself is beyond a reasonable doubt a piece of credible evidence.
Maybe you have bad reading comprehension, but saying that there's significant reasonable doubt in this case implies the jury made the wrong decision.
Name some exonerating evidence in this case that wasn't shown in the documentary.
For every piece you come up with, I can name infinity, because they threw the entire kitchen sink into this documentary making Avery look innocent. Nothing was left out that makes Avery look good, and a shit ton was left out that makes him look like the despicable human being is.
>try think for yourself and make your own judgements sometimes you retard.
Oh okay, I'll just blindly listen to the documentary then. Good advice.
You're saying they made an uninformed decision, resulting in the wrong verdict. That's literally what you're saying.
>A child says 2 + 2 = 5, oh that's okay he doesn't know math. That means the answer isn't wrong.
If you honestly think the prosecution made their case beyond a reasonable doubt even after reading all extra court documents and evidence available outside the documentary you are sincerely retarded and clearly have no formal legal training.
>watching the series showed me how flawed our jury system is
>all the evidence was circumstantial
>no one piece of evidence meets the burden of proof
>I wasn't saying I disagreed with the verdict
>Does this show's obvious bias make it shit?
No, but it calls into question its creditibility, and undermines its own intentions.
>is avery a piece of shit
Rapist, murderer, child molester, cat killer. Gee, I don't know.
>did he even do it regardless?
>also Brendan Dassey is an innocent retard.
Half right. I feel bad for Brendan but he was involved.
As if being fair and critical is politically correct.
>This show really highlights, among other things, the need for basic objective decision making and judgement training as part of an elementary school curriculum. If we expect each and every citizen to make an able juror, there should be some instruction on basic evidence judging techniques, emotional removal from situations and the importance and meaning of reasonable doubt instilled in each and every citizen at a young age.
And it undermines all of that by being grossly biased.
>This entire case, whether you believe Steven Avery is guilty or not, is circumstantial and contains NO piece of evidence that itself is beyond a reasonable doubt a piece of credible evidence.
Only if you believe the conspiracy or take it seriously. Without any concrete evidence, I don't. To me, Avery did it, without a reasonable doubt.
If you honestly believe that Steven Avery didn't murder that woman, then you're an ACLJew or a dindu who thinks you need a video of someone committing a murder to be found guilty.
are you the idiot that keeps scaremongering about jury trials on /his/? the jury trial in a criminal case is a right of the defendant and nearly always works to the defendant's benefit.
oh yeah, you know, cause mentioning that he rammed a woman off the road and pointed an unloaded shotgun at her face makes him look like a saint.
Mentioning that he robbed a few stores and THREW A FUCKING CAT INTO THE FIRE made him look like a good candidate for pope.
the fact that people didn't give a shit about him throwing a cat into a fire is beyond me.
>To me, Avery did it without a reasonable doubt.
Saying there's reasonable doubt =/= accusing the state of conspiracy, no matter how much the prosecution wants you to believe that.
As I said, there wasn't a single piece of evidence that stood up to the burden of reasonable doubt - did it really not trouble you that the defence was able to find something suspicious, procedurally wrong, malicious or all three about EVERY piece of evidence the prosecution introduced? There was not one exhibit, contained in the documentary or not, where the defence was unable to point out lies or inconsistencies - that is NOT good enough for a court of law and in the judgement of a mans life.
Whether you think he did it or not, Avery is still entitled to presumption of innocence, a fair trial, and to be convicted beyond the scope of reasonable doubt - all rights that he did not receive.
Reasonable doubt has to be reasonable. Just because you can construct this narrative that the police framed Avery doesn't mean it's true.
The bones in his yard were burned with the same steel found on the tires in Avery's lot. The bullet that killed Teresa Halbach was shot out of Avery's illegal gun. Avery's nonblood DNA was found in the hood of the RAV4. Avery called Teresa three times the day of her disappearance, including from a *67 number.
Who gives a shit about the key. Who gives a shit about the blood in the car. Look at everything else surrounding this case. Look at Brendan's testimiony (The parts that weren't forced.) Look at Avery's cellmates testimony that Avery wanted to seek revenge on all women for being put in jail for the false rape. Look at all of his letters to his ex wife. Look at the interviews from his ex girlfriend, even she's saying he did it.
Again, there might be unreasonable doubt. Maybe aliens came in and abducted her then buried the bones in his firepit. That doesn't mean he should be exonerated.
I disagree. I don't think the show is biased toward his innocence. Innocent would be the wrong word to use at any rate. It's more about questioning whether or not there's enough reasonable doubt and mishandling of the case to warrant further investigation.
All of those "damning" points you mentioned can and have been rebutted with equally valid points from the defence, and could almost be argued towards the conspiracy narrative, especially the "non blood DNA" which was admitted was only enough to have come from a toothbrush, or from someone touching the blood DNA inside the car without gloves then opening the hood.. oh which is exactly what an investigator has literally admitted to!
Not saying this cunts innocent, just more playing devils advocate. To me the amount of reasonable doubt that some evidence was planted and Steven Avery was improperly investigated and targeted is much less than the reasonable doubt he's a mastermind criminal and forensic cleaning prodigy genius. But maybe that's just because I'm smarter than you.
>Saying there's reasonable doubt =/= accusing the state of conspiracy, no matter how much the prosecution wants you to believe that.
I know, but since I don't believe there was any conspiracy, I take the evidence provided by the prosecution at face value. And the evidence overwhelmingly points to Avery. So no reasonable doubt.
>As I said, there wasn't a single piece of evidence that stood up to the burden of reasonable doubt
Reasonable doubt is for people.
>did it really not trouble you that the defence was able to find something suspicious, procedurally wrong, malicious or all three about EVERY piece of evidence the prosecution introduced?
Yes and no. No doubt, there was a lot of shitty work done on part of the state.
>There was not one exhibit, contained in the documentary or not, where the defence was unable to point out lies or inconsistencies - that is NOT good enough for a court of law and in the judgement of a mans life.
Right. Doesn't mean he can't still be guilty without reasonable doubt.
>Whether you think he did it or not, Avery is still entitled to presumption of innocence, a fair trial, and to be convicted beyond the scope of reasonable doubt - all rights that he did not receive.
To a degree. He deserves a retrial but is also guilty. Not sure I'm too enthusiastic about fighting for a murderer rapist dirtbag.
Saying all of the evidence is planted is not reasonable doubt.
I don't even see a real motive
Colburn had literally nothing to lose against Avery, and everything to lose including his freedom by framing him.
Yeah? And you're saying it's not biased?
It downplays his violent past and presents his family in a very uncritical light, playing on heartstrings about his poverty and disadvantages in life.
Many people come away from the documentary thinking he's innocent. That's not a coincidence.
You're right, saying the evidence is planted is not reasonable doubt. Successfully undermining the credibility of evidence by proving inconsistencies, breach-of-protocol and malicious behaviour involving each piece of evidence IS reasonable doubt. Show me a piece of evidence that is non-circumstantial, was handled and or tested with a valid and fair procedural method, made available to the defence fairly and in accordance with precedent and absolutely points to Steven Avery beyond a reasonable doubt. None exists. and that's why this is scary no mater what your personal opinion on Steven Avery or the documentary is.
People need to realise that there doesn't have to be some massive State conspiracy with diabolical and intricate schemes working against Steven Avery. What the defence is arguing is that in combination with a successful killer who new where in the county to dump the body (as anyone with two braincells would), certain opportunities arose for the Manitowoc investigators to exercise their belief that Avery is guilty and simply add or augment evidence to see justice done. I think it's a very important distinction between conspiracy and abuse of power based on personal prejudices, which may even have been somewhat subconscious a lot of the time.
The main thing for me that makes me it hard to believe is the fact that none of Teresa's DNA or blood was found anywhere near Avery's trailer, garage and everything else. I doubt a man with such a low IQ would be capable of cleaning every bit of DNA. I have no idea if he did it or not but I don't believe he did it the way that was suggested. That being said I haven't really looked further than the documentary yet so maybe theres an explanation for that thats not in the documentary.
The most puzzling part to me is the lack of a murder site. I do think Steven is the most likely killer but I can't figure out where and how he murdered Teresa within the given timeframe.
Are you 12? How come Strang and Buting aren't refuting this?
>Guys I don't trust any evidence no matter how much corroboration it has
I'm glad you weren't on the jury, because you could have been a personal witness of Avery murdering Teresa, and said there's reasonable doubt.
The defense came no where close of proving, or even highly suggesting a framing.
The motive they gave was so fucking weak, and their only evidence is the circumstances seemed sort of fishy kinda.
Why do people keep focusing on whether Steven is innocent or guilty? That isn't the point of the series.
also, for every piece of prosecution evidence left out there is a counter piece of defence evidence left out - it's a television series covering events over 30 years, and just like every documentary ever made it's not going to be able to include absolutely everything
I think Dassey is innocent of murder and rape. I think he just helped Steven dispose of the evidence. I think she had chains and ropes around her at the time while they were burying the body.
He obviously had a lot to lose and knew that much. He thought if he told the police what they wanted to hear, he'd be okay.
This goes some way towards explaining how much of an effect hours of intense interviewing and an authority figure telling you what you did can have on a normal person
On top of that are Brendan's learning disabilities and obvious incomprehension of the situation. I honestly believe he made it up after having worked in a special education environment for so long with similar children and experiencing them under scrutiny and when in trouble. I actually chuckled as he almost immediately recalled the name of the novel to the obviously surprised prosecution, classic autismo.
A. The points they brought up were already demonstrated. The deer blood, for example, is already brought up when they said they found Avery's blood. It's redundant.
B. The points they brought up would have required talking about the prosecutions argument, like they'd have to explain why the DNA under the hood was important to the case.
>Steven Avery’s ex-fiancee says “he’s a monster,” and she believes he killed Teresa Halbach
>“It was all an act. I — he told me how to act. You know, smile, be happy. I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t want to get hurt. Steven is one person I don’t trust. He’s like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” Stachowski said. “A nice person, semi-nice person and then behind closed doors…he’s a monster. He told me once — excuse my language — ‘all (expletive for females) owe him’ because of the one that sent him to prison the first time. We all owed him — and he could do whatever he wanted.”
>"I hated him and wanted to get away from that monster!"
>spends the next few years while he's incarcerated visiting him and vocally supporting him
Gotta get them sweet netflix bucks somehow, what a lying bitch
>there is no bias though
Um, really? The movie that plays sad folksy music when it's showing Avery's parents and plays DJ Spooky during the conspiracy theory non-sense, isn't biased?
>read my post again
Okay. You're saying what a bunch of people already have. I get it.
>if you;re claiming it's biased towards Avery, why did they leave out a significant amount of pro-Avery evidence?
Doesn't change the fact.
>A. one example proves the entirety
this point is entirely false
the pre-prosecution points were all counter-pointed by items left out of the documentary, so by your logic, those points are 'redundant'
They spend like half the time just showing Avery's parents being sad.
The only part they show of Teresa's family is the brother who is mad and angry at innocent Steven >:v( What a bad guy
>theres people out there who TRULY believe avery was set up
I completely agree, that's why MaM is one of the most important and significant documentaries made this century, and I've already successfully encouraged almost all my family and friends to experience it and the plight of the Avery family against shocking and impossible odds.
It's funny. My sister recommended this to me, and every single person I've talked to about this case is convinced that Avery is guilty.
>Fucking contrarians man you just want to be different!
You're becoming the contrarians. The more light this case gets, the more people think he's guilty because they're not attached to some biased documentary.
>They spend like half the time just showing Avery's parents being sad.
they had access to his parents, and it is a documentary about Steven Avery, who lives in close proximity to his family (who are all in close proximity to to the alleged crime scenes and alleged murderer) being charged with and tried for a crime - of course they're going to show his family
>The only part they show of Teresa's family is the brother who is mad and angry at innocent Steven
what is wrong with showing parents being sad their son has been charged with murder?
what do Teresa's family have to do with the investigation and trial other than being related to her?
what is wrong with showing Teresa's brother being mad and angry that his sister died?
>literally every significant and relevant scholar, intellectual, scientist, novelist, professor, clergyman, teacher, popular artist and philanthropist are "liberal"
>this is still some sort of insult in the twisted, delusional minds of disenfranchised and angry retards
I honestly just feel bad for you at this point, being confined to a Morrocan tapestry-weaving forum to spout your nonsense.
>what is wrong with showing parents being sad their son has been charged with murder?
Because you're adding an emotional connection with Avery and his family. If this was about facts of the case, then they could have cut half of the documentary out as showing his parents adds nothing but compassion to Avery.
>what do Teresa's family have to do with the investigation and trial other than being related to her?
What does Avery's parents have to do with the investigation?
>what is wrong with showing Teresa's brother being mad and angry that his sister died?
Because when you juxtapose that with Avery's crying mom and dad, you get a protagonist and a villain. When you show pictures of Avery as a kid, and nothing but pictures of him either smiling or looking concerned, you create a positive light. It's not neutral at all.
It's much more sophisticated than your average agitprop documentary, and there is plenty of worthwhile material within the series, but it must be watched with an extremely critical eye. If you want a better example of what MaM does, I'd point to the Thin Blue Line. That too is biased but not to any degree that its credibility comes into question.
Friendly reminder that the jury contained the father of a Manitowoc County Deputy and a Manitowoc Clerk, and there are reports from at least three jurors of coercion and threats of physical violence against person and family if a guilty verdict wasn't reached.
>>>literally every significant and relevant scholar, intellectual, scientist, novelist, professor, clergyman, teacher, popular artist and philanthropist are "liberal"
What? That's completely wrong on so many levels. But just keep believing that.
Also, libtard is different than liberal. I consider liberals to be people who study both sides of things and come to a conclusion, which may be different than mine. Libtards are people who have no critical thinking skills and just listen to what the media tells them.
Daily reminder that Steven Avery was on a business trip in Hawaii in the crime window of the murder, the jury consisted of 12 Manitowoc police officers, and the real murderer admitted on the stand that he did it, yet Steven was still convicted.
>Friendly reminder that the jury contained the father of a Manitowoc County Deputy and a Manitowoc Clerk
Friendly reminder that that isn't illegal or anything.
>and there are reports from at least three jurors of coercion and threats of physical violence against person and family if a guilty verdict wasn't reached.
Relayed by the filmmakers. I'm sure it must be accurate.
>Steven Avery can't be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because there was a police conspiracy to frame him for murder
>Can't prove the police are guilty of framing someone for murder beyond a reasonable doubt
The jury was SAID TO be from Calumet, just as the investigation was SAID TO be covered by Calumet, despite massive Manitowoc active involvement including several occasions of volunteering to conduct searches and evidence gathering.
are you saying that MaM's credibility comes into question? if so, please explain why
>Because you're adding an emotional connection with Avery and his family
this is a documentary series - not a news report
>What does Avery's parents have to do with the investigation?
>nothing but compassion to Avery.
for you maybe, I saw it as another part of the story
>lives in close proximity to his family (who are all in close proximity to to the alleged crime scenes and alleged murderer)
members of his family are even witnesses
his family are an important component
>Because when you juxtapose that with Avery's crying mom and dad, you get a protagonist and a villain
you're putting your own interpretation of things on to this
it's simply two different parts of the story
if my sister was murdered I would be angry and mad
if my son was charged with murder I would be sad
these are not things that create "villains" and "protagonists"
>It's not neutral at all.
pro-tip: there is no such thing as a "neutral" documentary
what was the point of the series?
Problem here is that I'm seeing the usual lawyer tricks being used here by how he quotes the juror: "fears for their public safety." There's no context there. Could mean something entirely different from what's being suggested.
this series has fucked with me
i just finished watching it and loved it but had to find out exactly how biased it was
so i went and started googling around and people kept referring to missing evidence
but theres no god damn missing evidence
i keep amazing myself by finding out that any possibility avery did it has been addressed by based strang and its just impossible for me to accept he did it now
>The bullet that killed Teresa Halbach was shot out of Avery's illegal gun.
pls dont trigger me with such stupid assertions, familia. there is absolutely no way to prove something like that based on the impacted bullet. all they can determine is the caliber of the bullet, which was .22LR which just happens to be one of the most popular calibers in the US. they'd need to have found casings for any sort of credible ballistic fingerprinting.
>The bullet that killed Teresa Halbach was shot out of Avery's illegal gun
Incorrect. The bullet was fired out of a gun similar to Avery's.
>Avery's nonblood DNA was found in the hood of the RAV4.
It's been confirmed that that DNA could have been planted just as easily as the blood. Additionally, multiple officers admitted to not changing gloves when handling evidence.
>Who gives a shit about the key.
Me. It's worth noting that the key they found wasn't even the key TH used.
>Look at Brendan's testimiony (The parts that weren't forced.)
All parts were coerced in some way.
>Look at Avery's cellmates testimony that Avery wanted to seek revenge on all women for being put in jail for the false rape
Never confirmed or used for a reason.
>Look at the interviews from his ex girlfriend, even she's saying he did it.
She also provided pieces of evidence that imply Avery didn't do it. The fact she's his ex now and the fact that she can earn money off of this doesn't tip you off?
don't try to set up the narrative that you gotta be reddit to love yourself some based strang and the other guy i shamefully forgot the name of
people were going loco for them here too
Fucking finally another sound minded, objective view in this thread. I don't give two shits if Avery did it or not, the fact that there is no evidence presented by the prosecution that wasn't met with an equally valid and sometimes for reasonable explanation or description by the defence. In the words of the great Strang, the prosecution has to swim upstream. They have to overcome all points the defence makes and PROVE beyond ANY REASONABLE DOUBT that Avery is guilty, something that just wasnt done. The cases are too equally plausible and equally bullshit to unequivocally say the prosecution beat the defence, it's as simple as that.
The only key that Steven Avery had access too was a spare key that you could have only of found within the Halbach household.
This doesn't seem off to you? It doesn't seem strange that the keys that Halbach would actually have on her person hasn't shown up in Avery's house?
not who you're replying to but I never actually thought about that
I guess it's possible that he removed the other keys and dumped them
but it is strange that it was just a car key and no other house keys
It's been widely speculated that the key was a spare, since it had no fingerprints or dna from Halbach on it. This is the first time I've heard someone claim it must have been taken from her home. Conspiritards are really the worst.
The documentary is pretty biased
They left out the part where Steven Avery would request that Teresa be the one to come to the house to take pictures, and how she would request that she wouldn't want to go to Steven Avery's because he would answer the door in nothing but a towel.
What really got to me was Steven's face after he was found guilty a second time. It wasn't the disappointment of a killer trying to pass for innocent, like "Oh no, they got me!" or anger or anything else. It was just... He already knew.
He just sits there with the same defeated expression on his face. Tears almost come out of his eyes, but then they go back in, and he looks like he just soaks it in that he lost his life a second time. It all happened again.
It was such a powerful moment.
They left out that part because it wasn't proper evidence.
Avery requested Teresa to come to the house and take pictures because people like to work with people they've worked with before. The claim that she requested to not go to Avery's house is completely unfounded with no one to testify that it happened. the co-worker that reported Teresa didn't want to go to Avery's house because he answered the door in the towel explained how they all laughed about it, with no real implications that it scared Teresa especially.
>dude deleting voicemails lmao
>left out the part where Steven Avery would request that Teresa be the one to come to the house to take pictures
she'd been there dozens of times before to take photos of cars he was selling, maybe he requested here because the ads were successful
>she would request that she wouldn't want to go to Steven Avery's because he would answer the door in nothing but a towel.
he did that ONCE out of dozens of visits
he also owned no underwear and lived in a trailer, it seems like something a person like that would do pretty often
I've not seen much talk about Deputy Coulburn and how he was quite obviously looking at Teresa's car when he called in it's plates, two days before it was officially found by search parties. I wish the defence had highlighted this more.
>They left out that part because it wasn't proper evidence
A lot of the documentary wasn't proper evidence.
You guys will bend over backwards to defend this shit. Classic conspiracy theorist nuttery.
I know! The amount of backflipping and illogical cognitive leaps these people have to make to say Manitowoc County properly investigated and convicted the right person is fucking insane.
So which one of you idiots posed as the "hacker group anonymous" and claimed they were going after Colburns phone records and blowing the lid off this police corruption? I still lol about that.
him and Mike made for a great team
>completing each other's sentences
>same awkward feet and head movements when asked specific questions
>Nancy Drew-ing together to crack the case
>both loved Teresa so much they wanted to help the investigation
>both left out of or glossed over in Teresa's super-cute "if I die" video because Teresa wanted to make sure no-one would ever suspect them of having anything to do with her death because they're both the most stand up guys she knows
they're a cute couple
Nobody is saying that though. Almost everyone acknowledges that the case and trial was a shitshow. But that doesn't mean the documentary isn't biased. And that doesn't mean that Avery isn't guilty as hell.
>literally completely EXONERATED from rape case by definitive DNA evidence
>Manitowoc County and the Judge both clearly ignore this and count the rape as part of his character and passed crimes
Get out of here Kratz
>he still burned a cat alive
which he went to jail for, so I guess it's fair that he definitely deserves to go to jail for the rest of his life for an unrelated crime
>And he raped two women
well if they didn't have any involvement like they were supposed to, then any evidence against Avery would never come into question, and all of the tin foil hats you hate would disappear.
they probably hurt themselves worse by being involved
You're missing the point. Yes he's guilty as fuck but the point is just saying it and "knowing" it don't make it so. You have to PROVE it with a solid case in a fair court of law, which has not been done.
You're as bad as the prosecution saying "Who cares if that key was planted? Steven Avery killed Teresa Hallbach, he is guilty, we know that with or without the key, say he is guilty", it's just completely at odds with the aim and purpose of the judicial system.
An expert forensic witness testified this at the trial AND they destroyed Traybach's account of "flames higher than the garage" - this wasn't a fair trial though so it didn't matter.
my grandpa once cut a cats whiskers off, put mittens on his feet, tied him inside a cloth sack and tossed him off a bridge onto a train track.
he also has went to church everyday of his life from the time he was 6
and people think kids who grow up playing video games become sick psycho's.
bones that couldn't have been on his yard from the fire he made because the fire wouldn't have burned the body like that
ignore the anonymous tip that they received that the body was burned in a smelter, too
it's not like any murderer watching the news couldn't put together that dumping evidence on Avery's property would be a good way to get any possible attention on them removed.
>You're missing the point. Yes he's guilty as fuck but the point is just saying it and "knowing" it don't make it so. You have to PROVE it with a solid case in a fair court of law, which has not been done.
It's proven by the evidence. Again, the trial was a shitshow, but there's no reasonable doubt here. Just a bungled investigation and trial.
>You're as bad as the prosecution saying "Who cares if that key was planted? Steven Avery killed Teresa Hallbach, he is guilty, we know that with or without the key, say he is guilty"
Nah. You're missing my point it would seem.
does nobody care that there was evidence that the bones had ben moved?
>a forensic anthropologist testified at trial that an open fire wouldn't have generated enough heat to burn a body in the way that those bones were destroyed
>Is Steven Avery actually a piece of shit?
Yes he torched that cat by setting it on fire for "laughs" karma caught up to that son of a bitch, so I could care less. With that said, what the cops did was even worse.
>It was proven by the evidence
No. It wasn't. You clearly don't know what you're talking about or understand reasonable doubt, so I'll stop trying to explain to you.
Just a question; you believe that a copy of auto trader magazine, a bill of sale for the van once it's been sold and NO DNA EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER are evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Teresa was in that trailer and events follow the State's timeline?
Please find a way out of any jury work you're asked to do, for the good of justice and society.
He probably did it. You could make another entire 10 shows of the effects 18 years of incarceration would have on a mind that wasn't up to code to begin with. The honeymoon of being free would wear off pretty quick and I believe there might have been some people that preferred things the way it used to be.
"Probably" isn't enough though. Dude should get a retrial at the very least. While I think he did it I think there was some police fishy stuff that went beyond your usual part for the course stuff like getting Brandon to confess to kidnapping the Lindberg baby.
>Neither pressed charges.
then I guess the rapes definitely happened
>sloppy police work and questionable methods
>I believe the evidence provided by police
please explain me why a woman who has to travel often using her car would have no dna or fingerprints on the key that she uses.
also, i don't give a fuck who found the key. im not saying it was part of manitowoc police framing. i just want to know if it was a main key or a spare key
No, you believe the police. You've not made an attempt to objectively and critically analyse each piece of evidence, its credibility and what it means. It's okay to just believe the police, you're socially conditioned to from a very young age and it feels almost unnatural to admit there may be something more sinister behind this "sloppy" police work as you see it.
Like I said, you believe the narrative of the prosecution, which is fine and valid. Saying you believe every piece of evidence, even as its torn down and exposed as far from credible right in front of you, is plain retardation.
Unless of course you just haven't watched the series.
>Main key or a spare key
Why is that relevant? What if she was driving that day with a spare key? What if the spare key was in the car? I believe it was a spare key, but I don't understand how that has any bearing.
As far as why she would have no fingerprints, I don't know. Maybe Steven bleached it. Maybe the police bleached it. Maybe aliens bleached it. Maybe it was just sitting in the wheel well of her car forever and she never touched it, but it fell out and Steven picked it up. Who the fuck knows or cares.
I don't even see the key in the house as a critical piece of evidence for the prosecution, Kratz even said in his closing arguments that the key was irrelevant. The defense and the documentary made it a much bigger deal than it actually was.
>then I guess the rapes definitely happened
Doesn't it seem curious the amount of bad luck this guy has that two women independent of each other in different decades allege they were raped by Avery, and both declined to press charges because he threatened to kill their families. Very odd that it's consistent with other threats he made to Jodi and his wife. The Mantiwoc police district really had it in for him.
not a re-trial, but some other hearing is definitely a possiblity
you don't bleach fingerprints. you wipe them.
also, the key is a big deal if it was planted.
but you know what? this has got me thinking that too much has been done to prove steven innocent or guilty and not enough to find out how, when, and where halbech was murdered.
>too much has been done to prove steven innocent or guilty and not enough to find out how, when, and where halbech was murdered
You're the one focusing on the key. Teresa Halbach was killed by a rifle, the bullet was found in Steven's garage, and it was fired by his rifle.
>No, you believe the police.
Yes. I do.
>You've not made an attempt to objectively and critically analyse each piece of evidence, its credibility and what it means.
I have. I've just come to a different conclusion as you.
>It's okay to just believe the police, you're socially conditioned to from a very young age and it feels almost unnatural to admit there may be something more sinister behind this "sloppy" police work as you see it.
I'm not a fan of the police, and you sound 12 years old with your socially conditioned horseshit. But that doesn't mean they planted evidence. You have zero actual proof of that.
>Like I said, you believe the narrative of the prosecution, which is fine and valid.
No, I don't. I find the case they made out of the evidence to be weak, but the evidence is very strong. I believe the evidence
>Saying you believe every piece of evidence, even as its torn down and exposed as far from credible right in front of you, is plain retardation.
Because I didn't buy into what the defense was saying.
>Unless of course you just haven't watched the series.
It's okay that you believed the grossly biased documentary. You're socially conditioned to be that way.
Right from the get go the investigation used the working assumption that Steven Avery was guilty, and focused on him rather than Teresa. For example, the defence asks the investigators for an alibi for Teresa's roommate, whose whereabouts are unaccounted for for THREE DAYS surrounding Teresa's disappearance - they have none, they've barely spoken to anyone not connected to Avery.
I don't think she was murdered in the garage, I think the prosecution was wrong about that. However, that doesn't change the fact that they found a bullet with her dna on it in Steven's garage fired from his rifle. That's a fact in the case.
The thought that she was killed in the garage was speculation that I personally disagree with.
>Posting on 4chan from a phone
Also, the Avery Defense Force doesn't listen to logic, instead they resort to name calling. It's like trying to convince people that we landed on the moon. Some people just like their conspiracy theories.
>fired from his rifle
literally impossible to prove, are you fucking retarded or something?
go ask /k/ if you can attribute a impacted, crushed .22LR bullet to the gun that fired it without also happening to have the casing.
please stop repeating nonsense
>Hurr durr social conditioning is a 12 year old conspiracy
You clearly have no knowledge of social or group psychology.
Please, tell me again how one of Stevens favourite magazines and an unfilled bill of sale for the car he was selling is proof Teresa Hallbach was in his trailer? Seriously, if the evidence is SO strong, and this is an extremely important bit of evidence, please explain your mental gymnastics to reach this oh so wise conclusion?
>Let me find the weakest evidence the prosecution has
He even said in his post he doesn't agree with the prosecution, just the evidence presented.
Avery Defense Force everyone.
A man with a documented IQ of 70, who was dumb enough to run the wife of a Sheriff off the road, and then threaten her with a gun; was smart enough to completely and utterly clean the site where is raped and murdered a woman.
Are you people for real? This man is clinically retarded, and now he's some kind of high end TV show killer?
Guilt or innocence aside, he fucked up by continuously claiming they were planting evidence to frame him, on top of suing(rightfully so mind you) the county that railroaded him into prison for 18 years. He was NEVER going to get a fair and impartial trial in Wisconsin period. But if he did do it, hes one of the most calculating clinically retarded people of all time. OF ALL TIME.
>arguably the most important piece of evidence
>does not speak for itself, requires Brendan Dassey's testimony and the State's fucked up narrative circumstances to make sense
That makes it circumstantial and NOT conclusive evidence you dumb prick. I don't give a fuck about the prosecution, tell me how magazine + bill of sale = Teresa Hallbach was inside that trailer?
Oh, you can't?
>rifling marks on a bullet that was completely impacted and crushed
no, really, are you stupid or something? go look at the picture of the bullet, they aren't extracting anything from it as it's totally collapsed on itself from impacting a hard surface.
even then, barrel rifling forensics are largely bullshit. they would need the casing to attribute, and magically there are no fucking casings.
Uh dude, are you alright?
Which is why most have concluded that the crime happened elsewhere. I don't believe Avery is retarded, in spite of what some IQ test he took in elementary school says.
>Barrel rifling forensics are largely bullshit
Source? Why would you need a casing? I can see how a casing would help, but the striata from the barrel is more than enough to prove that a bullet was fired out of the same gun.
Because that's the fucking case they're "proving" and convicting this man based on?
You realise that "Oh the narrative and case doesn't have to be true, he could have just killed her in some way the State didn't describe, I'll just speculate and imagine how he killed her myself" is LITERALLY reasonable doubt? The prosecution needs to have a solid case including a timeline, specifics of where and when each crime happened. Here they do not, at all, you're making your own in your head. That leap from what they've shown to what you believe IS REASONABLE DOUBT. You can believe he's guilty, but you need a bit of self awareness to release yourself of your own prejudices and precognitions and remind yourself that HAVING TO SPECULATE ON BEHALF OF THE STATE TO PROVE A CASE IS REASONABLE DOUBT.
Let me ask you this, why wasn't this an easy open and shut case for the State? Steven's a retard, they had nothing but damning and conclusive evidence as you said - why couldn't they do in court what you can so easily do in your head?
bullet forensics have largely been inadmissible in court, while casings have typically been accepted. casings get stamped by the firing pin which is why those are identifiable and can be attributed to a specific weapon.
even in recent years, casings have been increasingly found inadmissible unless it has a microstamp on it, which most firing pins don't.
> is LITERALLY reasonable doubt
How is it reasonable doubt? Let's say a guy is found with his wife's blood all over him, him holding a knife, the wife is dead, and he's crying at the scene saying "It was an accident", then the prosecution claims that aliens abducted the wife, and that he was also abducted by aliens and they had a space battle and then they came back, and then she fell on the knife, and he slipped it. You would still convict the man. The prosecution can spit out all the nonsense they want, they still have evidence.
>Let me ask you this, why wasn't this an easy open and shut case for the State? Steven's a retard, they had nothing but damning and conclusive evidence as you said - why couldn't they do in court what you can so easily do in your head?
Because you're dealing with idiots who can't put pieces together, so you frame up the evidence in a logical order that you can present to a jury. Every single prosecution of any crime ever uses speculation somewhat, because it's impossible to know every single detail of a crime.
Why wasn't it easy? Because this was a difficult case. There were a ton of factors weighing in from both sides.
>they found a bullet
>with her dna on it
>in Steven's garage
correct, but since the bullet had Teresa's blood DNA on it it is also relevant that no other DNA of hers was found in the garage at all
>fired from his rifle
it has not been proven it was from his rifle, just from a .22 rifle, which are extremely common (even his neighbour owned one and coincidentally was trying to sell it in the days after Teresa disappeared)
Alright well you're definitely more intelligent than I gage you credit for. The differences between us come down to whether speculating in the face of incomplete or missing facts is better or worse than allowing a guilty man to go free. To me the integrity of the system, as well as the byproduct of the speculation which is the chance that an innocent man is convicted, and that this case become precedent for incomplete and fantastical cases favouring conviction above the truth is a much greater cost than allowing a possibly guilty man to go free to live out his last thirty years or so.
I have no doubt that Avery is responsible for Teresa Hallbach's murder. I also have no doubt that the trial did not sufficiently prove him guilty to strip him of his freedom and rights until his death.
Straw man much? I'm saying it's not complete bullshit just because it doesn't tie the bullet to a specific gun. It's still used in investigations to see whether the bullet is consistent with a possible murder weapon.
Lots of evidence to suggest Avery had motive and opportunity.
Being innocent locked up in prison with rapists and murderers always talking about what they did probably didnt help him readjusting when he came out.
The difference between you and me is you believe reasonable doubt means "Well the police could have planted all of the evidence", and I don't accept that. That falls into unreasonable doubt if you ask me.
The only thing you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that he murdered her. The evidence speaks for itself.
The bone fragments have steel matched to tires found in the Avery compound FUSED with the bones.
I like how the Avery Defense Force is obsessed with gotchyas.
>GOTCHA NOW ADMIT YOU'RE WRONG
Like winning me over is both possible and some sort of accomplishment.
I'm sorry, what is the straw man in pointing out how bullet forensics fail to meet the basic principles of validity in a scientific test?
I just linked you source material from the american bar stating that bullet forensics is being used less and less in investigations because the results tend to be inadmissible in court.
In what way does finding a bullet that cannot be attributed to anyone help in a case where the cause of death was already ruled to be a gunshot wound?
Narrowing the bullet down to a 22lr cartridge narrows the list of possible suspects down to.... just about everyone in that county not to mention about every gun owner in the US who happens to have a 22 for cheap plinking.
how about you stop repeating falsehoods and sucking the 350k prize's dick.
Blood in the RAV4, DNA evidence under the hood, Avery's character in general, his history of sexual violence and violence against women, the bones were found on his property, her belongings were found on his property, the bullet with her dna was found in her garage fired by Avery's type of gun, and the method in which she was disposed of is how Avery's cellmate in prison described Avery's perfect murder vision.
All those combined point to one man.
Originally because he physically threatened the wife of a Manitowoc sheriff, and then because he was about to potentially cost them millions of dollars. Also they seem like a bunch of dirtbags.
Seemed a mixture of classic small town rumour-mongering, the passed crimes and misdemeanours of the Avery clan, they're low economic standing and religion based condemnation of their lifestyles - all things (except passed crimes) that DO NOT belong in a court of law.
>A spare key
>Left in the vehicle
You can't possibly be retarded enough to think that happened right? But then again, that would be par for the course for people in this region of Wisconsin. I mean jesus christ these people are all retarded.
>Her RAV4 on the lot, her DNA on the lot, last known whereabouts were the Avery's, human bones found in the fire
It's pretty fucking easy to link the two up.
I watched the documentary and thought he was innocent until I actually dug up real facts friendo.
I wouldn't even care or be interested in this case if I didn't watch the documentary. Avery Defense Force is this deluded.
>Oh Kratz said it, he's a liar
Where's Buting and Strang's rebuttal?
If you really dug up "real facts" friendo, you'd know that the DNA under the hood is inadmissible as evidence due to the admissions of many investigators of not wearing gloves while handling Avery's other DNA evidence.
You're obviously very bad at researching retard.
Oh it's funny because I was talking about how her bones were fused with tire steel.
And a professional judge who knows way more about law than you ruled it as admissible, so I'll take his opinion with more weight than yours.
Oh so you're just taking shit out your ass then. The under the hood DNA was never brought before a judge because it was known to be bullshit.
Thanks for proving my point you're retarded though!
>verb (used with object), rebutted, rebutting.
>to refute by evidence or argument.
>to refute by evidence or argument.
>to refute by evidence or argument.
>to refute by evidence or argument.
>owns no underwear
>can't be assed to ask you guest to wait outside while you put on some clothes once you get out of the pool
>is that old and fat
no matter if a redditor thinks he's guilty or innocent, someone that disgusting is suicide-fuel
The intelligence needed to carry out and clean up this rape/homicide the way the State says it went down would take an amazing amount of clarity, foresight, planing, execution, and knowledge.
There is ZERO evidence in ANYTHING Steve has done in his entire life that would even remotely indicate that Steve has anywhere near the mental capabilities to pull this off. And if you think he did, then he is easily one of the greatest sociopaths of all time.
IF he was involved, he most definitely was not the mastermind, which means there is a cold blooded murderer most likely laughing himself to sleep every night after watching this shitshow go down.