Must see on Netflix...

[libertysteeth]

Sorry been busy. There is more info if you put in different search phrases on the google machine. I didn't save any of it. Basically what I found shows more than what is shown about him and his family. The detectives in this case may be dirty in some ways but mostly incompetent. There is a clear sign of habitual sexual assault with him and his family. He in fact didn't just threaten the woman in the street. He was trying to abduct her. I don't believe he knew who it was until he got a clear look at her. If it hadnt been someone he knew she would have ended up the same way. Something most people without experience with such would not have recognized that pretty much all of the Averys were perpetually intoxicated through the whole thing.

 

[libertysteeth]

People that drink like that get to a point where they start to basically be soberish no matter how much they drink. So to the average person they seem as such other than the smell. Thing is they get whats called wet brain. They develope their own sense of reality and deeply believe that alternate version of reality. That's the reason they couldn't get a real story from the boy. He was involved but actually doesnt know what happened. I believe that one of the others was involved too. The detectives could have painted a clear picture and caught all the guilty parties if they had done their job properly.

 

[libertysteeth]

With the poor evidence management at this department I'm also not convinced that the "innocence project" didn't plant the evidence that got him free in the first place. They don't get funding or publicity without sensational success.

 

[libertysteeth]

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movie...-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

Found one good link. They did find 2 firearms in his home which as a felon he was barred from possession. I had found a link at one time that said they had also recovered leg irons and handcuffs fron the trailer.

 

[spavent]

You surely need to read between the lines in this. Here's the way I see it.

The DA wants you to believe that he stabbed, raped, and shot this lady in his ****ty trailer and messy garage with no DNA, blood spatter or brain matter that got on anything else. So he meticulously cleaned up everything? Yet at the same time he's on a property with a car crusher and a smelter and figured leaving the car in plain view and burning the body in a fire pit 10 yard from his house was a good idea. The Avery's are not likable for sure, but there are so many things wrong with this case it amazes me that 12 people could conclude "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that these guys did it. For gods sake the only thing they had on the kid was his own words, that changed every time they talked to him. Anyone that knows anything about psychology and interrogation would tell you they could have gotten that kid to swear he was out riding unicorns that night. Then his own lawyer sends an investigator to get him to confess again with an incredibly "leading" interview, while setting up a interview with Detectives to come and question him with no counsel present? Is that what you'd want to happen to your kid?

 

[BDR1]

You surely need to read between the lines in this. Here's the way I see it.

The DA wants you to believe that he stabbed, raped, and shot this lady in his ****ty trailer and messy garage with no DNA, blood spatter or brain matter that got on anything else. So he meticulously cleaned up everything? Yet at the same time he's on a property with a car crusher and a smelter and figured leaving the car in plain view and burning the body in a fire pit 10 yard from his house was a good idea. The Avery's are not likable for sure, but there are so many things wrong with this case it amazes me that 12 people could conclude "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that these guys did it. For gods sake the only thing they had on the kid was his own words, that changed every time they talked to him. Anyone that knows anything about psychology and interrogation would tell you they could have gotten that kid to swear he was out riding unicorns that night. Then his own lawyer sends an investigator to get him to confess again with an incredibly "leading" interview, while setting up a interview with Detectives to come and question him with no counsel present? Is that what you'd want to happen to your kid?

You are so very right..speaking to that kid without consul or his parents either one should have gotten everything he said thrown out...but the law does what it wants...I see this more every day

 

[Jump211]

You surely need to read between the lines in this. Here's the way I see it.

The DA wants you to believe that he stabbed, raped, and shot this lady in his ****ty trailer and messy garage with no DNA, blood spatter or brain matter that got on anything else. So he meticulously cleaned up everything? Yet at the same time he's on a property with a car crusher and a smelter and figured leaving the car in plain view and burning the body in a fire pit 10 yard from his house was a good idea. The Avery's are not likable for sure, but there are so many things wrong with this case it amazes me that 12 people could conclude "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that these guys did it. For gods sake the only thing they had on the kid was his own words, that changed every time they talked to him. Anyone that knows anything about psychology and interrogation would tell you they could have gotten that kid to swear he was out riding unicorns that night. Then his own lawyer sends an investigator to get him to confess again with an incredibly "leading" interview, while setting up a interview with Detectives to come and question him with no counsel present? Is that what you'd want to happen to your kid?

What's between the line (which I included in an earlier post) is at the bottom of this message. You are buying into exactly what the makers of the film intended for you to think was the whole picture. I am more concerned with what happened to the "kid" who was murdered, than what happens to a couple of inbred scumbags. Steven Avery is probably a sociopath which would make lying about all of this very easy for him. His nephew is definitely a little dim, and almost certainly, has Aspergers (which would account for his lack of empathy for what occurred), but doesn't mean he didn't do it.

http://mobile.onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/evidenceagainstavery.html

 

[albatros43]

What's between the line (which I included in an earlier post) is at the bottom of this message. You are buying into exactly what the makers of the film intended for you to think was the whole picture. I am more concerned with what happened to the "kid" who was murdered, than what happens to a couple of inbred scumbags. Steven Avery is probably a sociopath which would make lying about all of this very easy for him. His nephew is definitely a little dim, and almost certainly, has Aspergers (which would account for his lack of empathy for what occurred), but doesn't mean he didn't do it.

http://mobile.onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/evidenceagainstavery.html

I read the link. To me there is still reasonable doubt. I don't think there's anyone who thinks he couldn't have done it, it's just that the prosecution didn't appear to make a convincing case.

 

[the_great_white]

 

[GeauxLSU]

What's between the line (which I included in an earlier post) is at the bottom of this message. You are buying into exactly what the makers of the film intended for you to think was the whole picture. I am more concerned with what happened to the "kid" who was murdered, than what happens to a couple of inbred scumbags. Steven Avery is probably a sociopath which would make lying about all of this very easy for him. His nephew is definitely a little dim, and almost certainly, has Aspergers (which would account for his lack of empathy for what occurred), but doesn't mean he didn't do it.

http://mobile.onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/evidenceagainstavery.html

You posted a link from someone who says they thought he WAS guilty and is now not sure after further investigation. There is absolutely nothing in that link that changes the facts of a crooked DA's office and LEO.
I am confused about ONE thing in your link though. Did the mysteriously appearing bullet that was found in the garage that had no trace of blood even after digging up the concrete actually have the victim's DNA on it? I didn't recall that being mentioned only that it was a 'bullet fragment from his gun'. If it did contain her DNA obviously it's relevant evidence. The validity of it being found under those absurd circumstances (like the key) is up to the observer I suppose.
The key has HIS DNA on it but NOT hers. Yeah, OK, that wasn't washed.