And that other police officers brought up to them that it was probably Gregory, not Avery, which they ignored at each turn.
They can’t entertain the possibility that she was killed outside the trailer, because then the “confession” by the nephew, which places the murder inside the trailer, would be even more obviously false.
Yeah, again, this makes me wonder if they have anyone who has ever scienced to help them with these things. The hole in the top of the tube would be totally normal, and not evidence of tampering. The broken box however, is evidence of tampering, and no one who wanted to take blood from that tube would stick a needle through the top anyway; they would just open it. (I get vials of blood sent to me several times a week, and this is how I access the blood).
The documentary specifically said that there was no evidence of cleanup discovered. Is there a cite for this? I’m still entertaining the possibility of biased data presented by the documentary, because otherwise this thing stinks.
Here’s a Daily Mail reportthat says there’s a juror who believed that Steven was innocent but voted to convict out of fear for their personal safety. In the meantime prosecutors and police keep insisting on his guilt and ignoring the obvious frame-up attempt. That pretty much tells you they don’t care if he gets a fair trial or if the evidence was planted, as if the series didn’t reveal enough of that already.
I’m not convinced he didn’t kill that woman, but I’m thoroughly convinced the evidence was planted, the kid was totally framed, and there has been no justice here.
The thing is, I don’t know if Avery did it, but now nobody’s ever going to know because they’ve fucked it up so much.
(Likewise, I don’t know if I think Ayed did it on Serial, but if he didn’t do it he’s the unluckiest kid in the world… but that doesn’t mean the state’s story made any sense.)
Speaking generally (not about this case), I can easily envision a scenario where I am on a jury and find it likely that a piece of evidence was planted, and also find other evidence compelling enough to conclude that the defendant was guilty.
I tried to find the link where I read this stuff, but I cant find it now.
I thought they said that if he did clean, he had done an extraordinarily thorough job because there were no traces of blood in the trailer or the garage. Cleaning that well is extremely difficult and it’s unlikely he could have pulled it off (no time, no supplies, not skilled/smart enough, whatever). They can’t prove that he didn’t clean.
Sure, you can’t absolutely prove that he didn’t clean, but it’s stretching reality to think that he was able to clean so well that there is no trace of a bloody murder, but still have the place look like the shitty, filthy garage that it was. You would have to somehow clean it ridiculously thoroughly and then subsequently replace the original filth and clutter; this guy ain’t that smart, and I don’t think anyone is.
Not proof, but I’m pretty damn confident that if Avery murdered her, it wasn’t there.
Well I found the article. I have a smart tv for a computer, so I can’t copy and paste. I’m sure it will pop up if you type this in…Article is from On Milwaukee.com and article was called 14 Pieces of troubling evidence Netflix Making a Murderer Left Out…The evidence does not look so damaging to me anymore.
I agree that it’s highly unlikely that he cleaned and, thus, equally unlikely that he killed her there. I was thinking that perhaps “if he cleaned, he must have been thorough” got transformed into “he cleaned”, as posted by chicagowhitesox. I just didn’t finish my thought (damn smartphones…)
The thing is, thinking a defendant is guilty is not what a jury is supposed to do in a murder case. They’re supposed to decide if he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fine.
Speaking generally (not about this case), I can easily envision a scenario where I am on a jury and find it likely that a piece of evidence was planted, and also find other evidence compelling enough to conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
We watched episode 9 tonight–the one where Brendan takes the stand at his own trial. I wanted to hop up, cheer, and give him a big kiss on each cheek. He did a fantastic job, there.
I thought the same thing but, I was thinking to myself how much of what he said was coached.
Is this what you are talking about?
I was rooting for Avery; I really was. I wanted him to be innocent and join the peasants storming the castle with pitchforks. However, sadly, the evidence is fairly overwhelming. Even what was presented in the show, never mind the damning stuff they left out.
Short version: When a pretty young lady that I have been pursing is found burned in the fire pit behind my house, after last being seen alive there, her car is found in my attached junk yard with my blood and sweat in it, a bullet fired from my rifle with her DNA on it is found in my garage, and her car key found in my house…I would be honored to have some of you all on my jury to think I am innocent.
If you had also been framed and wrongfully imprisoned and were in the process of suing the state and there was no DNA evidence of her anywhere in the trailer and the lab who found the DNA on the bullet already admitted to screwing up…then yeah, I’d entertain reasonable doubt.
Question for all of you–I’ve been seeing a lot of stuff flying back and forth about Steven Avery creeping out Teresa. Some say he came out in a towel when he had to meet her and she was freaked out and asked her boss not to send her there. Then supposedly he asked for her again and used Barb’s name and then called her multiple times.
But I’ve also heard that she wasn’t creeped out by him–more that she shared that incident with another employee with kind of a “Ew”/laugh. Which suggests that yeah, he’s creepy but not necessarily a rapist/murderer. Also, he asked for them to send her out because she’d come before, not b/c he was obsessed. And also she was reportedly an hour late for her appointment with him, and that’s why he called.
I don’t know either way which is true, but man, this has taken on a life of its own. Move over, Adnan!
I’ve been involved in a lot of investigations. I couldn’t give less of a fuck if someone is suing the state. More overtime for me.
From various sources, filtered through my memory:
Some receptionist recounted a time that Teresa complained about having to go out to the Avery residence because it creeped her out, which, I mean, duh. She said that one time he answered the door in a towel, to which she said “Ew” and they laughed. There’s no indication there that he was exposing himself or made the situation sexual in any way, just that maybe he was clueless. The judge didn’t allow this story to be told in court because the receptionist couldn’t recall when it happened and/or what visit she was referring to.
He used Barb’s name for the appointment, but apparently his own address. Now if I’m trying to trick you to come out to my residence but I don’t want you to know it’s me, I’m doing little good to give you my own address on Steronz Rd (literally, the road was named after the family) but then tell you that you’re coming to meet Guy Incognito. Makes no sense.
I haven’t heard the bit about her being an hour late but he called her 3 times that day, twice he used *67, but to what end? She knew she was going to the Steven Avery residence after all.
The accusation here seems to be that she didn’t want to go see him so he had to trick her, requesting her by name, using a different name for the appointment, hiding his number. But everyone knew that she was going to see Steven Avery, she was going to his house on Avery Rd, she’d been there many times before… it makes very little sense that he would have to trick her into coming out, or even that he would take steps to try. It was her job, all he had to do was call up and say “I have a car for sale, I need pictures.” None of secrecy was necessary.