Compelling but partial. Have you looked at anything beyond the show? They only show what they want you to see in the show. We don't see everything the jury saw in trial. Check out some of the links that have been posted in this thread.
The DNA was not blood DNA, it was cellular, dead skin from sweat glands. Physical contact is the only way it can be placed on a surface. They would have had to forcibly make him pop the hood of her vehicle. As for the cat, it shows what lengths they went through to tame his demeanor and mental state. The only reason they included the letters to his ex-wife threatening to kill her while in prison was because all mail, incoming and outgoing, are screened by prison staff. There was no downplaying or covering that up. They included it out of necceesity, but it also made it seem as if they were being transparent. As high profile as this has become, I think without new DNA evidence there is no way he gets a new trial. DNA will set him free, there is no option of a retrial as it would not be unbiased. This documentary has all but solidified his fate IMO. The only reason any new lawyers are picking up this case is for publicity and what they feel is a calculated risk at a jackpot settlement if somehow he is released. In that event, everyone involved except for Avery become rich.
Dude they showed letters of him telling his wife,I'm going to kill you, lol. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I said that they did, I said the only reason they did is because those letters were out there and screened by the prison staff before being sent. Had they not included them they would have surfaced and completely wrecked the docudrama's intent. They didn't include them because they wanted to, they had to. Up until now I haven't referenced them once, they really have no value other to show he was PO'ed at the time of writing them. Had they left them out and they surfaced after the series was released, they would have been quite damning to the storyline.
And you know they had to because you were on the production meetings? Or because it fits your narrative better? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Threatening to murder his wife unless she pays him for what he feels he's owed still has nothing to do with the reason he's in prison. Neither does the cat...
Then you know that they found the key because someone moved the cabinet and it fell out from behind it, you know that the nephew was interviewed for over 4 hours and the docudrama only shows a few minutes of it, you know that part of his interview gives very specific details about the rape, murder, and disposal of the girl which explains the dna under the hood and the blood in the back of the RAV 4 etc. Right? You know that the hole in the top of the blood vial was how the blood was put in the vial and not how it was taken out to frame someone also.
Yeah I know that all these things attempt to refute the show, doesn't make them fact, the Dassey interview still shows the he was coerced into what he said whether you watch 4 minutes or 4 hours, he said they did all kinds of things to her while she was tied to the bed and they still found no DNA evidence of her being in his bedroom, maybe they put plastic all over the room ...still doesn't make me change my opinion one direction or another, I never picked a side on this, you'd know that if you read my posts.
1. I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but as the evidence showed, there was a pin hole at the top of his blood sample from the 1985 case and the forensics said "we don't do that" so what happened? I haven't seen it all yet so maybe there's more. Likewise, they had access to his hair and other samples collected from his first wrongful conviction. Additionally, they claimed he had gloves on which is why there were no finger prints in the car, yet his blood got in the car from a cut he had on his hand. How could that be if he's wearing gloves? Lastly, how could a man leave not a single drop or iota of blood in his trailer where he supposedly slit her throat and shot her in the head and stomach? Nothing on the sheets, nothing on the mattress, nothing on the floor, nothing on the walls. 2. It did mention the cat incident which he admitted to, so what. What in the world does that have to do with rape, torture, and murder of a human? When I was younger (and dumber) my cousins and I played baseball with frogs at night yet I have not killed a person. 3. The Dassey kid's interview showed how he was coerced. He went back and forth over and over saying it was true and it was false. What motive does one have to back out, back in, and back out again after admitting something like this? He's already said it and he is clearly a very slow kid. He thought he would be in jail for one night and wanted to get back to school to turn in a project...I mean come on. 4. The key mysteriously showing up after searching his trailer on the 7th time, just laying under a pair of slippers (eye roll). 5. The cop calling in her plates and knowing the exact vehicle after she was reported missing but BEFORE it was found. So how was he looking at the vehicle? If this "docudrama" was from the Avery standpoint, why did they include the letters to his first wife when they were going through the divorce? They never claimed he was perfect. I'm sure there's millions of people who yelled or said something like that to their significant other. So just like you say the "docudrama" has me convinced he is innocent, I can say the prosecutor and investigators have you convinced he's guilty. I still believe in the premise that someone is innocent until proven guilty and I don't think they proved anything. They simply won a jury trial, that means nothing in terms of proof, it just means a man is in jail. EDIT: Put it this way, I'd rather a murderer/rapist go free because there's not enough proof to show he is guilty than an innocent man be in jail because there wasn't enough proof to show he is innocent. If somehow it turns out that there is irrefutable evidence, fine, I will admit I was wrong. As of now, I think he's innocent and until I watch the rest or something changes my mind, I can live with my opinion
EDIT: Put it this way, I'd rather a murderer/rapist go free because there's not enough proof to show he is guilty than an innocent man be in jail because there wasn't enough proof to show he is innocent. If somehow it turns out that there is irrefutable evidence, fine, I will admit I was wrong. As of now, I think he's innocent and until I watch the rest or something changes my mind, I can live with my opinion [/QUOTE] I can not get my mind around this, you have much more faith in humanity than I do.
If all you do is watch that docudrama, you will be convinced he is innocent. If you look at all the other evidence that was presented against him that isn't shown, you will change your mind.
Dateline NBC, 9pm CST, will have a 1 hour special tonight. Sounds like it will focus more on evidence not shown in the docudrama
I have looked at it all and there is NO evidence to convince me "Guilty Beyond a reasonable doubt" I am still, I don't really know.
That's fair to say, but I haven't watched all of the show yet, my opinion is based on the first 5 episodes. Once I am done I will go out and read some of the other stuff not mentioned and see where I am, but for now I remain extremely skeptical that he is in fact guilty. He just didn't have motive, she had been there multiple times before, he told people she was coming over, and there was no blood at the supposed kill site. The one difference from the previous times she visited to take pictures is that the Dassey brother's mom had a new boyfriend (who she is now married to) and according to Steven, he thinks that man and the elder Dassey brother are the ones who may have killed her. He's only speculating but they are the only others who were in the area when she was there. I think once the police went in to investigate and didn't find the evidence they were looking for, in their heads they were thinking "this guy is going to be found not guilty again", plus they didn't want him to win the money for being locked up for 18 years so I think they decided to "make" him the murderer (excuse the pun) to fill all the gaps across the board. Meh, just a gut feeling but it's where I stand right now. Well I truly believe in the judicial system's premise that you are innocent until proven guilty, and if I was a juror, I couldn't put him away based on what "evidence" the prosecution has provided thus far (through 5 episodes at least). Ironically, I am normally one of the very first to doubt someone and I generally have a pessimistic view towards people. I typically put very little trust in people so this is a bit new for me to have this strong of opinion in his favor.
It's not that the prosecution isn't giving evidence. The show isn't showing you what they have against him. They want/need you to have those doubts. And, they are misleading you with a lot of the stuff they are showing you. It's all a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
Searching his place7 times and then finding the key is smoke and mirrors? Really, or the tampered evidence with the hole in it to draw blood. Not one drop of her blood anywhere, but the RAV.
