The point of this thread is not about YOU watching some shitty documentaries, it's the SUBJECT of this documentary that should be at the very least interesting to you.
I feel like the documentary almost had to leave a ton out that would otherwise explain the atrocious behavior by these officials. I too was incredulous at the many WTFs.
Minor spoiler:
Did anyone else catch the part of the trial where the judge gives Steven 3 options for when the juror had to be excused? One of the options was a mistrial... why was that not taken? Weren't they seeking a mistrial earlier for other reasons?
I feel like the documentary almost had to leave a ton out that would otherwise explain the atrocious behavior by these officials. I too was incredulous at the many WTFs.
Minor spoiler:
Did anyone else catch the part of the trial where the judge gives Steven 3 options for when the juror had to be excused? One of the options was a mistrial... why was that not taken? Weren't they seeking a mistrial earlier for other reasons?
I didn't realize the entire 10 episodes was about one case. I gave it up after 4 and just Google searched it.
For those who think he was actually guilty of the murder... why? He had a very strong case worth millions, and even without the case he had over $400k coming to him in restitution for the earlier false imprisonment. What was his motive for committing such a crime and doing it so stupidly?
Based on the documentary, I certainly think Steven Avery is innocent. Maybe if they left out enough key details I could consider changing my mind, but I doubt it.
Where to begin...like most of these stories, there was certainly enough reasonable doubt to find him not guilty. The tampered with blood tube with a needle mark? The key found after many days by the people who weren't supposed to be involved. The complete lack of blood. If there was blood in the car, both Teresa's AND Steven's, why would Steven leave the car there, and why wouldn't there be blood anywhere else? Garage or trailer, there would be blood. The hardest part to explain is the bones, and there aren't too many explanations other than saying the cops killed her. You can argue much easier that they planted the car and key, but the body parts, that's tough. But considering how many unethical and horrible people were involved in the case, I suppose anything is possible. I think it's scarier to consider how common people like that are, willing to prosecute and jail people with no regard for truth. The Brendan case is even more fucked up. What a shame. Hopefully the series will help uncover some new information. Amazing that it was only released now
First of all, the judge was obviously biased. He only ruled in favor of the defendants when there was very little wiggle room for him and if he didn't it would be too suspicious. But otherwise, that was a kangaroo court. Just the idea that the defense couldn't point to other suspects to create reasonable doubt is absurd. It's like tying a both hands a foot behind the back of the defense.
As far as the bones go, those could have easily been moved. Personally, I wondered why they didn't try to establish whether or not they had a full skeleton. Her body could have been burned somewhere else and then they moved just enough bone fragments to imply guilt.
It's also suspicious that the car was parked at the very edge of their property. Obviously that area could have been accessed by almost anyone at any time.
But the lack of any blood evidence is the most damning. You don't shoot someone in the head and NOT leave trace evidence for many yards in all directions. That's also absurd.
This is really frustrating.
Ken Kratz is an incredible prosecutor! When I wanted to get my husband out of the picture I got the local sheriff's department to 'discover' *wink wink* a murder on our property. My husband was zeroed in on in a jiffy! Attorney Kratz was able to put him away for life by skirting the defenses questions and skewing the concept of reasonable doubt. I've got the entire house to myself now! Thanks Ken Kratz!
First of all, the judge was obviously biased. He only ruled in favor of the defendants when there was very little wiggle room for him and if he didn't it would be too suspicious. But otherwise, that was a kangaroo court. Just the idea that the defense couldn't point to other suspects to create reasonable doubt is absurd. It's like tying a both hands a foot behind the back of the defense.
As far as the bones go, those could have easily been moved. Personally, I wondered why they didn't try to establish whether or not they had a full skeleton. Her body could have been burned somewhere else and then they moved just enough bone fragments to imply guilt.
It's also suspicious that the car was parked at the very edge of their property. Obviously that area could have been accessed by almost anyone at any time.
But the lack of any blood evidence is the most damning. You don't shoot someone in the head and NOT leave trace evidence for many yards in all directions. That's also absurd.
This is really frustrating.
What about the blood vial evidence from him that was opened and clearly extracted from?
agreed the bones could have been moved, but it's another stretch to say the cops moved them, which would be knowingly ignoring the true killer, if it wasn't the cops themselves. it's hard to think about all the scenarios though, change one thing and everything else changes.
It explains all of the evidence but potentially requires having at least a few people in on the conspiracy. That's possible, but we still don't have motive.W.I.T.F? Wow that just takes it down a completely different unexpected path...