Support NeoGAF

[Stumpokapow]

My general take based on the show and surrounding reactions:
- Steven is probably guilty
- The cops and Sheriff's department involved were absolutely crooked
- Some of the allegations of evidence planting or manipulation are probably true
- Not clear about reasonable doubt besides that
- Brendan is probably not guilty of the murder or rape, but possibly guilty of some sort of accomplice after the fact
- First defence attorney for Brendan seemed comically incompetent, maybe even to the point of professional sanction.

I think the show is very good although the editing could have been tighter (this as a 6-7 episode show would have been truly stunning--the middle, around episodes 5-8, when it was mostly court stuff, could have been trimmed). My overall impression wasn't so much about the case at hand, which seemed like a somewhat normal murder prosecution with corrupt cops.

In terms of petitioning and getting angry, I think the bigger cause should not be Steven Avery. Almost the entire Avery family, as pictured in the documentary, appear to have moderate to severe cognitive-intellectual impairments. I'm not arguing that dumb people ought to get away with murder, but seeing Brendan especially be totally unaware of what was happening to him and unable to work through basic life situations is just tragic. It made me think of an experience watching someone at the social security administration trying to get her benefits increased because she had "adopted" (not legally) a kid whose mother had "just left him with her". She had great difficulty explaining the basic details of what was going on or answering any of the questions. It just made me think that we have a lot of systems set up to assume basic adult competence, and people who fall short of that (for whatever reason) are paralyzed when dealing with bureaucracy, even when the consequence is death or a ruined life. It's kinda shocking. A fair system would have not only afforded the kid a defence attorney during questioning, but also provided his family with significant resources to navigate the judicial system. I just came away really disgusted at that most of all.

 

[Erigu]

Yep. Hard to consider anything as stupidly biased as this a documentary.

Still completely ignoring all those previous retorts, huh?
As FlyinJ pointed out, you're not adding anything to the thread. At this point, I think you're just trolling.

 

[TheYanger]

My general take based on the show and surrounding reactions:
- Steven is probably guilty
- The cops and Sheriff's department involved were absolutely crooked
- Some of the allegations of evidence planting or manipulation are probably true
- Not clear about reasonable doubt besides that
- Brendan is probably not guilty of the murder or rape, but possibly guilty of some sort of accomplice after the fact
- First defence attorney for Brendan seemed comically incompetent, maybe even to the point of professional sanction.

I think the show is very good although the editing could have been tighter (this as a 6-7 episode show would have been truly stunning--the middle, around episodes 5-8, when it was mostly court stuff, could have been trimmed). My overall impression wasn't so much about the case at hand, which seemed like a somewhat normal murder prosecution with corrupt cops.

In terms of petitioning and getting angry, I think the bigger cause should not be Steven Avery. Almost the entire Avery family, as pictured in the documentary, appear to have moderate to severe cognitive-intellectual impairments. I'm not arguing that dumb people ought to get away with murder, but seeing Brendan especially be totally unaware of what was happening to him and unable to work through basic life situations is just tragic. It made me think of an experience watching someone at the social security administration trying to get her benefits increased because she had "adopted" (not legally) a kid whose mother had "just left him with her". She had great difficulty explaining the basic details of what was going on or answering any of the questions. It just made me think that we have a lot of systems set up to assume basic adult competence, and people who fall short of that (for whatever reason) are paralyzed when dealing with bureaucracy, even when the consequence is death or a ruined life. It's kinda shocking. A fair system would have not only afforded the kid a defence attorney during questioning, but also provided his family with significant resources to navigate the judicial system. I just came away really disgusted at that most of all.

The documentary isn't about trying to prove Steven is innocent, when you say it should be about broader issues, it IS, through the lens of this case. As much as I think it makes sense that Steven did the crime as well, there's basically no evidence that doesn't contradict itself saying that he did, which makes it just as likely that anyone on that property did it (or hell anyone really), so when you say you're not sure about reasonable doubt besides you're illustrating the real issue here - The accused is fighting the burden of proof rather than the state. The presumption of innocence means you need to look at every piece of evidence, consider it in context with the other evidence, and say 'yes, I can see a possibility that is reasonable that someone else did the crime as well' without ever having a notion of who that other person is.

Even if you REALLY think he seems like he did it, there's no way to rationalize the case presented by the prosecution as being any better than 'shaky.' Their main pieces of compelling evidence are the blood in the jeep, and the bones on the property, both of which have extremely simple counters - There wasn't ANY other blood anywhere, the tests are not reliable for disproving the existence of EDHT or whatever (sue me it's been a week), and the vial in police custody was clearly tampered with. Similarly there were bones in his fire pit, but also in the barrel and at the quarry, so how would they get to all 3 places if she was simply burned in his fire?

I'm not saying it's unreasonable to look at that stuff and say "Well, he could've done it" because that is perfectly reasonable, but it's also reasonable to look at that and say "idk it could've been someone else too" which is textbook reasonable doubt.

Beyond any of that, the entire case with Brendan and being able to convict two people of the same crime with different circuimstances is just beyond fucked. I get why it can happen, but I think we can all agree that it shouldn't be able to.



This past year I was in the jury on a murder trial, two guys, I'm 90% sure they did it, hell maybe moreso, but I was one of the ones arguing not guilty the whole time in deliberations too, and the more we looked at the case the less sense it made. A lot of that had to do with these same kinds of issues - the case the prosecution had made sense, but the more you looked at the evidence presented the more it contradicted itself, you're forced to believe some evidence and not others, which is normal, but when it's all just as trustworthy as each other that becomes problematic because it means almost certainly the story they're presenting you with (even if the right person is on trial) is WRONG. In this case, all of the physical evidence just does not match up.

 

[Roussow]

One thing I've completely forgotten -- and didn't really understand at the time.
Bobby (I think that's his name), jokes about a body around the midpoint of the series.

The following footage talks about this being reason for a mistrial, and it being a big help for the defense. Can someone break this down? I just must have missed why this is so important. I don't think I really understood what he was exactly saying to begin with.

 

[RiggyRob]

Watched episode 2 and 3 last night and my mind was boggling after the interrogation with Steve's nephew Brendan:

Spoiler

How on earth did the police think they'd get away with manipulating him to tell them what they wanted when it's being recorded? And even then it didn't work - you could plainly see Brendan struggling to figure out what they wanted from him, the investigator got frustrated and blew their chance of actually getting him to admit Theresa was shot in the head. Pretty slick/sly move to get a witness that could attest to Steve's alibi and get him to 'confess' being an accomplice to murder though.

Not to mention that I can't figure out what Steve's motive for assaulting/killing Theresa would be, and it was awfully convenient that she disappeared after the Manitowoc police department were being questioned but before the sheriff and the attorney general could be deposed.

Also Judy Dvorak and Eugene Kusche are scumbags

.

Man I love this style of documentary, it's clearly painting a narrative that the police are corrupt but considering it's real life it's all the more fascinating.

 

[Gorger]

The theme really gave me The Last of Us vibes before I even found out it was the same guy doing the music here, and that's a really good compliment.

One track that plays now and then after episode 4 seems almost completely ripped from from Sanitarium, a point and click adventure released in 1998.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1WAA1lQ6vQ

From 1:05 >

 

[y2dvd]

To answer the first question,

Spoiler

they got away with everything because the have all the power. Everyone one of them should be tried if possible for corruption.

 

[Daffy Duck]

Even if we entertain the possibility that Avery did kill her away from the property and put her in the back of her car, took her somewhere, killed her, then put her back in the boot of her car to take somehwere (which would explain the blood in her car) to burn her body, then how would he have got the bones from where he did it back to his place (and on this, why on earth would he move the remains back to his place anyway) without any trace in her car or anywhere else.....and he did all of that without leaving ANY DNA in her car.......

It really is mind bending how they (the jurors) said he did it, without any real evidence tying him to the fact he killed her! I mean they found zero DNA of hers in his trailer.

 

[.:RaZieL:.]

I've only watched up to episode 3 so far, but something seems off to me about Teresa's brother. He seems kinda shady to me.

First post after lurking on NEOgaf for a decade.

But this post just made me jump up and say: EXACTLY!
That guy is shady as f*ck. His comments, the way he talks and the way he constantly "knows" that Steven is the killer. Like he needs him to be convicted. And don't forget: he messed with her voicemail. And possibly deleted messages. Why in the world would you delete messages or mess with the voicemail of your missing sister?

EDIT: watched the serie in 4 days and feel like i'm trying to quit heroine. I feel empty now that there is no more to watch. Are there more series like this one? Hopefully nearly as good as this one.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

Had to stop after episode 3. I couldn't handle it.

Regardless of whether you think Steven is guilty, this is complete bull shit. I got mad at a lot of things, but what got me the most angry, the conflict of interest. This should have been thrown out by the time it got to court. The Judge should be accused of professional misconduct at the very least.

From the moments there was any suspicion of misconduct or conflict of interest, it should have been passed onto another county or agency.

This should be obvious to anyone.

 

[vanty]

Is there like some time limit (I forgot the term) after the murder where the real killer(s) can't be charged anymore? Or is that just for minor crimes? The brother and ex-boyfriend seriously are dodgy.

 

[Daffy Duck]

First post after lurking on NEOgaf for a decade.

But this post just made me jump up and say: EXACTLY!
That guy is shady as f*ck. His comments, the way he talks and the way he constantly "knows" that Steven is the killer. Like he needs him to be convicted. And don't forget: he messed with her voicemail. And possibly deleted messages. Why in the world would you delete messages of mess with the voicemail of your missing sister?

EDIT: watched the serie in 4 days and feel like i'm trying to quit heroine. I feel empty now that there is no more to watch. Are there more series like this one? Hopefully nearly as good as this one.

Yeah, why on earth would you delete voicemails when your sister is missing?

Had to stop after episode 3. I couldn't handle it.

Regardless of whether you think Steven is guilty, this is complete bull shit. I got mad at a lot of things, but what got me the most angry, the conflict of interest. This should have been thrown out by the time it got to caught. The Judge should be accused of professional misconduct at the very least.

From the moments there was any suspicion of misconduct or conflict of interest, it should have been passed onto another county or agency.

This should be obvious to anyone.

This is so true.

 

[rec0ded1]

EDIT: watched the serie in 4 days and feel like i'm trying to quit heroine. I feel empty now that there is no more to watch. Are there more series like this one? Hopefully nearly as good as this one.

Just saw a thread about one named dear Zachary that will destroy your soul apparently. Haven't seen it though.

 

[It's Reyn Time!]

Yeah, why on earth would you delete voicemails when your sister is missing?

There was a famous case here in the UK a few years ago where a girl went missing, there was a huge search for her and the family were clinging to hope that she was still alive because she'd been checking her voicemail. Turns out 'journalists' had figured out she'd left the default passcode on there and had been deleting messages because her voicemail was full and they were listening to messages left for her for stories.

 

[Dan]

Is there like some time limit (I forgot the term) after the murder where the real killer(s) can't be charged anymore? Or is that just for minor crimes? The brother and ex-boyfriend seriously are dodgy.

I'm pretty certain no place in the US has statute of limitations for higher degrees of homicide. Maybe for stuff like involuntary/reckless homicide/manslaughter. But for what we'd commonly called murder, no.

 

[Oni Jazar]

Had to stop after episode 3. I couldn't handle it.

Regardless of whether you think Steven is guilty, this is complete bull shit. I got mad at a lot of things, but what got me the most angry, the conflict of interest. This should have been thrown out by the time it got to court. The Judge should be accused of professional misconduct at the very least.

From the moments there was any suspicion of misconduct or conflict of interest, it should have been passed onto another county or agency.

This should be obvious to anyone.

The Brendan Avery case is even more depressing / frustrating.

 

[Omzz]

Just finished and feel disgusted tbh. How the confession was obtained from brendan is absolutely deplorable. All these interviews of me asking myself "where's the mom or lawyer"? To top it off, it was admissable in court. That len guy is definitely the lionel hutz of the documentary. Tragic how he was setup to fail from the very start

Also that one investigator needs to fuckin shave off the random patch of hair at the front. All these years and it's still there

 

[EASTC0AST_GH05T]

There are so many things to love and admire when it comes to how well crafted this Documentary is. This thing is going to win multiple Emmys

Spoiler

(that also helps Steven and Brendan by shinning a big spotlight on their cases)

just on how well it was done.

One thing I really liked was the overall sound and music.

The theme really gave me The Last of Us vibes before I even found out it was the same guy doing the music here, and that's a really good compliment.

The starting theme music gave me a Max Payne 3 Vibe.

 

[Arjen]

Finished it last night, when I saw the testimony of Brendan I thought, oh okay this is the evidence that gets him out, he's clearly being manipulated. I was absolutely shocked that the state used it at trial. Poor kid. Felt so sorry for everyone, especially Stevens mother she seems such a sweet woman.

 

[BunnyBear]

Yes, my heart was broken for Dolores and her husband. That's what hurt the most watching that series.

 

[figadapaura]

So, Bobby Dassey's brother basically testified that he was lying (or at least not telling the whole truth) about what he did the day Halbach was murdered.

http://fox6now.com/2016/01/07/february-27-2007-another-nephew-of-steven-avery-takes-the-stand/

I can only imagine they left this out of the documentary because it wasn't about who did it, but about the judicial system being complete shite.

Bobby and Scott are suspicious as fuck though.

Edit: Just saw that Blaine actually changed his statement during Brendan's trial to say that Bobby was already gone when he got home. Hmmmm.

There's more videos here of testimony and such that wasn't in the documentary.

 

[Cymbal Head]

In terms of petitioning and getting angry, I think the bigger cause should not be Steven Avery. Almost the entire Avery family, as pictured in the documentary, appear to have moderate to severe cognitive-intellectual impairments. I'm not arguing that dumb people ought to get away with murder, but seeing Brendan especially be totally unaware of what was happening to him and unable to work through basic life situations is just tragic. It made me think of an experience watching someone at the social security administration trying to get her benefits increased because she had "adopted" (not legally) a kid whose mother had "just left him with her". She had great difficulty explaining the basic details of what was going on or answering any of the questions. It just made me think that we have a lot of systems set up to assume basic adult competence, and people who fall short of that (for whatever reason) are paralyzed when dealing with bureaucracy, even when the consequence is death or a ruined life. It's kinda shocking. A fair system would have not only afforded the kid a defence attorney during questioning, but also provided his family with significant resources to navigate the judicial system. I just came away really disgusted at that most of all.

It really turned my stomach to see the way Brendan was handled by the lawyers and investigators. There should be compulsory training for police on how to deal appropriately with people who have intellectual disabilities, especially minors.

Those of you looking for things like Making a Murderer should watch the Paradise Lost trilogy -- what happened to Jessie Misskelley is so similar to Brendan's story that it's impossible for me to believe that it isn't a regular occurrence in this country.

 

[Infernostew]

Just saw a thread about one named dear Zachary that will destroy your soul apparently. Haven't seen it though.

Dear Zachary is a film you recommend to your enemies. It's a great doc but a piece of you dies when you watch it.

 

[Sephzilla]

My opinion is that Steven is likely guilty however he probably shouldn't have been convicted because there's basically no solid evidence against him that doesn't have a massive asterisk by it, Manitowoc police got way more involved than they were supposed to, and some of the examples of evidence planting seem pretty obvious.

 

[aerts1js]

I don't get the people stating that Steven Avery is probably guilty so we should just focus on Brendan. It's not about who is INNOCENT or GUILTY. There was not enough evidence in either case to carry a conviction of murder. The crucial evidence that was presented was tampered or planted by the police with almost complete certainty.

 

[dave is ok]

One track that plays now and then after episode 4 seems almost completely ripped from from Sanitarium, a point and click adventure released in 1998.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1WAA1lQ6vQ

From 1:05 >

That's a pretty funny coincidence. Paradise Lost had the song 'Sanitarium' by Metallica

 

[Kr0ni]

Dear Zachary is a film you recommend to your enemies. It's a great doc but a piece of you dies when you watch it.

Ahhh I never heard about this film, but.. I know the events as it unfolded in my hometown of St. John's.

The judges here are terrible at what they do.

 

[Mr. Mister]

I don't get the people stating that Steven Avery is probably guilty so we should just focus on Brendan. It's not about who is INNOCENT or GUILTY. There was not enough evidence in either case to carry a conviction of murder. The crucial evidence that was presented was tampered or planted by the police with almost complete certainty.

So you watched both trials fully?

 

[rush777]

I don't get the people stating that Steven Avery is probably guilty so we should just focus on Brendan. It's not about who is INNOCENT or GUILTY. There was not enough evidence in either case to carry a conviction of murder. The crucial evidence that was presented was tampered or planted by the police with almost complete certainty.

I have to agree it's baffling to me that anyone can watch this and read what was left out of the documentary and still assume "Avery was probably guilty". You are playing right into the crooked system with that assumption. Is it all because of what he did to the cat? I don't understand.

 

[hawk2025]

The thesis that documentary filmmakers are purposefully and maliciously hiding damning evidence has an implication that people aren't quite considering:

You are saying that these filmmakers, after spending 10 years following this case, somehow decided it was a good idea to help two convicted murderers and rapists get out of jail.

You are willing to push that, but not that a pressured police department planted some evidence?

 

[The Beard]

Dear Zachary is a film you recommend to your enemies. It's a great doc but a piece of you dies when you watch it.

Now I have to watch it.

 

[Zemm]

It's possible Steven killed her, but to me it's quite clear Scott and Bobby were more likely to have. I know the documentary isn't about accusing others but how anyone can come out of watching it and think Steven is more likely to have killed her than the other two doesn't make sense to me.

Steven's defence lawyers know it, and you can tell it hurt them not being allowed to discuss other possible killers.

 

[The Beard]

I don't get the people stating that Steven Avery is probably guilty so we should just focus on Brendan. It's not about who is INNOCENT or GUILTY. There was not enough evidence in either case to carry a conviction of murder. The crucial evidence that was presented was tampered or planted by the police with almost complete certainty.

I'm one of those people. I fully understand how trials work. I realize Steven wasn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and should've gotten a not-guilty verdict in his trial. However, I can still state my opinion that I think Steven killed Teresa and Brendan is the unknown.

I don't know what to think about Brendan because the only thing placing him at the scene of the crime were his bullshit interviews with those pushy investigators who planted every major detail into his mind. On top of that, his story went from "Steven invited me over to have a bonfire", to "I heard screams coming from Stevens trailer, so I checked it out. Yada yada, then we raped and killed her together."

 

[EthanC]

So you watched both trials fully?

Nope. He watched an obviously biased presentation of what happened and has decided he knows everything there is to know, and anyone that disagrees is wrong.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

I'm one of those people. I fully understand how trials work. I realize Steven wasn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and should've gotten a not-guilty verdict in his trial. However, I can still state my opinion that I think Steven killed Teresa and Brendan is the unknown.

I don't know what to think about Brendan because the only thing placing him at the scene of the crime were his bullshit interviews with those pushy investigators who planted every major detail into his mind. On top of that, his story went from "Steven invited me over to have a bonfire", to "I heard screams coming from Stevens trailer, so I checked it out. Yada yada, then we raped and killed her together."

You can't yada yada right before rape and murder.

 

[-griffy-]

So I used to work on the crew for a local talk show here in the Twin Cities, and one of the co-hosts actually appears in Making a Murderer a couple of times, back when she was a reporter for a Green Bay station covering the trial. Got a kick out of seeing her pop up randomly when I watched it. She finally talked about it on her current show the other day since everyone has been asking her about it.

She shows some of her own photos and video from the time, and provides some context, so thought it might be interesting to share:
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153794521354144&set=vb.53257384143&type=2&theater

 

[EthanC]

I'm one of those people. I fully understand how trials work. I realize Steven wasn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and should've gotten a not-guilty verdict in his trial. However, I can still state my opinion that I think Steven killed Teresa and Brendan is the unknown.

I don't know what to think about Brendan because the only thing placing him at the scene of the crime were his bullshit interviews with those pushy investigators who planted every major detail into his mind. On top of that, his story went from "Steven invited me over to have a bonfire", to "I heard screams coming from Stevens trailer, so I checked it out. Yada yada, then we raped and killed her together."

Except according to Brendan's own testimony, the cops didn't feed him the story. A book he read did.

 

[Deadstar]

Brendan seems too slow to be able to lie about what really happened. When you hear the conversions with his mom he talks about the truth and that he didn't do anything. He also tells what really did happen at least twice in detail, which it doesn't seem like he would be able to do if he was trying to lie and be consistent. I just don't think he's that smart.

His brother seems much smarter. Why did he lie on the stand about the car still being there when it was proven that it wasn't the case. There are a lot of people who seem to be interested in Steven without a sufficient reason. I'm only on episode 5 right now but these things just don't add up. Especially the call from Steven's girlfriend twice that night where he sounds perfectly normal.

 

[infiniteloop]

This week, The Arcs return with new music once again in the form of the hazy, psychedelic “Lake Superior”. The track was reportedly inspired by the new Netflix documentary series Making a Murderer, which tells the real-life story of Steven Avery, “a DNA exoneree who, while in the midst of exposing corruption in local law enforcement, finds himself the prime suspect in a grisly new crime.”

Stream “Lake Superior” below. All profits from the track benefit the Innocence Project, a nonprofit that helps to exonerate wrongly convicted people through DNA testing.

http://consequenceofsound.net/2016/...nspired-by-netflixs-making-a-murderer-listen/

 

[aerts1js]

Nope. He watched an obviously biased presentation of what happened and has decided he knows everything there is to know, and anyone that disagrees is wrong.

That's hilarious coming from a person that cherry picks Brendan's interrogations to fit a personal theory of what happened while ignoring the multitude of evidence that goes against the claim.

 

[joelseph]

We into StrangCore here?

http://strangcore.tumblr.com/

This is my man

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Except according to Brendan's own testimony, the cops didn't feed him the story. A book he read did.

His own testimony...which we already know is unreliable at best. Literally every word out of that kid's mouth should be suspect, barring any actual evidence.

 

[EthanC]

That's hilarious coming from a person that cherry picks Brendan's interrogations to fit a personal theory of what happened and ignoring/disregarding the multitude of evidence that goes against your claims.

You're the one ignoring his own statement at trial. Or are you going to tell me the detectives planted that as well?

 

[Astral Dog]

Looks fun

 

[aerts1js]

Except according to Brendan's own testimony, the cops didn't feed him the story. A book he read did.

The cops essentially manipulated Brendan to make up a story they would be satisfied with before they would let him go. Thus holding him for nearly four hours. The story Brendan made up was from a book he was reading.

The interrogations of Brendan are worthless to anyone that is thoughtfully evaluating this case. I'm sorry you feel like they are some bastion of crucial evidence but they are most certainly not.

 

[E92 M3]

Could be, but this "documentary" has the same problems as the Paradise Lost trilogy. It shows one side and just ignore the things that don't fit with the story they want to tell.

It shows everything rather clearly. It DOES NOT MATTER if Steve killed her or not. The documentary showed a gross compromise of his constitutional rights and the police being corrupt as fuck. Focusing on guilt isn't even relevant.

 

[MisterR]

Nope. He watched an obviously biased presentation of what happened and has decided he knows everything there is to know, and anyone that disagrees is wrong.

You're way more biased than the show is.

 

[Homeboyd]

The only thing that makes sense to me is that the MCSD/prosecution had SOME piece of evidence that 100% proved SA did it. The problem, I think, is in how this evidence was obtained or that something happened to it that wouldn't allow them to present it in court. If we're talking a video, maybe due to the civil suit, MCSD was illegally monitoring everything SA did to try and find out something they could use against him in the suit, and they caught him on video doing something that proves he killed TH. This being from a hidden camera or something they didn't have authorization to have installed which wouldn't be admissible in court.

Or they HAD a video and planned to use it, but it was accidentally deleted or destroyed somehow. So they're left with "well shit, we know he did it, but how the hell do we prove it now?" Whatever this evidence was, video or not, could've proved without a doubt he did it, but the prosecution had a reason why they couldn't actually present it to the court, so they had to go through the mess they did to convict him without it. This at least explains why everything appears so sloppy from the cop's perspective (and maybe why the judge allowed half of the bullshit that he did).

Now they're counting their blessings they got lucky with a conviction and are telling the judge, and the judge to higher courts, you can't let him appeal this case. We KNOW he did it (and here's how) and we got lucky with the first trial and that he's in jail where he belongs. If he gets another trial, he might be found innocent because we still can't use this evidence and the public will be all over this new trial which means we can't get away with this again and a murderer will be released from jail.

It's the only explanation I can think of why Kratz and everyone else is so adamant he is where he belongs, even now (and how they can sleep at night). From our view, it seems ridiculous because we don't know about this evidence. Everything in the documentary doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt he did it, and more importantly, nor does anything Kratz has said was left out of the series does either.

I get the impression even Strang thinks he could easily be guilty based on some of these recent interviews, but again, the evidence presented by the prosecution simply doesn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

There HAS to be something the prosecution/judge/FBI/appeals courts/whoever knows about that proves (or proved) he's guilty but for some reason, they can't mention it or produce it. They're happy with the outcome based on this knowledge which is why they want to leave it alone.

Either way, I 100% believe cops planted the evidence, I'm just saying maybe they did it, not because they hate the Avery's or were worried about the lawsuit, but because they actually had something that proved he was guilty and they were doing what they had to do to get the right verdict.

Still Dassey is innocent as shit and those cops and all the other prosecution witnesses are fucking terrible liars.

Just another of many theories.

 

[MisterR]

You're the one ignoring his own statement at trial. Or are you going to tell me the detectives planted that as well?

I sat and watched them try to manipulate him into saying she was shot in the head and saw him try to keep guessing what exactly what they wanted him to say. After a while, the one cop got so frustrated that he just came out and said, okay, who shot her in the head. They fed him all the key info and all the shit he came up with on his own was impossible to have even happened.

 

[Zemm]

The cops essentially manipulated Brendan to make up a story they would be satisfied with before they would let him go. Thus holding him for nearly four hours. The story Brendan made up was from a book he was reading.

The interrogations of Brendan are worthless to anyone that is thoughtfully evaluating this case. I'm sorry you feel like they are some bastion of crucial evidence but they are most certainly not.

Anyone who can't see Brendan was being manipulated and was guessing with his answers really aren't worth listening to as they clearly don't understand basic human behaviours.