Sorry about all the posts, I'm a bit obsessed with it now too :laugh: I was reading an article about it and this point is apt I think

the real story is about our messed up legal system and how it deprives the socioeconomically disadvantaged and the uneducated of the presumption of innocence.

So true, the state didn't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty, it was down to his Lawyers to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was innocent

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies...nt-present.php

Yeah I agree with this. Right from the episode where they were interviewing during the search and the brother comes out with something about the grieving process and they hadn't found a body or nothing yet :umm2:

Plus the scratches all over the exs hands and them 'guessing' the voucemail passwords

Ohhh now I'm reading that article more closely and this guy thinks he's guilty (although some of the things he's saying aren't correct) Like he said that certain things were left out of the docuseries when they actually hadn't been (not all of them anyway)

That could be because of, if that theory about them having found the car earlier is true, that they were hiding something but not that they'd killed her?

Now this guy nearly has me convinced Steven Avery is guilty :think:

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies...nt-present.php

I'm not convinced either way about Avery (which by the rules of innocent until proven guilty, I guess means that I don't think he should be in jail) however the treatment of Brendan Dassey by the authorities as seen in the documentary, is downright ****ing criminal in itself. From the looks of it, Brendan is most probably on the autistic spectrum, and also has a very low IQ on top of that. On several occasions, they interrogate him for several HOURS, with a tonne of suggestion and leading questions, and they get him overwhelmed to the point that he's completely broken and will say anything. Probably even starts to believe it. As soon as they leave him alone for a while, he gets his clarity back and goes back to saying that it didn't happen (which it clearly didn't, the statement they got out of him was all over the place and made little sense, and was missing a tonne of key details that there's no way he would have forgotten).

The way they talk to him, belittle him, get frustrated with him and shout at him for not being able to explain himself clearly... It's all an absolutely gargantuan abuse of a clearly very vulnerable individual. He should never have been questioned AT ALL without mental health / educational support people present who would understand his vulnerable state and how easily lead into saying whatever they wanted he would be after hours of relentless questioning.

Avery/Dassey Discussion Thread (Contains spoilers from Making a Murderer)
 

Re Brendan also TS, that lawyer he had behaved deplorably and the case should have been thrown out for that alone and he should have been disbarred.

..I watched the first 2 episodes of this a few weeks ago..(I think it was you Josy who mentioned it somewhere else so I thought that I'd take a look, but as usual, got distracted, so didn't get back to it...I did find it absorbing though, so will start watching again..)...

..but I only got to Teresa's remains being found so am in the vein of thought as you iceman/he's innocent, the whole timeline of these things happening within days, when it looked like he would get a huge payout/and the 'coincidence', I mean why would he do it, so suspicious...it wasn't just the payout/money though for those in the police force involved and those in the justice system, it was also the corruption involved and things that could have been potentially revealed, how much deeper it may have run and his case being just one example but an example of further investigations into other stuff, perhaps..?...so yeah, all too convenient and suspicious, so innocent is my first thought..but then, on the flipside...?...was he really fooling everyone into thinking it was about the compensation and people being held accountable but other than that, he was getting his life together etc...or did it all run much deeper than that and he also knew the 'timeline' was perfect for him to do this because of being able to say, oh this is all happening again and you all know these people are corrupt ...so assuming he would not be found guilty..that, that would be the 'influence'...that he had been planning the 'timeline' and right time for 12 months for more of an 'ultimate revenge'/a much deeper 'revenge'....or maybe not planning even but more seeing that he could do this and this time, be guilty but proven innocent....anyways, so I'm nowhere near really having any fixed thoughts yet..:laugh:..and Duncan/that's his brother then..?..I have a way to catch up with you guys and haven't read any online stuff yet either but I will try to make an effort to get back to this as there is obviously so much more....


..on a side-line thing, I do love how American documentaries can put a case and make you absolutely and totally believe something..and then do a flip of that and make you absolutely and totally believe the opposite, I think the USA documentaries are particularly excellent at that...

..see, this is what I mean...I haven't clicked on the link or read it but I find USA documentaries so brilliant because 'absolutely convinced now' with one and then 'absolutely convinced now with another'...intriguing and confusing/conflicting and presented either to be just as plausible...I'll read the online stuff and links after I have finished the series....

The documentary seemed to leave out some things that gave him a motive and glossed over things that we should have taken a bit more notice of imo, like they mention he threw a cat on a fire but they never said he poured petrol on it first, also before the rape case he was going to be charged with running a woman off the road, pulling a gun on her and (this part wasn't mentioned in The documentary) threatening to rape her, apparently he would have got around 6 years in prison for that. The documentary almost made you feel like that woman was to blame for him doing that to her because he said she said some things about him behind his back.


They also never showed the part of Brendan's phone call to his mom where he tells her that Steven had abused him numerous times.

It also never tells us that Teresa had asked her boss not to send her to Stevens place anymore cos he freaked her out or that he'd specifically asked for her that day or that he'd phoned her 3 times that day, twice hiding his number from her

Nimah that part about the woman having a gun pulled on her was right at the start of the documentary it was his cousin and she was married to the head of the sherrifs department that's what is believed to be the cause of the sherrifs officers disliking him before thwy accusedbhim of the rape the first time.

The stuff about Theresa asking not to be sent there again was proven to be false (his first lawyers have spoken about this online and said he got out of his swimming pool and wrapped a towel round him one if the times she visited) her co worker testified saying this and that was left out the documentary too.

Brendans mum also said the stuff about brendan being abused was rubbish. And if you think about it it doesn't add up, brendan was only just turned 16 when the murder happened and steven had served 18 years in prison so when would the abuse have taken place?

Yes I know who the woman was Josy but I'm quite annoyed with myself for not taking it more serious at the time, I mean what kind of a nut job runs a woman off the road and pulls a gun on her because he thinks she's saying stuff about him?

He'd been out of jail a couple of years before the murder happened

I don't know, I just feel a bit manipulated by the documentary

True he was a bit of a nutter and the thing about the cat sickened me but the thing is he never denies most of those things happening (obviously that doesnt excuse any.of it) but it doesn't prove he is guilty of murder and that was a massive problem with the court case, he was judged on his past rather than the present when to be found guilty of killing Theresa the state should have proven without reasonable doubt that he was guilty of that crime, the most important thing to me is that both him and brendan recieve a fair trial and the real killer is found even if it is him.

I get what you mean, I was shocked reading some stuff that had been left out too, but then there's other stuff that was also left out and not shown during the case like brendan explaining to his mum that the officers had got to his head and then the investigator trying to convince him he had been using crack :/

I've read all of the Brendan interview transcripts, there's some stuff in those that had my head ruined both thinking they had actually done it then questioning myself and thinking no they never and so on.

The court transcripts are 5000+ pages long and I haven't even attempted to start them yet but atm I'm back to thinking both are innocent.

What about about the sweat found on the RAV4 that matched Stevens? The cops couldn't have planted that, also there was something Brendan told the cops about Steven taking the battery out of Teresa's car which he couldn't have known otherwise (if what I read is correct)

Strang said sweat dna can't be identified as precisely that it's just non.blood dna . Also one of the forensic guys said they forgot to change his gloves and believes it could be contaminated evidence.

I don't know though

I need to read more on it I think

I can't stop [emoji23]

One important thing that's further making me think he's innocent is kathleen zellner taking over his case, she's massively famous for defending people that were wrongfully found guilty and she believes he is innocent and framed, took his case on probono and i just can't see her doing that if there was a chance he done it.

Out of the 17 wrongful conviction cases she's taken on so far she's had all of them overturned / vacated.

..the interview with Brendan was hard to watch, they seemed to so obviously be manipulating him to say what they wanted him to say and to interview him for 3 hours without a solicitor present...?..and I believe that he didn't have any idea about the shooting her part and that they did 'get in his head', they didn't want his truth, they just wanted him to say what they wanted to hear to make their case...and then he told his mum that he didn't remember any of it and where was the blood, there would have been lots of blood..?..also, it seems very suspicious that the district attorneys were saying that it was a good thing that he had been imprisoned for 18 years, even though it was a wrongful imprisonment..trying to justify that as well..?...hmmm, I'm still thinking innocent atm..there seems to be lots of suspicious stuff against them but nothing to think that they actually did it, other than what could have been set up ...


..Josy/Niamh...the bit earlier on with his cousin saying he had run at the car etc....I thought that she had later on said that it wasn't him, it was also Gregory Allen...?../maybe I'm wrong about that but I thought that she had...

I would never willingly disagree with you Ammi (except for now) but if I'm completely honest he deserved the 18 years he 'wrongfully served' for the burning the family cat to death alone.

Avery/Dassey Discussion Thread (Contains spoilers from Making a Murderer)
 

No Ammi, that's not right, it was 100% Steve Avery who ran her off the road and pulled a gun on her