Support NeoGAF

[Mael]

Once you start completely ignoring anything that Brandon says, it becomes more feasible that Avery is guilty.

Brandon is basically a quantum witness.
He'll say anything to please his interviewers given the correct method.
He's worthless to convict or prove innocence of Avery.
Avery's case is showing nothing we cannot prove he's guilty or not.
The guy is clearly not good enough to cover his tracks the way the evidence shows he'll need to do if we accept that the investigation was not tampered in any way.
The tampering by the investigation means we have no ways of knowing one way or another.
If I had a hunch I'd say there's brandan's cousins that are less than clean but there's no proof really.

 

[EthanC]

Where is this information coming from? As far as I am aware he never denied that she showed up and the call establishing an alibi was supposition by the police, not something that he actually claimed.

From Nancy Grace on the Dr.Phil show.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

Once you start completely ignoring anything that Brandon says, it becomes more feasible that Avery is guilty.

I could see him doing it, but I don't see the opportunity. Where is the actual crime scene? I don't buy the trailer or garage at all. Why would he put her in the back of the SUV to go 20 ft? I would need to see an airtight timeline that uses the bus driver's statement to nail down the beginning. It would also require Brendan not showing up until later when called to join Steven at the bonfire. And yes, I believe the initial statements that the bonfire was 3ft high.

 

[Jasoneyu]

Once you start completely ignoring anything that Brandon says, it becomes more feasible that Avery is guilty.

How so? Where is the actual evidence linking Steven to the murder? If anything it is highly more likely that one of uncles/brothers did something.

 

[HideyoshiJP]

Also, there is a part of the show you're only allowed to watch if you're 15 or older

 

[poppabk]

From Nancy Grace on the Dr.Phil show.

No I mean where is the information that he claimed that she was never there and then changed his story?

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

Innocent or guilty, this show said WAY more about Wisconsin's legal system, specifically in that area.

On that alone, Steven and Brenden deserve another shot in court.

 

[ReignofSparrows]

No I mean where is the information that he claimed that she was never there and then changed his story?

We went over this earlier in the thread, but that 'evidence' (which would be stronger than anything the prosecution actually presented) doesn't exist. It was pulled from Kratz's ass and has found its way into gullible minds like EthanC's.

 

[darscot]

Once you start completely ignoring anything that Brandon says, it becomes more feasible that Avery is guilty.

Considering Brandon testimony was never legally used in the Avery trial you basically saying he is innocent. The leaked it to everyone so everyone knew about it but it was never part of the trial.

Oh wait I read that backwards, how does ignoring him make Avery guilty?

 

[plagiarize]

This thread is huge. Wow.

Has anyone read the rebuttal from the DA?

The one that goes: "He set fire to a cat! Why does this documentary bring in shit I did outside of this case?"

Yeah, we read it.

Hearing him talk about his reputation and why even the accusation could ruin him, so should go unsaid, I found really telling. His anger at the defence targeting the police was genuinely. He genuinely thought that *they* should be above accusation, but the guy who had been wrongfully convicted can be accused of whatever the hell they want.

"Even accusing me of this could ruin me!"

Steven Avery certainly has zero sympathies about that one.

 

[EthanC]

We went over this earlier in the thread, but that 'evidence' (which would be stronger than anything the prosecution actually presented) doesn't exist. It was pulled from Kratz's ass and has found its way into gullible minds like EthanC's.

Yeah, that's why the Innocence Project rejected his appeal for help. Because of a lack of evidence against him. Hahaha "gullible".

 

[BronsonLee]

The one that goes: "He set fire to a cat! Why does this documentary bring in shit I did outside of this case?"

Yeah, we read it.

Fucking lol at Kratz, what a bastard

 

[darscot]

Yeah, that's why the Innocence Project rejected his appeal for help. Because of a lack of evidence against him. Hahaha "gullible".

Do you have any knowledge whatsoever as to why he was rejected or just assuming? You know what they say about assume...

 

[ReignofSparrows]

Yeah, that's why the Innocence Project rejected his appeal for help. Because of a lack of evidence against him. Hahaha "gullible".

Yeah, that's why you brought up something other than the lack of evidence for the specific claim at issue. Gullible is right.

 

[plagiarize]

Yeah, that's why the Innocence Project rejected his appeal for help. Because of a lack of evidence against him. Hahaha "gullible".

They rejected his appeal for help because there isn't any new or old DNA that can be tested to potentially prove him innocent.

It's that simple. The Innocence Project do one thing, and one thing only. Test DNA of old cases where the DNA wasn't or couldn't be tested at the time.

There were zero questions as to who's DNA was found in this case. The questions are how it got there.

Stop parroting nonsense some Governor said.

From their own website "A non-profit legal clinic which only handles cases where postconviction DNA testing of evidence can yield conclusive proof of innocence."

Emphasis mine.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Is this ethan guy just trolling everyone or is he really this dumb?

 

[plagiarize]

Is this ethan guy just trolling everyone or is he really this dumb?

He wants to believe a guilty man is behind bars. Which I can totally understand.

He doesn't seem to get the nuance that a guilty man can be unjustly put behind bars for a crime he committed if his rights were violated, and if he wasn't given a fair trial.

 

[LaserBuddha]

He wants to believe a guilty man is behind bars. Which I can totally understand.

He doesn't seem to get the nuance that a guilty man can be unjustly put behind bars for a crime he committed if his rights were violated, and if he wasn't given a fair trial.

I mean he reads the details of the case and watches the doc and still decides to claim that the Innocence Project stopped helping Avery because they knew he was guilty or something. No one with that level of familiarity with this case misses the pertinent details there by accident. That's not someone that is oblivious to the facts, that's a liar trying to twist information to mislead people. I see him constantly lie via selectively feigning ignorance abut the facts, and I dont know why someone would do that for hundreds of posts. Is it just the classic " I gotta find the contrarian position so I can posture myself as the wise one among gullible sheep" bullshit?

Him white knighting for Guy Fieri was funny. This shit is just gross.

 

[Einchy]

Mom has been addicted to the show, today she came into the house like a raging bull. She just got to the part where Brendan was found guilty.

 

[ReignofSparrows]

They rejected his appeal for help because there isn't any new or old DNA that can be tested to potentially prove him innocent.

It's that simple. The Innocence Project do one thing, and one thing only. Test DNA of old cases where the DNA wasn't or couldn't be tested at the time.

There were zero questions as to who's DNA was found in this case. The questions are how it got there.

Stop parroting nonsense some Governor said.

From their own website "A non-profit legal clinic which only handles cases where postconviction DNA testing of evidence can yield conclusive proof of innocence."

Emphasis mine.

You shouldn't indulge him. He has several posts based on the specific claim that Avery changed his story from not seeing Teresa to seeing her. That should be the whole issue since it shows that the poster is a terrible judge of the relevant evidence and a hypocrite given all the accusations of bias.

In light of my implication that he will post anything that supports his view even if unsubstantiated, now we have a new mess to deal with that it's ok in his mind because there are other parties (IP) who have reached the same conclusion as him. Even if you can cogently argue that the conclusions reached aren't in fact the same, it's still taking the bait of the diversion.

The poster still takes completely fabricated evidence and condescendingly relies on it, and this is just a way to weasel out of that fact.

 

[FlyinJ]

You shouldn't indulge him. He has several posts based on the specific claim that Avery changed his story from not seeing Teresa to seeing her. That should be the whole issue since it shows that the poster is a terrible judge of the relevant evidence and a hypocrite given all the accusations of bias.

In light of my implication that he will post anything that supports his view even if unsubstantiated, now we have a new mess to deal with that it's ok in his mind because there are other parties (IP) who have reached the same conclusion as him. Even if you can cogently argue that the conclusions reached aren't in fact the same, it's still taking the bait of the diversion.

The poster still takes completely fabricated evidence and condescendingly relies on it, and this is just a way to weasel out of that fact.

It is seriously thread shitting at this point.

Every time he comes in here he spouts off disproven facts about the case then everyone wastes time correcting him and he just disappears with no response, only to pop up the next day with the exact same bullshit.

Fucking aggravating.

 

[plagiarize]

I mean he reads the details of the case and watches the doc and still decides to claim that the Innocence Project stopped helping Avery him because they knew he was guilty or something. No one with that level of familiarity with this case misses the pertinent details there by accident. That's not someone that is oblivious to the facts, that's a liar trying to twist information to mislead people. I see him constantly lie via selectively feigning ignorance abut the facts, and I dont know why someone would do that for hundreds of posts. Is it just the classic " I gotta find the contrarian position so I can posture myself as the wise one among gullible sheep" bullshit?

Him white knighting for Guy Fieri was funny. This shit is just gross.

He's only as dumb as certain governors.

Which is a pretty low bar I admit.

 

[dan2026]

"If we wanted him out of the picture, like in prison, or if you wanted him killed, you know, it would've been much easier just to kill him"

 

[Dalek]

I mean he reads the details of the case and watches the doc and still decides to claim that the Innocence Project stopped helping Avery because they knew he was guilty or something. No one with that level of familiarity with this case misses the pertinent details there by accident. That's not someone that is oblivious to the facts, that's a liar trying to twist information to mislead people. I see him constantly lie via selectively feigning ignorance abut the facts, and I dont know why someone would do that for hundreds of posts. Is it just the classic " I gotta find the contrarian position so I can posture myself as the wise one among gullible sheep" bullshit?

Him white knighting for Guy Fieri was funny. This shit is just gross.

My favorite was when he said that unlike SOME people, he reviews ALL the evidence!

 

[Applesauce]

I only saw the first episode, can anyone spoil me the ending with spoiler tag of course? I have no time to view other episodes.

Spoiler

Trump holds a press conference in Wisconsin vowing to have Avery freed if elected, calls Ken Kratz "a real schmuck" and "sounds like an old lady". Crowd goes wild.

 

[suzu]

How anyone could still believe in Kratz is beyond me. lol

 

[aerts1js]

My favorite was when he said that unlike SOME people, he reviews ALL the evidence!

haha, I agree. It would be #1 on his top ten list of foolish statements.

 

[BronsonLee]

Is this ethan guy just trolling everyone or is he really this dumb?

Yes

 

[msdstc]

He wants to believe a guilty man is behind bars. Which I can totally understand.

He doesn't seem to get the nuance that a guilty man can be unjustly put behind bars for a crime he committed if his rights were violated, and if he wasn't given a fair trial.

no the documentary comes off like a propaganda piece, and seeing a petition reach the whitehouse with the sheer amount of attention is sad. Yes I believe the case was handled poorly... so was ojs, so was aaron hernandez's, and so were likely the vast majority of cases. The system is broken and that's sad... however it doesn't change the fact that it's far more likely than not that Steven Avery killed this women.

 

[aerts1js]

no the documentary comes off like a propaganda piece, and seeing a petition reach the whitehouse with the sheer amount of attention is sad. Yes I believe the case was handled poorly... so was ojs, so was aaron hernandez's, and so were likely the vast majority of cases. The system is broken and that's sad... however it doesn't change the fact that it's far more likely than not that Steven Avery killed this women.

So, other than your personal feelings. What legit evidence points to him being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[Aarglefarg]

After watching it I had concerns for the level of bias but those concerns have decreased with the low quality of the 'smoking guns' that were left out.

Of course they aren't going to cover every line of evidence, and as is typical for true crime stories (in my experience) people find some and say that's what really proves X did (or didn't do) Y. But if that evidence swapped places with evidence in the documentary, would they would use the same tactic? I would be surprised if they didn't.

It looks a lot more biased than it seems to actually be.

 

[FlashbladeGAF]

no the documentary comes off like a propaganda piece, and seeing a petition reach the whitehouse with the sheer amount of attention is sad. Yes I believe the case was handled poorly... so was ojs, so was aaron hernandez's, and so were likely the vast majority of cases. The system is broken and that's sad... however it doesn't change the fact that it's far more likely than not that Steven Avery killed this women.

There's "mishandled", and then there's the bullshit that went on in this trial.

 

[PackerinMN]

Nancy Grace is on Dr. Phil. She's unbearable.

So far, Dr. Phil seems pretty reasonable and doesn't believe Brendan had the proper protections.

 

[Applesauce]

Tango & Cash giving a short interview together :

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/making-murderer-defense-attorneys-call-prosecutor-criticism-netflix-171911936.html

Again refuting Kratz's statements about the series leaving out critical evidence like the DNA on the hood latch. Buting says that there's no way to tell that the DNA was from sweat like Kratz said. It's no different than the DNA found on the key. Buting also says he has received a lot of emails from almost a hundred different scientists suggesting that there are newer and better methods of forensic testing. In particular the EDTA testing that ended up being inconclusive during the trial.

I am really anxious to see how far this goes, I've become hooked.

 

[EthanC]

After watching it I had concerns for the level of bias but those concerns have decreased with the low quality of the 'smoking guns' that were left out.

Of course they aren't going to cover every line of evidence, and as is typical for true crime stories (in my experience) people find some and say that's what really proves X did (or didn't do) Y. But if that evidence swapped places with evidence in the documentary, would they would use the same tactic? I would be surprised if they didn't.

It looks a lot more biased than it seems to actually be.

It looks exactly as biased as it is. The filmmakers went back and interviewed the people involved...well, some of the people. Why not include what the ex fiancee said when they caught up with her recently?

Because they knew she'd say something like this.

 

[Mael]

It looks exactly as biased as it is. The filmmakers went back and interviewed the people involved...well, some of the people. Why not include what the ex fiancee said when they caught up with her recently?

Because they knew she'd say something like this.

No offense but that's the testimony of a disgruntled ex.
She had the opportunity to give her piece after all is said and done.
Listening to it right now, her recalling the phone call after the murder actually happens is someone trying to bend her memory to match what she believes now.

I wouldn't doubt that she believes now that he did it, that changes nothing about the documentary or any of the facts out there.
Heck they could have put her testimony about how she hates him now but she refused to have another interview.
It looks more like she tries to cash in on the controversy of the doc more than anything.
e : And at that point she's actually lying on television.
She's actually saying she never believed for one second that she believed him.
she tried 3 times to contact him after the restraining order and she's shown on vid trying her best to help him.
If she never believed him she was the 2nd best actress shown in the doc.
at 8:25 it's actually fiction.
She's making the whole thing about herself, not really credible.
e: at 12:00 she's saying how she could have stopped it and everything.
And she's crying about how she could have stopped it and everything.
at 13:00 she's saying she never knew about people coming to the yard to take pictures of cars to sell,
like she would know while in jail or she's lying again because if there's 1 thing anyone living at the Avery's knew it was that someone was coming to take pictures.

So far it's even less credible than Brendan's account to the investigator of his 1rst lawyer.

e2 : at 18min right now.
It's looking like more a waste of my time than filling tax report to the UK government (I never lived in the UK or worked for UK based company fyi)
She said she never saw Steven interact with the Manitowac authorities in any way.
WTF was she doing when they both went to court in front of the cameras when Steven filed his suit against the authorities?
e3: wait did I turn the vid tothe beginning? nope it's at 19min! She's repeating herself on how everything she did was under duress by Steven and how he forced her to make him look good.

 

[hunchback]

One thing that keeps popping up when I think about this is the dispatch call two day's before they found the car. I have replayed that scene multiple times and that cop was looking at the vehicle when he called in. It's a shame they couldn't have gotten perjury charges against that dick.

 

[electroshockwave]

One thing that keeps popping up when I think about this is the dispatch call two day's before they found the car. I have replayed that scene multiple times and that cop was looking at the vehicle when he called in. It's a shame they couldn't have gotten perjury charges against that dick.

Yeah that part makes me so curious as to what actually happened. The car looked like someone had tried to make it look like someone had tried to hide it rather than actually hide it (some bare branches and a board when there's a crusher nearby?) and the details of it being found in 20 minutes by the one person given a camera are suspicious as fuck.

 

[EthanC]

No offense but that's the testimony of a disgruntled ex.

Disgruntled over what? It's funny that anyone who says anything negative against Steven has an agenda, or is too stupid to know what they're saying, but anyone that supports him is A-OK.

 

[Dalek]

Disgruntled over what? It's funny that anyone who says anything negative against Steven has an agenda, or is too stupid to know what they're saying, but anyone that supports him is A-OK.

 

[j_rocca42]

I'm still shocked that the cops didn't investigate chuck in all this.

1. He has a violent history with women.

2. He has nobody to back up his alibi (he was home alone that night).

3. He knew that Teresa was going to be at the property taking pictures.

4. He theoretically had reason to try and incriminate Steven. Possible Jealousy of Steven getting a huge pay day or Steven getting out of prison and now taking his share of the family business.

Not saying he did it as there is no evidence. But still, plenty of other suspects to look into instead of zoning in in Steven from the start.

 

[Mael]

Disgruntled over what? It's funny that anyone who says anything negative against Steven has an agenda, or is too stupid to know what they're saying, but anyone that supports him is A-OK.

They broke up and are not in good terms.
So there's blood between them.
Do I have to spell it like you're 5 or something?
Ok.
Sometimes when a relationship doesn't work out, the couple ends up separating and there's a lot of bad feelings between the individuals.
Sometimes it is so bad that it can lead to one part trying their best to make the other party look very bad.
Why? Because the individual hurt so much he/she wants the other party to suffer at least as much they do.

And did you just ignore 22 lines in my reply that was just directed to you?
Are you going to quote just

They broke up and are not in good terms.

And go on your merry or something?

e:
I changed my mind, she's the best fucking actress in the whole thing.
She should go to Hollywood, she can act like better than half the people who had an oscar.
Her performance in acting like she didn't believe he was guilty while knowing that he was guilty the whole is outstanding.
e2 : finished.
Gigantic waste of time.
Don't bother looking at it, it's pointless.
You learn nothing new except that she's either lying or have poor memory.
You literally learn nothing of worth about the character of Steven Avery.
He may have been part of an abusive relationship with the lady in question.
We already know from the documentary that he is so far from an angel it's not funny from the fact he burned a cat and was pretty abusive to his ex wife.
throw it on the pile, there's nothing to indict the guy there unless you think the guy having a porn stash is proof that he is a murdering asshole ready to go on a rampage.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

"If we wanted him out of the picture, like in prison, or if you wanted him killed, you know, it would've been much easier just to kill him"

This is my rendition of that quote:

 

[Applesauce]

They broke up and are not in good terms.
So there's blood between them.
Do I have to spell it like you're 5 or something?
Ok.
Sometimes when a relationship doesn't work out, the couple ends up separating and there's a lot of bad feelings between the individuals.
Sometimes it is so bad that it can lead to one part trying their best to make the other party look very bad.
Why? Because the individual hurt so much he/she wants the other party to suffer at least as much they do.

And did you just ignore 22 lines in my reply that was just directed to you?
Are you going to quote just

And go on your merry or something?

e:
I changed my mind, she's the best fucking actress in the whole thing.
She should go to Hollywood, she can act like better than half the people who had an oscar.
Her performance in acting like she didn't believe he was guilty while knowing that he was guilty the whole is outstanding.
e2 : finished.
Gigantic waste of time.
Don't bother looking at it, it's pointless.
You learn nothing new except that she's either lying or have poor memory.
You literally learn nothing of worth about the character of Steven Avery.
He may have been part of an abusive relationship with the lady in question.
We already know from the documentary that he is so far from an angel it's not funny from the fact he burned a cat and was pretty abusive to his ex wife.
throw it on the pile, there's nothing to indict the guy there unless you think the guy having a porn stash is proof that he is a murdering asshole ready to go on a rampage.

 

[DarkJediKnight]

I just binge watched it and still have no idea what to think. My gut feeling says Avery did it.

The most obvious evidence to me is the burned remains. Yes you can sneak a car in the yard at night, you can plant a key, plant blood, etc.. but it's hard to torch a body in someone's backyard without their knowledge.

One thing I will say is this: I really hope I'm never accused of a crime in Wisconsin.

 

[bonesmccoy]

On E7.

Feels like someone within the Avery clan is responsible. I'm not sure its Steven though - there are several things about the evidence (both in the doc and not) that suggest while the crime occurred on or near the compound, it didn't necessarily have to be him. Several people had access and opportunity, and aside from the testimony (which seems questionable) from Brendan, there doesn't seem to be anything that directly ties the murder to Steven.

That said, I think the justice system in that part of the US is broken on many levels. And I wonder if there wasn't more direct evidence that was missed / ruined by the investigation, forcing guys like Lenk to plant evidence.

 

[Nemesis_]

The most obvious evidence to me is the burned remains. Yes you can sneak a car in the yard at night, you can plant a key, plant blood, etc.. but it's hard to torch a body in someone's backyard without their knowledge.

They spent a good amount of time discussing the possibility the body was torched elsewhere and then moved to the Avery property.....didn't they?

 

[j_rocca42]

They spent a good amount of time discussing the possibility the body was torched elsewhere and then moved to the Avery property.....didn't they?

Yes they did. Bones wouldn't burn to ashes in an open bonfire. There was an anonymous letter found in a post office stating that the smelter at the Avery compound was burning around 3am on that Friday. The smelter is really the only means someone on the Avery compound would be able to virtually incinerate a body.

The prosecution said that Steven burnt the body in his back yard though.

 

[Ayt]

Yeah, that's why the Innocence Project rejected his appeal for help. Because of a lack of evidence against him. Hahaha "gullible".

One of his currently lawyers, Tricia Bushnell, is the legal director of the Midwest Innocence Project.

 

[BronsonLee]

One of his currently lawyers, Tricia Bushnell, is the legal director of the Midwest Innocence Project.

You'd think someone who looks at all the facts would know that o.o