Nothing in that article was very compelling at all....
A fat man with a scum stache having a sweet angelic phone sex operator voice is pretty unreasonable, too... Two people having a conversation about not knowing the definition of the word inconsistent is pretty unreasonable. The brother of the deceased going on for 5 minutes about how all the prosecution needed to do was play the defendant's confession and it would result in a surefire conviction... And then turns around and admits he had never seen thr confession is pretty unreasonable.
Somewhere in this thread there is a link to theories for others to have committed the murder that Avery's lawyers came up with.
Pretty easy to think he did it. The only tangible evidence was all found within yards of his house and he was the last person to see her alive.
Doc, here are her phone records
lol, did you watch the documentary or did you read the wikipedia page? It sounds like you heard exactly what the PD wanted you to hear. Good job, you're a perfect citizen. Like I said, I'm not saying he didn't do it, I'm saying I highly doubt it, but either way his guilt or innocence are irrelevant to the point of the documentary, which is that our "good guys" aren't necessarily good, and can sometimes be downright evil. That police department wanted Steve Avery to go down from the time he was a young man, and even moreso after he became a walking, talking example of their corruption. And they made it happen, and it's obvious they made it happen, and they have faced zero consequences for it. And it could happen anywhere in America if you're uneducated and poor and you mess with the wrong people.
A handful of facts don't always add up to the truth.
Once again, the point isn't whether or not Avery did it, but whether or not he should have been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Which, I don't see how anyone could argue there wasn't a wealth of reasonable doubt, in addition to likely grounds for a mistrial for multiple reasons. That's the point.
You have a lot of faith in our justice system. So much so that nothing I say is going to change your mind.
None of what you just said is anywhere in my posts. It doesn't take as much as you think to have tipped these scales. You don't think it's incredibly convenient for the county that a guy was on the verge of getting as much as 36 million dollars and becoming a national symbol of their ineptitude and a week after they depose a bunch of the local police officers, Steve Avery, knowing he is about the become wildly rich, decides now is the right time to commit a murder, and to invite a learning disabled relative over to watch and participate, and also to leave her car on his property, her bones in his yard, and her keys in his room? Steve Avery is dumb as a rock. He really is. But no one is that dumb. And it's incredibly convenient for the county that he suddenly, spontaneously decided to do that. A week after their depositions.
I respect that you're using your common sense, too. I don't want to imply that one of us isn't thinking. Different opinions and perspectives just get to different places. But I do think you have a lot of faith in the justice system. More than I do. I think your last sentence here implies that you put a lot of faith in the coerced confession of a learning disabled child. I don't put one ounce of faith in anything that Brendan said other than his original story. Which in my mind was 100% true. Cops are trained and experienced in how to get a confession and inadvertently they learn how to push someone, especially someone of limited intelligence and maturity to think some things may have happened that didn't. They put that confession in Brendan and then he gave it back to them in a way that should be terrifying to any father, especially as the father of a child with special needs. I have no question in my mind that with no training, a locked room, and several hours I could get Brendan to say whatever the hell I wanted him to. It's really sad no one was there to protect him.
So you're questioning how a DA sexually harassing a complaintant who had been involved in domestic abuse (after making the whole avery trial about it being ridiculous that defense attorneys would accuse the state of ethical improprieties) is relevant to this trial?
