8-10 wrote: » Was that the guy who clearly traced SA's photo into a sketch for the original case?
Scotty # wrote: » Also, one thing that stuck with me from the first season was Kenneth Petersen (the sheriff from the wrongful conviction) giving evidence in the Teresa Halbach trial, said that he wasn't convinced that Avery was innocent of the rape charge even after he had been exonerated by DNA evidence. I just thought it showed the cops attitude towards SA in a very bad light.
Scotty # wrote: » Finished watching this last night. Great TV. In my opinion BD was fed enough to void his confession. I'm amazed that more of the 7 judges in the appeal didn't see it that way. That said, I would like to see his unedited confession tape from start to finish. I wonder if he said anything (unfed) that could be verified. I doubt it though since they never found her body for sure, only some bones suspected to be hers, and thus they never verified that she was raped or how she was murdered. On that, is it true to say that Brendan Dassey was convicted of the murder of Teresa Halbach by cutting her throat in the bedroom of Steven Avery's trailer and that Steven Avery was convicted of the murder of Teresa Halbach by gunshot to the head in a garage on his property. If so, how can two people be convicted of the murder of the same person, by different methods, at different locations, and presumably at different times? Was she murdered twice??!! Whether Avery murdered her or not (and I'm not convinced he did), the investigation was corrupt. The coroner being warned away, cops who were told to stay off site finding evidence on site after the room had already been searched several times, evidence not disclosed to the defence, reports not being made, and so on. It all stinks. Also, one thing that stuck with me from the first season was Kenneth Petersen (the sheriff from the wrongful conviction) giving evidence in the Teresa Halbach trial, said that he wasn't convinced that Avery was innocent of the rape charge even after he had been exonerated by DNA evidence. I just thought it showed the cops attitude towards SA in a very bad light.
youcancallmeal wrote: » Just finished watching season 2. I still think Steven Avery did it but perhaps evidence was embellished/planted by law enforcement to make sure a guilty verdict was returned.
Kingp35 wrote: » Quite easily tbh. There have been countless studies on the validity of forensic "science" in criminal trials and just how unscientific a lot of it is. Working backwards it not scientific, it's pure guesswork. You are taking a conclusion and then guessing as to how that conclusion was reached when in reality there could be thousands of possibilities. In the case of Stephen Avery, I understand there is no other way of really doing it but the amount of people in this thread taking the testing done by Zellner as "fact" and "proof" of Avery's innocence is a bit mad.
TomOnBoard wrote: » I'd say that more or less summarises how most ppl who have bothered to study the case feel about it.
Mam of 4 wrote: » I love reading people's different opinions on MaM . The pros/cons , for and against . I've never said I thought SA was innocent entirely , but I'm as sure as hell convinced that it didn't happen the way the Prosecution said it did , and also that neither SA nor BD got a fair trail , far from it .
Mountainsandh wrote: » I don't know how anyone can possibly try and rubbish that.
Kingp35 wrote: » This is important. I'm sure a lot of people were swayed by the scientific testing done by Zellner and her team but it's pure conjecture and guess work on their part and they are looking to support and conclusion they've already reached. "Experts" in criminal trials can really say whatever you want them to say by doing the above and working backwards. it's why you often get "experts" on both the defence and prosecution side who think the exact opposite of each other.
jv2000 wrote: » The additional scientific tests for SA could be a bit more biased however, I am actually a scientist (not forensic) and the approach they took of knowing the outcome they wanted and working backwards is not generally supported in the scientific community
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Complete rubbish. These are two experienced cops who know how the legal system works. Jesus you don’t even need to be a cop or lawyer to have an opinion on the trial. As long as you are looking at the facts you can form an opinion. Should Brendan Dasseys confession have been used against him in court, no. Was there any other evidence to tie Brendan Dassey to the crime, no. So if you don’t allow the confession there is no evidence against him and he doesn’t go to prison for life. Thats the trial of Brendan Dassey nicely summed up in 2 short sentences.
Commanchie wrote: » Exactly so to judge 2 cops opinion of a case or participants in the trial is irrelevant.
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Ye because cops don’t know how the legal system is supposed to work.
Commanchie wrote: » Enjoyed it also but please remember. Cops neither defend nor prosecute. They bring charges and then its left to legal professionals
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Anyone listen to the ‘Real Crime Profile’ podcast about the case? It’s pretty good and mostly free of bias (one lady is biased). There’s 3 people talking about the case, ex FBI, Scotland Yard Cop and some other person (biased lady). I’m on Part 3 and they have gone to town on Kratz and the detectives involved. The beauty of it is they are looking at the case from a purely professional capacity.
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: Anyone listen to the ‘Real Crime Profile’ podcast about the case? It’s pretty good and mostly free of bias (one lady is biased). There’s 3 people talking about the case, ex FBI, Scotland Yard Cop and some other person (biased lady). I’m on Part 3 and they have gone to town on Kratz and the detectives involved. The beauty of it is they are looking at the case from a purely professional capacity.
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Good post and I can see your point. The thing is though that MaM (wait a minute is that when’re MaM of 4 gets her username from)
Maxpfizer wrote: » That's part her job though, to prove that the investigation was narrowed in on Avery when there are other viable suspects out there. I don't think that's unreasonable. Again it comes down to bizarre decisions that the police made surrounding this case. There are massive question marks around the quarry owner, ex-bf, roommate and also Bobby and Scott. For me, Avery is still the number one suspect but if she could prove that some of this evidence was definitely planted or if she could prove that the prosecutions story is verifiably false then everything gets thrown open again. At the bare minimum I would say there is something far wrong with this case and how it was handled and honestly Zellner just reaffirmed that belief. Even just small things like the coroner not being allowed access to the crime scene? WTF is that all about. Had the police made different decisions like not allowing Lenk and Colburn into Avery's trailer then maybe a lot of the question marks go away. Now we've a witness saying the saw the RAV4 by the side of the road and they told Colburn where it was and then you've got Colburn calling in about the plates sounding suspiciously like he is standing by the car as he is making that call. She would not be doing her job if she isn't fully looking into all of these different things. Personally I don't think the ex-bf did it. That's a stretch. However, something isn't right there. Was he helping the cops with evidence? How does he end up with the journal, for example? She really has to ask these questions because they just seem like obvious red flags that something is up with this case. I think Zellner is at the very least exposing gross incompetence. At worst she's going to prove that the cops maliciously put someone back in prison and allowed a killer to just walk free.
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Zellner is just accusing everyone rather than Avery. I’m on episode 6 and so far we have had the guy who owned the quarry, then the ex boyfriend and now the roommate. All accused of having a part to play.
