Beer_Monkey
Midfield
On the Avery property?
Some in the fire pit outside Steven Avery's trailer.
Some in a barrel outside one of the other trailers on the Avery site.
Some in a quarry over a mile away...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On the Avery property?
This was basically the entire crux of episode 5 or 6 man.On the Avery property?
personally i thing steve shot her. outside and burned her. its more than likely.
but the whole trial is a disgrace. so many "ifs and buts" its shocking. how the retarded lad got locked up is the biggest travesty of it all. no evidence what so ever.
Just finished this, haven't read any comments yet - my first thought is that this documentary MUST have been biased in the defendants' favour otherwise I don't understand how they were both sent down. There MUST have been compelling evidence presented by the prosecution that heavily implicated Stephen/Brendan that was edited out of the documentary. Going to do some further reading on this but I'm sure there's another side to the story that was not shown in the documentary.
One thing that stood out to me was the victim's bones being found on the Avery's property. As Stephen's lawyer said, if they found the bones of a murder victim in my back garden I'd be a worried man. Are we really suggesting that the police moved the bones of a murder victim and planted them there? Really?
personally i thing steve shot her. outside and burned her. its more than likely.
but the whole trial is a disgrace. so many "ifs and buts" its shocking. how the retarded lad got locked up is the biggest travesty of it all. no evidence what so ever.
There seemed to be no questions asked of the older dasser brother and "steve?" despite them placing avery yet getting it wrong timewise, and being the only witnesses to see each other.
I dont think he did, but at least its debatable. Brendan got done over by his own defence team, and they showed it in the appeal court, and yet he's still locked up for life
The blood vial was a bit of a red herring I think. Even the lawyers were downplaying it by the end. I think the hole in the vial could have been done when the blood was put in, from what people have said.There was lots not shown in the series, which will have been down to time constraints, that must have been addressed in the trial. Eg. despite the lack of ETDA in the blood samples in the car, why was the blood sample from Steven's previous trial blatantly tampered with. How was the car key found not only on the 7th search but with only Stevens dna and none of Theresas, despite her using it daily for weeks/months/years. If she was killed in the garage why was no dna found, only Stevens in the floor cracks so it can't have been cleaned etc. etc.
I'd love to see the whole trial evidence and transcripts made public (as if that will ever happen)
The blood vial was a bit of a red herring I think. Even the lawyers were downplaying it by the end. I think the hole in the vial could have been done when the blood was put in, from what people have said.
Plus the seal had been broken on the box. It should have been untouched and in tact as it was historical evidence.There would be no reason for a hole to be in the top of the vial like.
Plus the seal had been broken on the box. It should have been untouched and in tact as it was historical evidence.
Any other documentaries people suggest? I have watched making a murderer, the one about bob durst, dear zachary and the life and mind of mark defriest because of this thread. Any others? Cheers
I don't think that's clear at all tbh.It is pretty clear Steve didn't kill, I think anybody can see that, but I personally think one his brothers may have done it, from what I have read afterwards.
Police just took the opportunity to solve 2 problems at once.
Not sure how you can come to that conclusion, I think it may have been on of his brothers.
The bloke has an IQ of 70, the phone calls just before and after he is meant to of killed her are recorded. People with that intelligence can't just switch on a pretence like that on the spot.
I haven't finished it yet but that was the saddest part and bit that made me most angry.
No wonder he is just a public defender, who get paid very little, absolutely awful lawyer, awful smile on him too, wouldn't surprise me if the prosecution told him to get the 2nd confession.
I don't think that's clear at all tbh.
I don't think that's clear at all tbh.
I don't think it's clear either, but I also don't think his guilt or innocence is the crux of the programme, it's about the lengths the legal system will go to get the man they think is guilty.
Whether he did it or not, it's clear that they intended to get their man, no matter what. That doesn't just include the prosecution or the police, it appears be include the judges who presided over the cases and the appeals.
As was mentioned earlier in the series, Avery had a 34 million dollar law suit against the police department pending, and the insurance underwriters had stated they would not cover it. They went after him by any means.
I don't think that's clear at all tbh.
I agree with all of that.I don't think it's clear either, but I also don't think his guilt or innocence is the crux of the programme, it's about the lengths the legal system will go to get the man they think is guilty.
Whether he did it or not, it's clear that they intended to get their man, no matter what. That doesn't just include the prosecution or the police, it appears be include the judges who presided over the cases and the appeals.
As was mentioned earlier in the series, Avery had a 34 million dollar law suit against the police department pending, and the insurance underwriters had stated they would not cover it. They went after him by any means.
Who did it then and where? And how did all of the evidence end up there?It is like.
You are right there, but he didn't do it like.
Whether one of his brothers did it is another matter though
I agree. Like i said above, I think the case has loads of holes and inconsistencies, I just don't think it's clear that he's innocent.Where's the blood? It would take a crime scene expert to clean up all that DNA if he shot her where they say he did.
I agree with all of that.
Who did it then and where? And how did all of the evidence end up there?
I'm not saying I'm convinced he's guilty bug I certainly don't think it's clear cut that he's innocent.