Guess I'm going to have to start watching it tonight...thanks guys, had plenty of better things to do
What bothers me the most is that in no way could it have happened the way the prosecution presented it. No way he rapes and slits her throat on the bed and then shoots her in the head in his garage and there be absolutely no blood or DNA anywhere. It's literally impossible. That alone should have received a not guilty verdict. Also all of the prosecutions analytical data was worthless. For the EDTA test the FBI conducted, without a detection limit, analytical data is literally worthless. I was astonished that test was admissible. And the DNA on the bullet, if a blank comes back contaminated, all the results within the report are (or should) be deemed worthless. Again...those results should not have been admissible. I'm analyze analytical data daily. I know how analytical reports work. Those 2 things really shocked me.
I found this interesting. It is tweets from a reporter that covered the trial and was there as he watched the series. Reporter Tom Kertscher tweets reactions while watching Steven Avery series 'Making a Murderer'
I've only seen to where Steven was convicted. I can't draw a full and impartial conclusion based solely on the documentary alone, but from what I saw there appered to be reasonable doubt as to his guilt. That's just me though. Jury trials are always a gamble. I've seen jury's convict when you think they'll aquit and visa versa. I thought it was interesting that he could have asked for a mistrial based on one of the jurors having to be excused but didn't. He was confident in his case and his attorneys which is fine, but that may have been a gamble that cost him. As to the cops. I believe the vast majority of officers are well meaning professionals who would never think of doing what was suggested in the documentary. On the other hand there are bad apples. I've seen several indicted, and rightfully so for various things.
Watched the first episode last night and they definitely do a good job of making it seem like he was a loving innocent person so far. Pretty crummy how the first trial about the rape went down according to the show.
Through episodes 4 and 5... The defense is doing an excellent job considering what type of case this is. I still believe he did it. I feel so terrible for his nephew.
I have watched it, I have zero respect for the DA or any law official in that county, wow Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't want to give anything away, but if one can't see reasonable doubt, well I can't help you, my lord Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why was her blood in the SUV? If you kill her in the garage, why driver her around in the truck? Why was only his DNA on the key, she never touched it? It's her key The key was found 8 days later, fell out of the desk and underneath the slippers? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yup... I'm a nice guy who gives everyone a chance always. The first scene Kratz was in I had a hatred that was something fierce. By the end of it I was furious. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How can anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence think the kid Brandon could do anything close to what the convicted him of? We worry about the federal government being corrupted, perhaps we all should start looking in our own back yards. Every piece of evidence was found by 1 cop, who's county was not even supposed to be involved. Your telling me the seal broken and the hole in the blood vile just happen. The one cop lied twice under oath, and the other one called in the RAV when he called in that plate, and who deleted her voicemails? My god, this has infuriated me. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just remember this whole "documentary" (if you want to call it that) is a one sided story that has been written and portrayed from one side. A three week trial and 4 days of jury deliberation took place in this case. This is not an "open minded" portrayal of the events. It's made by people are opinionated and have an agenda. There are some very messed up parts to this story. Some really screwed up events and people but the overall picture is he killed that girl. Do some research on your own involving this case. I like how they say "Avery was a kid who did little dumb things". Committing burglaries, burning a cat and running people off the road and pointing guns at them are not little dumb things. Totally biased opinion this series is.
I can't grasp that people can watch a "documentary" and buy automatically into what agenda is offered without critical thinking or further examination. The people that tried to contact the president suggesting a pardon are idiots it is a state case not a federal case, the president has no possible chance to issue a pardon. If anything good can come of the Avery's being incarcerated is the fact that they will not be reproducing any more, empty that gene pool.
No one wants to answer these three questions This is just evidence Why was there blood in her car from her? Why was the seal broken and a hole in the blood vile? Why was there no blood anywhere from her in the garage? Just look at the evidence and nothing more, something does not add up. What I don't get is how some people look at evidence and conclude guilt. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I see everyone saying there is much more to this case but nothing has been posted. Anyone have any resources that I could read/look at in regards to this case? I can't seem to find anything credible in my searches (all tabloid BS, etc). Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I believe he committed the murder and possibly some evidence was "assured" in the case to make sure a conviction was obtained.
Explain to me this Not one drop of her blood, Dna anywhere except the key and bullet. The avery's are not rocket scientist, no way they cleaned it all up. It's not adding up, that's what puzzles me. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
