K-Nection Posted January 11, 2016 Author Share Posted January 11, 2016 A popular article for a ton of news and bloggers to cover is the "10 things that making the murderer did not tell you" angle. Every bit of this information is regergitated accusations that Ken Kratz has spewed while making his media rounds. A reddit user has compiled a list (that continues to grow) of the defense's arguments that was left out of Making a Murderer. Dean Strang recalled that one of the investigators involved in finding DNA under the hood of Halbach's car admitted to not changing gloves after handling evidence inside her car. Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SGwXEJ_0X2A Reddit discussion: Remember Sherry Culhane, the expert who testified about Halbach's DNA being on the bullet, except she contaminated her control sample, but since she'd used the whole sample (leaving nothing for the defense to test), they went ahead and treated it as conclusive? In 1985, she testified in the Penny Beernsten case that a hair belonging to Steven was found on Penny's shirt. Source: http://lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/wi/dna-expert-who-helped-exonerate-avery-testifies-in-murder-trial/article_5dc71915-0a95-5438-bf29-e168b655a855.html and http://www.convolutedbrian.com/testimony-notes-26-feb-2007.html and http://www.convolutedbrian.com/the-poster-child-effect.html "Buting showed that Culhane delayed the DNA test that freed Avery for a year" and "Culhane’s error rate was shown to be the highest of her group although her analysis time was seventy percent of the other analysts. She explained this by stating she did more samples than others." Source: http://www.convolutedbrian.com/testimony-notes-26-feb-2007.html Investigators never dusted the Toyota key (with Steven's DNA) for fingerprints. http://fox6now.com/2016/01/07/march-7-2007-search-for-steven-averys-fingerprints-crime-lab-expert-testifies/ Strang said Manitowoc County Coroner Debra Kakatsch would testify that she was "walled off entirely" from the crime scene by Calumet County authorities. By state statute, she should have been allowed to investigate early reports of possible human bones being found outside of Avery's trailer, he said. Strang said the coroner had also received calls from the Manitowoc County executive and the county's top attorney not to investigate the case. Source: http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/witness-says-she-saw-victim-later-b99642985z1-363818721.html Culhane testified that the amount of Avery's DNA on Halbach's hood latch (which could have been blood) was very small, similar to what you would get from rubbing Avery's toothbrush on it, or from the unchanged gloves of the tech who handled blood evidence inside the car and then touched the hood. Buting wanted to show jury anonymous letter mailed to MTSC, found in Green Bay Post Office, which claimed a body had been burned in the smelter at 3:am on Friday. Sources: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1683&dat=20070308&id=UuMqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pEUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6227,3242420&hl=en and http://fromwhisperstor.fr.yuku.com/topic/22752/Steven-Avery-Murder-Trial-John-Lees-Trial-Blog#.Vo7kgR7DPIU (Note that this last link comes from a website that, irritatingly, replaces every instance of "ass" with "DorkFish", so Fassbender comes out "FDorkfishbender. Why, website, why???) Clerk Lynn Zigmunt testifies that she had a log everyone was supposed to sign when they went into the evidence room, but "some people were making exceptions for people. We've tightened up on that." Source: http://fox6now.com/2016/01/07/march-6-2007-who-cut-the-evidence-tape-that-should-have-sealed-steven-averys-blood/ Blaine Dassey testified that his brother, Bobby, was asleep when he got home from school around 3:40pm, contradicting Bobby's testimony that he got up at 2:30pm and saw Teresa headed towards Steven's trailer. Source: http://fox6now.com/2016/01/07/february-27-2007-another-nephew-of-steven-avery-takes-the-stand/ Dean Strang says Steven's jail conversations were taped for 16 months and he never implicated himself, and this - along with the fact that in his experience, people "mentally equipped as Steven is" always end up confessing or implicating themselves - makes him think Steven may be "stone cold innocent." Source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/08/making-a-murderer-attorney-dean-strang-reveals-what-sparked-horrible-sense-steven-avery-may-be-stone-cold-innocent/ Now Sheriff (then "under sheriff") Robert Hermann is president of another salvage company in the region, and was working at it before he went into law enforcement in the 80s. http://cleveland-auto-sales-salvage.cleveland.wi.amfibi.directory/us/c/18826455-cleveland-auto-sales-salvage and http://www.htrnews.com/story/news/local/2014/07/01/sheriff-robert-hermann-recalls-career-highlights-changes/11944007/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin= Dean Strang stated they had a forensic anthropologist at trial who testified that an open fire wouldn't have generated enough heat to burn a body in the way that those bones were destroyed, but it didn’t make the documentary. Dean Strang on Megyn Kelly, the Kelly File 1/5/2015 In between 3:30 - 4PM, A propane delivery truck driver (John Leurquin) saw a green SUV leaving the Avery property at but couldn’t identify driver or if it was a male or female. He delivers propane for Valders Co-op. Usually fuels up near Avery property at 3:30 for about half an hour http://www.wsaw.com/news/headlines/6386482.html “Police said she was wearing blue jeans, a white button-down shirt and a summer jacket when she was last seen. Schmitz would indicate that Halbach was at his residence at approximately 1:30 p.m. Was there for approximately ten minutes. Was wearing a white shirt, waist -- waist-length jacket, and blue jeans. (Day 4 of Dassey Trial) Zipperer would indicate that Halbach was at her residence between approximately 2 to 2:30 p.m. Was there for approximately ten minutes. Was wearing a white top, waist-length jacket, and blue jeans. (Day 4 of Dassey Trial) Bobby Dassey said when he saw Teresa Halbach photographing the van Avery was selling Oct. 31, 2005, she was wearing a knee-length coat and slacks. http://fromwhisperstor.fr.yuku.com/topic/22752/Steven-Avery-Murder-Trial-John-Lees-Trial-Blog#.VpLqvJMrLq2 and http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8ob2esw3Gd4J:archive.postcrescent.com/article/99999999/APC0101/511060418/Car-missing-woman-found&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0 Steven filed an interesting post-conviction document naming other suspects the police should have looked into. Please do not take this as Steven actually accusing any of these men; it's just meant to show a judge that there were other viable suspects besides Steven, and that should create reasonable doubt. http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery%20document%20page%2023%20+.pdf William Newhouse, a gun expert with the Wisconsin State Crime Lab, said he couldn't conclusively link a bullet found in a crack in Avery's garage to a .22-caliber rifle seized from his bedroom. (He could only confirm that it was definitely a bullet from a .22 caliber rifle). There was no DNA on the gun, no blood blow back that you’d get from shooting someone at that close range and no blood mist / spatter around the garage that would also be present had someone been shot in the garage. http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/prosecutors-link-gun-found-in-room-to-bullet-with-halbachs-dna-b99643001z1-363819121.html Strang proved and Bobby Dassey agreed that the joke about hiding a body that Steve supposedly said to Bobby Dassey and Mike Osmundson on Nov 3 before Teresa was reported missing couldn't have been made on Nov 3, because Bobby Dassey was working that night. If it did happen, it could have only been made Nov 4 after Teresa's disappearance was public. http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/testimony-unclear-on-timing-of-joke-b99643032z1-363820361.html The documentary showed Steven's defense team questioning the date of the alleged joke but left out the evidence of why it couldn't have been heard by Dassey and Osmunson before Teresa's disappearance was public. The defense eliminated as many problematic jurors as the law allowed, but they still ended up with a MCSD sheriff's father and a county clerk's husband. http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-juror-says-two-jurors-related-county-employees On the 'Kelly Files' interview, Dean Strang mentioned that there were little drops off deer blood all over Averys garage, essentially debunking the theory that they could have cleaned all the blood evidence out of the garage, since had they cleaned it that thoroughly, there wouldn't have been any deer blood: Colborn testified that he "roughly" shook the bookend table when the key fell out, yet if you look at the photo, there is a remote and some paper sitting on top and things sitting neatly inside. https://imgur.com/a/vgV9B Manitowoc County Public Safety minutes for 12-6-05 show 744 Hours + $2,800 of Sheriff time billed in first month of Halbach investigation. 744 hours/24 hours = 31, which means during a month Manitowoc was supposed to be recused from the investigation, they are saying they put in the equivalent of someone working every single minute on this investigation. Plus, DA Mark Rohrer is in these meetings, discussing the case when they're supposed to have turned it over to Kratz. Source: http://www.co.manitowoc.wi.us/upload/3/PublicSafetyMinutes12-6-05.pdf On the leg irons/handcuffs from Avery's house. They tested those for DNA and found a mixture of DNA from 2 or more people. They confirmed Avery to be a source of one of the matches. Most importantly, they excluded Teresa's DNA as a match. https://www.dropbox.com/s/6pjd6kpq5o5mx40/Dassey%20Trial%20Transcript.pdf?dl=0 Day 4/8/07. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CQI13 Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 I'd love to see your thoughts (especially if they are this detailed) on any number of Infowars documentaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Nection Posted January 11, 2016 Author Share Posted January 11, 2016 I'd love to see your thoughts (especially if they are this detailed) on any number of Infowars documentaries. I've never seen nor heard of infowars...give me a bit to watch one and I just might take it apart lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Nection Posted January 11, 2016 Author Share Posted January 11, 2016 A new pettition has surfaced calling for a formal federal investigation into the police departments of both Manitowoc and Calumet Counties in regards to the handling of the Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey Cases. I will post this link on the front page as well for quick viewing. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/initiate-federal-investigation-sheriffs-department-manitowoc-county-and-calumet-county-wisconsin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitsukaikira Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 He will remain in prison because the law is being followed. Regardless of who takes on some case to get him out, it won't happen. BTW, I'm glad some random reddit user is compiling a list they feel is relevant no matter how useless. Were you this upset when OJ was exonerated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supershot Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/initiate-federal-investigation-sheriffs-department-manitowoc-county-and-calumet-county-wisconsin I'll gladly sign this one! By the way nice find a few posts back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Nection Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 He will remain in prison because the law is being followed. Regardless of who takes on some case to get him out, it won't happen. BTW, I'm glad some random reddit user is compiling a list they feel is relevant no matter how useless. Were you this upset when OJ was exonerated? I was 9 when he was exonerated....I was at the same reading level as Brendan Dassey so obviously I did not care what was going on with OJ Simpson. I was too concerned on how I quickly I could beat Sonic the Hedgehog 2. As far as him not getting out it we will just have to wait and see on that accord. But I'm pretty sure Kathleen Zellner would not be attempting this case if she thought he was guilty. I hope the FBI re open this back up because there was absolutely 0 leads followed that pointed a direction other than Steven Avery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hive Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 But I'm pretty sure Kathleen Zellner would not be attempting this case if she thought he was guilty. Of course, lawyers taking a case purely because it's good PR is completely unheard of. COMPLETELY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Nection Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 Of course, lawyers taking a case purely because it's good PR is completely unheard of. COMPLETELY. Of course it's good PR! She even goes on to say she looks forward to adding Steven and now Brendan Dassey to the names of her 17 prior exonerations. What better way to make money at your private practice then to take on high profile trials. It means she can ask for higher dollar amounts for trials she is actually getting paid for. I swear it does appear that you and mitsukaikira are stating things just to try to get a rise out of me. But with my personal beliefs aside I can't rule out he did do this murder. It's hard for anyone to rule that out because nobody else was targeted in this investigation. The saddest part of all this is if they were doing "real" police work instead of planting to convict they might of found the truth. There were other leads but they were never looked into or even considered. The DA was too busy with his very public witch hunt instead of his primary role of seeking the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitsukaikira Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Of course it's good PR! She even goes on to say she looks forward to adding Steven and now Brendan Dassey to the names of her 17 prior exonerations. What better way to make money at your private practice then to take on high profile trials. It means she can ask for higher dollar amounts for trials she is actually getting paid for. I swear it does appear that you and mitsukaikira are stating things just to try to get a rise out of me. But with my personal beliefs aside I can't rule out he did do this murder. It's hard for anyone to rule that out because nobody else was targeted in this investigation. The saddest part of all this is if they were doing "real" police work instead of planting to convict they might of found the truth. There were other leads but they were never looked into or even considered. The DA was too busy with his very public witch hunt instead of his primary role of seeking the truth. Who are you to decide what "real" police work is? Who are you to decide the truth? Answer: An every day citizen with no influence in the judicial system of the US. You're upset and presenting yourself in a manner that isn't going to win you many friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Nection Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 Who are you to decide what "real" police work is? Who are you to decide the truth? Answer: An every day citizen with no influence in the judicial system of the US. You're upset and presenting yourself in a manner that isn't going to win you many friends. They were caught planting the evidence in an investigation they were telling the media they have "no involvement in". That to me isn't real police work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitsukaikira Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 They were caught planting the evidence in an investigation they were telling the media they have "no involvement in". That to me isn't real police work. "To me". Good thing you don't define the work the police do. You keep presenting your opinion as fact and it's anything but. Quit trying to be a vigilante and making the law what you want it to be. The trial ended a long time ago. The law prevailed. This is a good thing and what should happen in a civilized society. Do not keep trying to make me out to be a bad guy when all I do is disagree with you and present reasons why. You don't like my reasons so you see it as a personal attack. I don't know you from Adam so it's most assuredly not personal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Nection Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 "To me". Good thing you don't define the work the police do. You keep presenting your opinion as fact and it's anything but. Quit trying to be a vigilante and making the law what you want it to be. The trial ended a long time ago. The law prevailed. This is a good thing and what should happen in a civilized society. Do not keep trying to make me out to be a bad guy when all I do is disagree with you and present reasons why. You don't like my reasons so you see it as a personal attack. I don't know you from Adam so it's most assuredly not personal. sigh* Police are human and are prone to the same things any other person is capable of. To believe they are corruption free is blind ignorance. Is it that hard to believe that the very men who were getting sued (Lt. Lenk and Sgt. Cobourn) would not feel embarrassed from the exoneration? That can hurt a man's pride. So much so that they felt they had to get rid of Steven Avery the first opportunity that presented itself. I almost want Avery to be guilty because it is truly tragic that a man has lost most of his life to wrongful accusations. I honestly have not seen one reason you think that justice was served other than "prison is a good place for him." BTW, using TMZ as a news link is pretty weak. "To me". Good thing you don't define the work the police do. Who are you to decide what "real" police work is? Who are you to decide the truth? Definition of a personal attack-A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. I think the above qualifies but I'm not mad. I think you have failed to prove your point and seem to be taking the Nancy Grace style of questioning me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hive Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I swear it does appear that you and mitsukaikira are stating things just to try to get a rise out of me. You got me there. Honestly, I find it so strange that you seemingly go out of your way to make this man innocent. Because you don't know that. Yet you state it as obvious fact that the rest of us are simply blind to. And that irks me. And you have yet to properly respond to the fact that the Netflix "documentary" left out some of the most important evidence - in order to tell a more exciting, biased story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Nection Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 You got me there. Honestly, I find it so strange that you seemingly go out of your way to make this man innocent. Because you don't know that. Yet you state it as obvious fact that the rest of us are simply blind to. And that irks me. And you have yet to properly respond to the fact that the Netflix "documentary" left out some of the most important evidence - in order to tell a more exciting, biased story. Ha Ha! I knew it bud! I think I did respond to the evidence it's that the evidence in question was not very important at all. It is impossible to show 6 weeks of trial in 10 hours of content. Some things will make the cut. They even attempted to get Ken Kratz point of view several times but Kratz turns them down each time. He then proceeds to say that "My side was never told." These claims had no bearing on the case and the most "damning" was the claim of "Sweat DNA" on the hood latch. It was revealed in the cross examination that the investigator did not change his gloves when handling the DNA on the inside and it may have been transferred from the investigator himself when they go to test later. Jerry Buting asked that question and the point was never focused on again for the rest of the trial. There is no proof of "Sweat" because sweat is proven to not contain DNA by itself. There was such little amount tested on the latch that it's not even proven what kind of DNA was even found on that spot. Just because the Prosecutor has created a narrative does not make that as fact. We keep learning more things as people are uncovering the files from the courts. Former prosecutor Ken Kratz has went on a media crusade stating lies and is starting to be called out on all of them. Remember the things that were left out were points made by both the prosecution and the defense. The more I learn the more I'm disgusted by what has transpired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I'm disgusted by the whole thing, and don't think the prosecution in my eyes had any credibility considering the amount of missteps they took from day 1. People are convicted for even less, but the gross misconduct at the different levels just leave me feeling that justice has miscarried. A man should be proved innocent before guilty, and Steven Avery and Brendan were not afforded that. Arguing it doesn't matter and the case should be accepted since it was 'years ago' and dismissing disagreeing with something because it's a "Documentary" are just baffling to me. I might be from England, but I don't understand why you don't feel that pardons should be granted from the governor? The whole point of checks and balances in the US system is that the separation of powers can't just be abused by a branch of government (in this case, the judiciary). The treatment of the interrogations of Brendan are deeply troubling to me. Any ounce of humanity and watching that should show how much of this was orchestrated by the police, and two+ lives ruined. And nobody is being held accountable to this? Steven as well, I believe to be innocent: there was means and opportunity but I didn't see any motivation for it. And above all, no credible evidence, no proper interrogation. Just the prosecution seeking a conviction and not the truth. It's a tragedy, and I don't see how it is defensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Nection Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 Very well said....I applaud your statement sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stennick Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I can't believe this has gone five pages. I would think both sides have stated their opinion and neither side is seemingly changing their mind anytime soon so it seems like it would be easiest to just say "man I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, I disagree entirely" and move on. It would drive me bad to go back and forth with someone essentially saying the same things in different words. I'm kind of sick of hearing about the whole thing. From my understanding the documentary like all documentaries have a specific narrative. Basing his guilt or innocence off of one side of the story seems crazy. Also it would seem crazy to think that any website or person would have all of the "evidence". This was a police trial right? Is 100 percent of the evidence from this case public domain? I have no idea if he's innocent or guilty and I would venture to guess neither does 99% of the people that have watched the documentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supershot Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 <p>Might not mean much but I read somewhere (don't remember where so I have no idea if its credible, Probably yahoo.com lol) that every day a truck driver would fuel up near the property and he claimed he saw a woman leave at 3:30-4pm that day and named everything she was wearing too.</p><p> </p><p> But he could have said this for the first time this year for all I know.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Nection Posted January 14, 2016 Author Share Posted January 14, 2016 <p>A very well articulated Redttor put this up and I had to share this. There is some scary points that I hope we can all learn from this....</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="40646" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>For everyone that thinks, “Who cares, he got what he had coming”, please consider this.<p> </p><p> It’s easy and common for the police to bend the rules, for Judges to let rulings slide and for appellate courts to not make proper decisions when they think a horrible person did a heinous crime. After all, who wants to be the person to put a rapist and a murderer back on the streets? In Wisconsin these are mostly elected positions so your reputation and livelihood is at risk.</p><p> </p><p> However, Here is just some of the damage that has already been done.</p><p> </p><p> Many of the court’s rulings either pushed the limits of the law or broke it completely. Many of the court errors made in Steven’s case were classified as “Harmless Errors” by the appellate courts thereby making these “errors” now a precedent.</p><p> </p><p> So now when these (illegal) errors happen again in the future a prosecutor can say that it wall allowed in the precedent setting case of State of Wisconsin vs. Steven A. Avery.</p><p> </p><p> If you watch Making a Murderer, you saw numerous “Firsts” in this case. Well, now these “Firsts” are going to be allowed in other cases… maybe one you are involved in.</p><p> </p><p> For instance….</p><p> </p><p> (1) Contaminated DNA is now admissible in court. That’s right, for the “first time” a knowingly contaminated piece of DNA evidence was allowed to convict a defendant, and it was upheld by the appellate courts.</p><p> </p><p> (2) The right to claim “ineffective counsel” is now gone in Wisconsin. In order to claim ineffective counsel (basically your attorney's malpractice caused you to lose), a defendant must “prove both deficient performance and prejudice” by his lawyer. I don’t know how an appellate court can rule that Len Kachinsky wasn’t both deficient in his performance and prejudice. I mean the man went on TV and said his client was guilty even before talking to his client. It will be much harder to prove in future cases that a person had a bad lawyer that acted against him when the bar is now set so low.</p><p> </p><p> (3) There was ex-parte communications between the Judge and a juror. The appellate courts ruled this a harmless error which now opens the door to all sorts of Jury tampering that can be called “harmless error”.</p><p> </p><p> (4) The police broke the "one warrant, one search" rule. This means the police are allowed to search one piece of property one time with one warrant. The police searched the Avery’s property for 8 days and entered Steve Avery's trailer multiple times not to continue a search but to start a new search which was in violation of the law. The appellate courts again ruled that this was allowed thereby degrading unreasonable search and seizure laws.</p><p> </p><p> (5) And (this one get’s complex) the judge erroneously applied the Denny Standard to Avery’s case. This meant that the only testimony and evidence allowed could not point to a third party, it could only point to Steven or Brendan, unless a pre-trial motion allowed it 30 days before the trial. The appellate court upheld this and it’s basically unconstitutional because it puts the burden of proof onto the defendant. Don’t be surprised if a case with the Wisconsin Denny Standard eventually goes to the US Supreme Court.</p><p> </p><p> Here’s where applying the Denny Standard really hurt Steven’s case…</p><p> </p><p> Bill Newhouse, an analyst with the State Crime Lab testified that the bullet found with Teresa’s DNA came from a Marlin Model 60 .22 rifle. And Steven owned this exact rifle. Newhouse testified he could only identify the make and model of the rifle the bullet came from and could not specifically say it came from Steven's rifle.</p><p> </p><p> However, Brendan’s Brother (Bobby) also owned a Marlin Model 60 .22 rifle. But because of the Denny Standard, the defense was not allowed to talk about Bobby’s rifle because that would imply that Bobby could be involved in Teresa’s murder and that would violate the Third Party Evidence Rule known as the Denny Standard.</p><p> </p><p> Therefore the jury was lead to believe that the bullet had to have come from Steven’s gun because (as far as they were told) it was the only explanation.</p><p> </p><p> There were many pieces of evidence and testimony that the defense could not explore. For instance they could not ask Teresa’s Ex questions that might exonerate Steven because it may incriminate someone else. For instance, in Wisconsin 80% of all murders are done by current or former romantic partners (spouses, boyfriends, exes, etc.) yet they could not ask him “Where were you when she was last seen”. Part of this was because the police never asked him.</p><p> </p><p> The people of Wisconsin lost a lot of their legal rights all in an effort to put Steven Avery away at all costs. It’s going to come back and hurt a lot of innocent people in the future.</p><p> </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> BTW this was too funny not to share</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <span>http://i.imgur.com/qWcu3TX.jpg</span></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Nection Posted January 16, 2016 Author Share Posted January 16, 2016 One of the best parody videos I've seen to date! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CQI13 Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 My only gripe with the Redditor post: He tries to make an emotional argument, not a logical one. And there's also the slippery slope. Is it egregious? Sure. But pandering in the whole "It could happen to you next!" way, I just don't buy. Just state the facts of what the firsts were and let people decide how they feel. I'm surprised the guy had to sue for the money for the wrongful incarceration. You usually see the state give that to people in cases like those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rickymex Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I rather leave this to actual attorneys and foundations that actually know the law like The Innocence Project than to normal people watching Netflix and thinking they know 100% he's innocent. Otherwise we end with accident such as when Spike Lee tweeted Zimmerman's "address" and sent people to the home of an elderly couple. Not to mention Jenny McCarthy and her anti-vaccine movement that people stupidly fall for and all the misinformation spread by Oprah's "doctors". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukess11 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Just letting you all know: Netflix producers have come out and said they have left out some evidence. I personally could care less if he gets out and here is why. If every innocent man who was incarcerated for murder made a documentary arguing their case, that is all Netflix will be. This is a one sided documentary without any viewpoint from the prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigtplaystew Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Every piece of evidence that the show left out, and much of it makes Steven Avery LOOKS bad, still doesn't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt if he's guilty. That's really the crux of the matter. Is he innocent? Don't know. Is he guilty? They certainly didn't prove that either and that's really what the American justice system is supposed to be about. No matter how you or I FEEL, we can look back and take an analytical look at all the evidence and see that those 12 jurors did, in fact, get it wrong. There isn't enough evidence to prove he committed that murder beyond the shadow of a doubt. Now that's an opinion, but it really is based on facts. I'm not talking about how I feel and I'm certainly not flaming an argument, I'm outlining facts. I have yet to see a single FACT that definitively proves Steven Avery murdered that poor woman. And neither did the jury. Whether he's innocent or not, I can comfortably say that after doing the reading I'm doing, I think it's pretty clear the jury shouldn't have convicted him. It's not about whether he did it or not. Can you PROVE it? They didn't. They really didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.