Steven Avery (making a murderer) Guilty or innocent?

Read up to page 8. Skipped to the last page thinking John_D80 would have finally laid out some irrefutable evidence omissed from the documentary.

But no. Still beating round the bush.

Earthhorse

Which is more important; bias in a documentary or bias in the legal system? Some seem to think that the former is way more important than the latter.

From what I have read following the trial nothing particularly egregious was left out of the documentary. As they have said, they left in the strongest evidence for both sides. This includes, for example, leaving in the parts of Brendan Dassey's interviews where he was led and leaving out parts where he wasn't. That is obviously the correct decision to make because it is the most telling and strong part of his confession. For some reason this documentary is being held to the standard that if it didn't include every single minute of the trial then it's not telling the truth. It's ridiculous and it seems some people just can't face the fact that what they see in the documentary isn't all of reality nor could it ever be (therefore the documentary can be dismissed entirely).

Senna wrote: »

Everyone who has reviewed the case is sure of his guilt, the innocence society would be the first to take on the case, since Avery was already helped by them once, but they won't touch it. Why do think that is? They didn't watch the documentary, they reviewed the case.

Because, as his lawyers pointed out at the end of the documentary, there are no legal grounds left to challenge on unless some new evidence comes forward which, thus far, hasn't happened. People who have reviewed his case aren't "sure of his guilt" as you put it, they just don't see a way to challenge the conviction successfully.

Though he does have a new legal team now and it will be interesting to see if they can progress the case.

mightyreds

timthumbni wrote: »

Hmmm. After killing someone he stores the car on his family property and removes the connection to the battery on her car. Sounds so implausible to me.

I was thinking about that too, cleans the house and garage meticulously but leaves the car parked on his property next to a crusher for days

shakencat

ridiculous, was fuming watching it

irishmover wrote: »

Read up to page 8. Skipped to the last page thinking John_D80 would have finally laid out some irrefutable evidence omissed from the documentary.

But no. Still beating round the bush.

Haw haw. Very droll.

Yeah, transcripts of the entire trial just didn't cut it as proof it seems!! People too lazy to even read now! Need me to spell it out for them.

Maybe if I make a blatantly one-sided documentary and put it on Netflix ..........

John_D80 wrote: »

Haw haw. Very droll.

Yeah, transcripts of the entire trial just didn't cut it as proof it seems!! People too lazy to even read now! Need me to spell it out for them.

Maybe if I make a blatantly one-sided documentary and put it on Netflix ..........

Yes. Not ashamed to ask for you to spell it out. Just like everyone else. Yet this is around about the 5th time you've posted the same thing in this thread.

Just do everyone a favour and instead of telling everyone they're idiots for believing there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction, explain why. With the irrefutable evidence you've claimed from the beginning.

You've got zero credibility without doing so and at this point you're really making yourself out to be the idiot. Not the other way round.

irishmover wrote: »

Yes. Not ashamed to ask for you to spell it out. Just like everyone else. Yet this is around about the 5th time you've posted the same thing in this thread.

Just do everyone a favour and instead of telling everyone they're idiots for believing there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction, explain why. With the irrefutable evidence you've claimed from the beginning.

You've got zero credibility without doing so and at this point you're really making yourself out to be the idiot. Not the other way round.

Hmmm ok. The doc stated Averys blood was found in two places in the car as far as I remember.

The other (avery) blood stains that weren't mentioned in the doc were shown to only possibly be directly from an openwound (most likely the wound on his hand) based on the testimony of blood experts. Something to do with splatter shape as far as I remember.

Where do you think these other blood splatters came from came from if not directly from him??

John_D80 wrote: »

Hmmm ok. The doc stated Averys blood was found in two places in the car as far as I remember.

The other (avery) blood stains that weren't mentioned in the doc were shown to only possibly be directly from an openwound (most likely the wound on his hand) based on the testimony of blood experts. Something to do with splatter shape as far as I remember.

Where do you think these other blood splatters came from came from if not directly from him??

Is that all of the irrefutable evidence you've taken from the entire court hearings that isn't in the documentary?

irishmover wrote: »

Is that all of the refutable evidence you've taken from the entire court hearings that isn't in the documentary?

No of course not. There are thousands of pages in the transcripts.

Any way like I said, where do you think those other splatters came from??

John_D80 wrote: »

No of course not. There are thousands of pages in the transcripts.

Any way like I said, where do you think those other splatters came from??

I have no idea and I'm not going to guess. However, that is not irrefutable evidence just more leads. There was me actually thinking you had a bunch of bullet points which distinctly proved he and/or Brendan did it.

Was that really all it was for you to change your mind?

I have no idea if he did it or not. The matter at which whether he did it or not is not why I've an interest in it. Its the corruption that appears evident throughout three trials which has me concerned.

In regards to the "expert" was this the same person who tested three swabs and extrapolated this data to all of the swabs? i.e. assumed what they found in these three swabs was enough?

irishmover wrote: »

I have no idea and I'm not going to guess. However, that is not irrefutable evidence just more leads. There was me actually thinking you had a bunch of bullet points which distinctly proved he and/or Brendan did it.

Was that really all it was for you to change your mind?

I have no idea if he did it or not. The matter at which whether he did it or not is not why I've an interest in it. Its the corruption that appears evident throughout three trials which has me concerned.

Well if previously undisclosed (in the doc) physical DNA evidence isn't good enough for you, then I don't think anything would be. He was in that car. Of that there is no doubt.

No matter what I put forward it will be dismissed as speculation or as 'planted' evidence.

Feck it. He must be innocent so.

John_D80 wrote: »

Well if previously undisclosed (in the doc) physical DNA evidence isn't good enough for you, then I don't think anything would be. He was in that car. Of that there is no doubt.

No matter what I put forward it will be dismissed as speculation or as 'planted' evidence.

Feck it. He must be innocent so.

You believe that an expert saying he was in the car is enough to convict him.I disagree.

Again I have no idea if he did it or not, neither do you.

irishmover wrote: »

You believe that an expert saying he was in the car is enough to convict him.I disagree.

Again I have no idea if he did it or not, neither do you.

Well obviously all the evidence together is what counts. That's how reasonable doubt works. I just put that forward as one example.

Plenty people (even in this country) are convicted with no physical evidence to connect them to their crime. In averys case there is truckloads of physical evidence.

[Deleted User]

John_D80 wrote: »

Well if previously undisclosed (in the doc) physical DNA evidence isn't good enough for you, then I don't think anything would be. He was in that car. Of that there is no doubt.

No matter what I put forward it will be dismissed as speculation or as 'planted' evidence.

Feck it. He must be innocent so.

My God, I can't believe you could actually be on a jury. Im not talking about the case or the show, just your comments. Instead of waiting to be 100% convinced without doubt of his guilt, you're doing the opposite.

That's what the case is really about. I saw other posters in this thread as well writing stuff that goes entirely against what justice is..

"The police did plant some stuff but he definitely did it". That's innocent then. You're the devil himself if you say guilty. I don't understand how people can overlook the "reasonable doubt" thing so much. If there's even an inkling that the prosecution's case isn't exactly it happened, then there's doubt.

MadDog76

John_D80 wrote: »

Hmmm ok. The doc stated Averys blood was found in two places in the car as far as I remember.

The other (avery) blood stains that weren't mentioned in the doc were shown to only possibly be directly from an openwound (most likely the wound on his hand) based on the testimony of blood experts. Something to do with splatter shape as far as I remember.

Where do you think these other blood splatters came from came from if not directly from him??

Ok ......... if the blood came from an open wound on Avery's hand then that means he wasn't wearing gloves ......... right?

Why was Avery's fingerprints not found in the car?

Two possible explanations ........

1. Steven managed to clean/wipe every square inch of the car ensuring that his fingerprints would be removed ......... but managed to miss his own visible bloodstains?

2. The blood was planted.

Do you have any other possible explanation or would you like to move on to another piece of "irrefutable" evidence??

EDIT: Just so you know, I have read the Trial transcript ........ more than once, in fact.

Lorne Malvo

Innocent until proven guilty with SIGNIFICENT evidence.

Senna

Lorne Malvo wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty with SIGNIFICENT evidence.

But he was proven guilty and there was significant evidence, his case has also been denied a retrial at all levels, it's not all a conspiracy but of course everyone is wrong and the TV viewing public are right, but TV knows all.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ok ......... if the blood came from an open wound on Avery's hand then that means he wasn't wearing gloves ......... right?

Why was Avery's fingerprints not found in the car?

Two possible explanations ........

1. Steven managed to clean/wipe every square inch of the car ensuring that his fingerprints would be removed ......... but managed to miss his own visible bloodstains?

2. The blood was planted.

Do you have any other possible explanation or would you like to move on to another piece of "irrefutable" evidence??

EDIT: Just so you know, I have read the Trial transcript ........ more than once, in fact.

1. Its not CERTAIN where the blood came from. Its only strongly speculated that it was from his hand as that was the only known deep wound he had the time. Could easily have come from elsewhere on his body and possibly did. The absence of fingerprints actually supports the fact that it.

2. Cast off patterns and complete absence of EDTA proved the other bloodstains could not have been planted and could only have come directly from a human source.

John_D80 wrote: »

Well if previously undisclosed (in the doc) physical DNA evidence isn't good enough for you, then I don't think anything would be. He was in that car. Of that there is no doubt.

No matter what I put forward it will be dismissed as speculation or as 'planted' evidence.

Feck it. He must be innocent so.

The blood evidence was disclosed in the documentary. The testimonies from the experts weren't credible because of a few reasons:

The blood evidence was contaminated.
The FBI tests on the blood weren't thorough.

Both of these points were argued by the defence and other experts.

The positions and splatter of the blood in the car has also been shown to be easily replicated in the same way that it was found in the car.

There was also a finger print found in the car that was not Avery's or the victims, but the court would not allow the witness to answer when questioned who's it was as they refused to allow the defence to introduce the possibility of another suspect.

Senna wrote: »

But he was proven guilty and there was significant evidence, his case has also been denied a retrial at all levels, it's not all a conspiracy but of course everyone is wrong and the TV viewing public are right, but TV knows all.

Was the evidence enough to provide unreasonable doubt? There were holes poked all over it to the point where Ken Kratz even told the jury to forget about the fact that evidence had been planted.

Chris_Bradley

It doesn't really matter what your opinion on whether he is guilty or not here. The evidence given for his conviction was absolutely disgraceful and so cringing to see it being laid out.

Pretty obvious it should have been thrown out with the key placement & the bottle of blood being "coincidentally" tampered with.

The treatment of the boy by Fassbender & Wiegert was unbelievable - lets be honest here, there's so much more that I could say about the whole thing - I really could write a book.

Amateur stitch-up on a biblical scale that was brought home by a bunch of mates.

Makes a mockery of the judicial system over there. You'd have to wonder is this is happening left,right & centre.

Chris_Bradley

*double post*

smash wrote: »

The blood evidence was disclosed in the documentary. The testimonies from the experts weren't credible because of a few reasons:
The blood evidence was contaminated.

The FBI tests on the blood weren't thorough.

Both of these points were argued by the defence and other experts.

The positions and splatter of the blood in the car has also been shown to be easily replicated in the same way that it was found in the car.

There were only two bloodstains mentioned in the doc. I believe the ones on the drivers door and ner the ignition. I'm talking about the other ones that were left out of it. There was one on one of the back doors and one on a CD case as well AFAIR and one or two others but I cant remember right now where exactly they were.

The people whose testimony I am referring to weren't even shown in the documentary actually.

murpho999

Just finished it at the weekend.

Interesting show that portrayed Wisconsin justice in a very bad light, there was definitely something dodgy going on but the show was very one sided.

For example, I don't see the relevance of showing what happened to Kratz after the trial.

Mentioning his resignation through a 'sexting' scandal had nothing to do with the case and just made him look like a villain.

John_D80 wrote: »

There were only two bloodstains mentioned in the doc. I'm talking about the other ones that were left out of it.

The people whose testimony I am referring to weren't even shown in the documentary actually.

Perhaps you would like to discuss these blood stains so we're aware of them, or would you prefer to just point people at a court transcript that's a few thousand pages long?

The documentary also left out the details of the substantial amount of the victim's blood that was found in the back of the car, including dried blood which contained her hair which was stuck to the inner wall of the rear of the car. This means the car was not cleaned so where were the fingerprints?

smash wrote: »

Perhaps you would like to discuss these blood stains so we're aware of them, or would you prefer to just point people at a court transcript that's a few thousand pages long?

I actually was editing my post to include more details as you were posting.

John_D80 wrote: »

I actually was editing my post to include more details as you were posting.

Ok, well send us a link.

Did you read the reddit links I've posted twice so far which contain a lot of defence evidence that was not allowed in court or that has come out since the documentary aired?

MadDog76

Senna wrote: »

But he was proven guilty and there was significant evidence, his case has also been denied a retrial at all levels, it's not all a conspiracy but of course everyone is wrong and the TV viewing public are right, but TV knows all.

You're right .......... Steven Avery was proven guilty in a court of law and convicted by a jury based on significant evidence and then spent 18 years in prison ........ we could have thrown away the key at that point but as it turned out he was actually innocent all along ......... it's a good thing somebody asked some questions and didn't just leave Steven to rot in prison for the rest of his life, isn't it?

smash wrote: »

Ok, well send us a link.

A link to what? Its all there in the actual court transcript which I already sent links for.

How much more proof do you need other than what you can read yourself?

In fairness man you didn't even know about the other bloodstains until I told you about it so its obvious you have only watched the documentary and made your mind up solely on that.

John_D80 wrote: »

A link to what? Its all there in the actual court transcript which I already sent links for.

How much more proof do you need other than what you can read yourself?

Like I said and other have said. Please provide a few bullet points and links to back them up rather than expecting people to read the complete transcript.

John_D80 wrote: »

In fairness man you didn't even know about the other bloodstains until I told you about it so its obvious you have only watched the documentary and made your mind up solely on that.

No, I've read a lot about it through various forums. Out of all the forums and news articles you're the only one who seems to know about this irrefutable additional blood evidence... And you wont give us a link tell us more about it.