Support NeoGAF

[sangreal]

I think anyone who burns a cat alive should be in prison for life. They are a danger to all animals and humans.

The documentary was extremely one sided anyway. There is a ton of evidence that the documentary left out that sure makes it look like he did it.

People watch a documentary and then think they are an expert on the case...... um.. sure you all are.

I hope you all didn't watch "Loose Change".

It was so one-sided that it opens with the very fact that makes you think he should be imprisoned (nevermind that he was already convicted of that crime)

There was a lot left out on both sides. I think he did it, but with the exception of the rebuttal of the 'needle hole' none of the content left out is terribly compelling. None of it overrides his right to a fair trial regardless

 

[VariantX]

I think anyone who burns a cat alive should be in prison for life. They are a danger to all animals and humans.

The documentary was extremely one sided anyway. There is a ton of evidence that the documentary left out that sure makes it look like he did it.

People watch a documentary and then think they are an expert on the case...... um.. sure you all are.

I hope you all didn't watch "Loose Change".

Then let him go to trial for that. You don't get to apply the charges against him for one crime to another.

 

[Nappuccino]

He did that shit anyway.

Says who? Seriously, do you all not understand "beyond reasonable doubt" or "fair trial"?

 

[Dyle]

How in the world can you reasonably say that there won't be a new trial when there's new evidence that hasn't been tried in court and when the evidence for the existing sentence has been shown time and time again to be questionable at best? His trial has been a disaster from day one, the Wisconsin justice system should be ashamed of itself. We have to do better

 

[Tapioca]

That's a fine opinion, but that's not of what he was convicted. I really hope you never serve on a jury.

I opt out due to ADHD. Don't worry.

 

[Darren870]

Then let him go to trial for that. You don't get to apply the charges against him for one crime to another.

He actually already went to trail, was found guilty, and served time.

When he was 19-20.

 

[BronsonLee]

I opt out due to ADHD. Don't worry.

This worries me even more!

HOW THE FUCK CAN PUDDING HAVE ADHD

 

[Tapioca]

Then let him go to trial for that. You don't get to apply the charges against him for one crime to another.

All I'm saying is that I don't care what happens to him.

You all can cape for a dude that would probably set you on fire. Not going to waste my time. There's actually innocent non-pieces of shit to care about.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Calling it a good case is a stretch. What prosecutors said happened doesn't make sense, where did he the shooting happen?



No one is saying the Sherrif's department killed her. The argument is that she was murdered and the Sherrif's department manipulated the evidence to fit Steven Avery as the murderer.

To the point where the burned car was moved to his lot, and her remains moved to his fire pit though?

Based on watching the show, I'm pretty sure at least 3 of your bullet points were probable framing by the police.

So the police found her key elsewhere?

 

[F0rneus]

Says who? Seriously, do you all not understand "beyond reasonable doubt" or "fair trial"?

The documentary as good as it was, left out a lot of the actual physical evidence found, from additional legit DNA sources that linked back to Avery, to personal effects of Teresa Halbach also found on his property, all the way to him buying handcuffs and ankle cuffs a few weeks before the murder. And you know, they downplayed the animal cruelty stuff. I mean, the man had an history of female abduction and violence, which is why they railroaded him for the first rape offense, he was innocent of.

I think it's clear that there was enough actual real non-tampered with evidence to convict him with. But...you know, they wanted to nail the guy and fabricated a lot of crap which led to an actual mock trial.

So yeah......give him a retrial. Not for him, but because justice should legit be blind in cases like this. Get him legit. Otherwise, you aren't the good guys either. Sorry cops and prosecution.

 

[Nappuccino]

All I'm saying is that I don't care what happens to him.

You all can cape for a dude that would probably set you on fire. Not going to waste my time. There's actually innocent non-pieces of shit to care about.

Innocent of what? The dude might be innocent of the crime he's charged with. Why doesn't that matter to you.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

All I'm saying is that I don't care what happens to him.

You all can cape for a dude that would probably set you on fire. Not going to waste my time. There's actually innocent non-pieces of shit to care about.

You don't care about them though, because you are fine with a system that would fuck them hard. If the shit is broken, it will fuck everyone. Jesus.

 

[sangreal]

To the point where the burned car was moved to his lot, and her remains moved to his fire pit though?

The car wasn't burned. The car wasn't destroyed at all which the documentary suggests is odd considering he lives in a junkyard and could have destroyed the car such that it would never be found. Detractors will say that he didn't have time to crush the car because of some internal family disputes. There is some stuff about the bones too, but I don't want to waste any more time than necessary defending steven avery (who I think is guilty)

 

[Dalek]

To the point where the burned car was moved to his lot, and her remains moved to his fire pit though?



So the police found her key elsewhere?

Burned car?

 

[OnionPowder]

Innocent of what? The dude might be innocent of the crime he's charged with. Why doesn't that matter to you.

In their mind Avery isnt innocent because he killed a cat. If he goes to prison another way then the ends justify the means I guess

 

[Nappuccino]

The documentary as good as it was, left out a lot of the actual physical evidence found, from additional legit DNA sources that linked back to Avery, to personal effects of Teresa Halbach also found on his property, all the way to him buying handcuffs and ankle cuffs a few weeks before the murder. And you know, they downplayed the animal cruelty stuff. I mean, the man had an history of female abduction and violence, which is why they railroaded him for the first rape offense, he was innocent of.

I think it's clear that there was enough actual real non-tampered with evidence to convince him with. But...you know, they wanted to nail the guy and fabricated a lot of crap which led to an actual mock trial.

So yeah......give him a retrial.

Most of that is circumstantial or arguments by the guys out to get him. Every time I've read through the "but they left out x, y, z" arguments, nothing about that evidence seems compelling.

 

[Mr. Mister]

That's not true, most of that so called list of evidence is covered in the documentary, the source on most of those lists in Ken Kratz.

There are people who refused to be interviewed or participate because they knew upfront that the filmmakers had concluded innocence and were framing the entire thing to point that way.

It’s a very manipulative series.

 

[Rumblebones]

I opt out due to ADHD. Don't worry.

I suggest opting out of this thread altogether.

 

[jediyoshi]

All I'm saying is that I don't care what happens to him.

That's a weird round about way of saying you don't care about the justice system. Or moreover, a weird way of saying you definitely, actively care about what happens to him.

 

[Infernostew]

The documentary as good as it was, left out a lot of the actual physical evidence found, from additional legit DNA sources that linked back to Avery, to personal effects of Teresa Halbach also found on his property, all the way to him buying handcuffs and ankle cuffs a few weeks before the murder. And you know, they downplayed the animal cruelty stuff. I mean, the man had an history of female abduction and violence, which is why they railroaded him for the first rape offense, he was innocent of.

Are you talking about Ken Kratz's claims of sweat DNA (that doesn't exist) found on the hood of the car?

 

[F0rneus]

Most of that is circumstantial or arguments by the guys out to get him. Every time I've read through the "but they left out x, y, z" arguments, nothing about that evidence seems compelling.

I don't see how the contents of Teresa's purse is "circumstantial", especially when found on the property of a man who already abducted a woman before, and who had recently bought bondage gear. I mean that's not x,y and z. I mean the cops didn't kill her, and raid her purse to frame the guy!

But all of that means fuck all, when shit like the blood in the car, and the planted key comes into play. Because that was all bullshit. Bullshit they crafted to nail him, and makes the entire trial a joke.

Are you talking about Ken Kratz's claims of sweat DNA (that doesn't exist) found on the hood of the car?

No, her DNA on a fired bullet from his rifle. Rifling was a match.

 

[Izuna]

Phoenix Wright should be his lawyer.

Though, tbh, I feel like the police planted evidence and he was also responsible...

 

[Jmanunknown]

In their mind Avery isnt innocent because he killed a cat. If he goes to prison another way then the ends justify the means I guess

I agree he served his time for that crime. He is no worse then Mike Vick who shot, electrocuted and hanged dogs and served his time in jail. Being guilty of one crime does not mean you are guilty of another.

 

[gogosox82]

If this ever gets a new trial, they know exactly what's going to happen and the payout could bankrupt Wisconsin

This

 

[metalslimer]

If the justice system fucks over someone even if they deserved it it means it will fuck over completely innocent people.

 

[MattKeil]

Most of that is circumstantial or arguments by the guys out to get him. Every time I've read through the "but they left out x, y, z" arguments, nothing about that evidence seems compelling.

It doesn't? The series glosses over some very damning evidence, and I don't think it's reasonable to believe he's innocent. The trial was a disaster and he should probably get a new one, but this is kind of an OJ situation where the guilt is clear but a tremendous failure in procedure occurred. It worked out a lot better for OJ, obviously.

This denial has to be more about the macro situation of what it says about the system more than Avery himself.

 

[Nappuccino]

I don't see how the contents of Teresa's purse is "circumstantial", especially when found on the property of a man who already abducted a woman before, and who had recently bought bondage gear. I mean that's not x,y and z. I mean the cops didn't kill her, and raid her purse to frame the guy!

But all of that means fuck all, when shit like the blood in the car, and the planted key comes into play. Because that was all bullshit. Bullshit they crafted to nail him, and makes the entire trial a joke.

If the car and keys were planted, then why not her purse? Maybe I'm just not remembering the particulars about the purse at all.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

If the justice system fucks over someone even if they deserved it it means it will fuck over completely innocent people.

Ding Ding Ding

 

[Nappuccino]

If the justice system fucks over someone even if they deserved it it means it will fuck over completely innocent people.

But also yes. This is the bigger issue at hand.

 

[F0rneus]

If the car and keys were planted, then why not her purse? Maybe I'm just not remembering the particulars about the purse at all.

Because they never mentioned it in Making a Murderer. They found the contains of her purse (phone, a small camera, a handheld device/portable etc) partially burned on his property. How can they plant that? Unless they killed her, and took all that stuff from her. The killer had to have that.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I think anyone who burns a cat alive should be in prison for life. They are a danger to all animals and humans.

The documentary was extremely one sided anyway. There is a ton of evidence that the documentary left out that sure makes it look like he did it.

People watch a documentary and then think they are an expert on the case...... um.. sure you all are.

I hope you all didn't watch "Loose Change".

Well the real issue here would be that if he didn't kill her, the real killer is still out.

 

[Jmanunknown]

It doesn't? The series glosses over some very damning evidence, and I don't think it's reasonable to believe he's innocent. The trial was a disaster and he should probably get a new one, but this is kind of an OJ situation where the guilt is clear but a tremendous failure in procedure occurred. It worked out a lot better for OJ, obviously.

This denial has to be more about the macro situation of what it says about the system more than Avery himself.

What is the damning evidence that was left out? Its ridiculous that people keep latching on to the obvious bs Ken Kratz keeps spewing that dude should have been disbarred for what he did.

 

[Vincent Alexander]

I think the craziest up part of the case is they questioned and considered 0 other potential suspects.

Because they never mentioned it in Making a Murderer. They found the contains of her purse (phone, a small camera, a portable etc) partially burned on his property. How can they plant that?

Didn't evidence point to her being burned somewhere else? I thought there was something iffy about the fire, but I can't remember...been too long.

 

[F0rneus]

Didn't evidence point to her being burned somewhere else? I thought there was something iffy about the fire, but I can't remember...been too long.

Those particular things were burned in Avery's burn barrel. Maybe not her herself, but these were burned right outside his trailer.

 

[Infernostew]

Because they never mentioned it in Making a Murderer. They found the contains of her purse (phone, a small camera, a portable etc) partially burned on his property. How can they plant that?

What his defense were arguing was that her body was burned on a burn site on his property but it's pretty far away from where he actually lives. His family's property is huge. The bones and her personal items were said to be moved from that burn site into the barrels by his house where they were found. If that's to be believed.

 

[Nappuccino]

Because they never mentioned it in Making a Murderer. They found the contains of her purse (phone, a small camera, a handheld device/portable etc) partially burned on his property. How can they plant that? Unless they killed her, and took all that stuff from her. The killer had to have that.

Or it was in her car. If he had nothing to do with her car, why is the purse suddenly a smoking gun?

 

[Moza]

While I believe he did it, there is no doubt his trial was bs and he deserves a new trial.

 

[alr1ght]

these are those handcuffs

I think the craziest up part of the case is they questioned and considered 0 other potential suspects.


Didn't evidence point to her being burned somewhere else? I thought there was something iffy about the fire, but I can't remember...been too long.

said to have been burned at a nearby quarry.

 

[sangreal]

Because they never mentioned it in Making a Murderer. They found the contains of her purse (phone, a small camera, a handheld device/portable etc) partially burned on his property. How can they plant that? Unless they killed her, and took all that stuff from her. The killer had to have that.

If there is any source less credible than the documentary, it's Ken Kratz, the source of those claims

you can read the entire transcript of the trial yourself here: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Full-Jury-Trial-Transcript-combined.pdf

 

[Jmanunknown]

I think the craziest up part of the case is they questioned and considered 0 other potential suspects.


Didn't evidence point to her being burned somewhere else? I thought there was something iffy about the fire, but I can't remember...been too long.

They never found the primary crime scene despite them saying he raped and killed her in his bed room none of the evidence even matches up with that.

 

[VariantX]

If the justice system fucks over someone even if they deserved it it means it will fuck over completely innocent people.

This guy gets it. The real issue at hand here is way bigger than this single trial. It puts in to question whether or not you can can even get a fair trial or you can just get railroaded at the whim of others.

 

[Dalek]

I think the craziest up part of the case is they questioned and considered 0 other potential suspects.

They never even asked her boyfriend where he was the night she went missing. He was never considered a suspect. Which is crazy.

 

[Nappuccino]

They never found the primary crime scene despite them saying he raped and killed her in his bed room none of the evidence even matches up with that.

Let's be honest. There are a lot of craziest things about this case.

 

[Infernostew]

They never found the primary crime scene despite them saying he raped and killed her in his bed room none of the evidence even matches up with that.

Same with the bullet in his garage that had her DNA on it. 0 traces of blood in that whole place. So strange.

 

[Timeaisis]

Eh, the series didn't convince on balance of any probable innocence.

- Teresa's last known meeting was with him
- Her car was found in his salvage yard
- A key to her vehicle was found in his bedroom
- Bloodstains in the car matched him
- Her remains were found in his fire pit

If he didn't murder her, who did? It seems pretty far fetched to suggest the Sherriff's Department murdered Teresa, just so they could frame him up for it. You might suggest he didn't do a very good job covering the crime up, but he clearly isn't the sharpest crayon in the box to begin with.

You don't start with proving probable innocence, you start with disproving reasonable doubt. You are looking at this backwards, just like the state of Wisconsin.

 

[Ether_Snake]

They never even asked her boyfriend where he was the night she went missing. He was never considered a suspect. Which is crazy.

The lawyer could not have him testify?

 

[F0rneus]

Same with the bullet in his garage that had her DNA on it. 0 traces of blood in that whole place. So strange.

It was still shot from his rifle though. I mean do I think they put the bullet there? Yes I do. Do I think Avery fired the shot into her from his rifle? Yes I do.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

If the car and keys were planted, then why not her purse? Maybe I'm just not remembering the particulars about the purse at all.

There were never any signs of a purse. Some of her gadgets were found in his burn barrel (could have been old stuff, or anyone's stuff), but no zippers or rivets or house keys, nothing suggesting a purse. The only camera was a point and shoot, no professional camera was ever found either.

 

[Nappuccino]

It was still shot from his rifle though. I mean do I think they put the bullet there? Yes I do. Do I think Avery fired the shot into her from his rifle? Yes I do.

Didn't the DNA lab tester cross contaminate like . . . everything?

There were never any signs of a purse. Some of her gadgets were found in his burn barrel (could have been old stuff, or anyone's stuff), but no zippers or rivets or house keys, nothing suggesting a purse. The only camera was a point and shoot, no professional camera was ever found either.

So the purse is more Kratz (or Lentz or whoever) misleading BS? Good to know.

 

[Infernostew]

Didn't the DNA lab tester cross contaminate like . . . everything?

Oh shit! That's right. Damn, I gotta watch this show again.

It was still shot from his rifle though. I mean do I think they put the bullet there? Yes I do. Do I think Avery fired the shot into her from his rifle? Yes I do.

I mean, That's probably the case and even though he's a scumbag. I kinda want for it not to be him to killed her.