Just finished it.

What they did to the kid was horrifying.

Horrifying is putting it mildly.

---

Has anyone else watched this? I just finished today and am floored by it. I know they didn't show everything and some folks say Netflix was totally showing for the defense but it still boggles the mind how the evidence, or lack of, and statements and testimony was given and the end result was what was.


Trying not to spoil it for those who may not have seen it/finished it.

Spoiler below:

 

 

 

 

By the end of the show I felt comfortable thinking that Steven Avery did indeed commit the crime. I of course googled a lot more information than just what the documentary provided. I do also believe the cops had a hand in staging 'some' of the evidence, but I think he did it.

 

As for the kid, whether he was involved or not, he did not have a fair trial. The way they treated him and coerced him into admitting things that may or may not be true was horrific. He needs a new trial for sure. Throw out that garbage statement and those stupid drawings and give the kid his due. 

---

I have a not-so-well-thought-out theory based on the series and a few things I've read about law enforcement in that part of the country, as well. I believe Steven Avery was a bad guy in a family of not so bright bad guys, and happened to be the one in that clan dumb enough to catch the heat for something one of his cousins did, not once, but twice. That, taken together with the same cops being involved in both of his arrests and convictions, the shaky evidence handling, and Brenden's ridiculously unethical original legal representation, at the very least there was more than reasonable doubt either was guilty.

 

One thing is certain, economic status has a lot to do with one's chances of getting fairly tried.

I have similar thoughts. I like how in the beginning they showed his criminal past before his initial incarceration. They weren't glossing over his past to make it seem like he was a completely innocent lamb being led to slaughter.


As for Brendan, that kid is innocent. There is not much that could persuade me otherwise. HE was definitely a lamb being led to slaughter. He just isn't smart enough to fool people. He didn't even know the difference between feet and yards. As a 17 year-old.


SPOILER*******







Didn't the prosecution change the story of how she was killed from the bedroom rape/mutilation to she was shot in the garage? If that's how they convicted SA then how could they try and convict Brendan of the first scenario? And SA- the so-called mastermind- was only convicted of 2 counts & BD was convicted of all 3. Jigga what?

---

Spoiler below:

 

 

 

 

By the end of the show I felt comfortable thinking that Steven Avery did indeed commit the crime. I of course googled a lot more information than just what the documentary provided. I do also believe the cops had a hand in staging 'some' of the evidence, but I think he did it.

 

As for the kid, whether he was involved or not, he did not have a fair trial. The way they treated him and coerced him into admitting things that may or may not be true was horrific. He needs a new trial for sure. Throw out that garbage statement and those stupid drawings and give the kid his due.

On SA's part the thing that grinds my gears whether he's guilty or not is the unprofessional way in which the LEO's conducted it all, as well as pretty much anyone for the state. Things just seemed too convenient in many areas. If he's guilty let the evidence prove it. Don't make things happen to fit the outcome they wanted. They all looked guilty of collusion.


And BD's first attorney and investigator working with the prosecution? Fresh hell.

---

On SA's part the thing that grinds my gears whether he's guilty or not is the unprofessional way in which the LEO's conducted it all, as well as pretty much anyone for the state. Things just seemed too convenient in many areas. If he's guilty let the evidence prove it. Don't make things happen to fit the outcome they wanted. They all looked guilty of collusion.


And BD's first attorney and investigator working with the prosecution? Fresh hell.

The entire thing was a complete cluster! I think there is corruption within that police force, evidenced by his first wrongful conviction. 

 

Bredan's first attorney should lose his licence. That man was awful, awful, awful. 

---

Yeah, no doubt the police "helped along" a case with no real evidence as to where the crime actually took place.

 

I still don't know where the crime scene took place and neither do they, they were just "guessing" like the Dassey kid.

 

There would be no way to get rid of all the blood that would exist if she was either stabbed or shot, no way at all, and especially no way from someone like SA or even BD.

---

I survived the Gus Bradley Error.

There is another TV show on it Sat. Jan 30, at 9pm on the ID channel.

 

The show is called Steven Avery: Innocent or Guilty?

---

I survived the Gus Bradley Error.

Yeah, no doubt the police "helped along" a case with no real evidence as to where the crime actually took place.

 

I still don't know where the crime scene took place and neither do they, they were just "guessing" like the Dassey kid.

 

There would be no way to get rid of all the blood that would exist if she was either stabbed or shot, no way at all, and especially no way from someone like SA or even BD.

There was a lot of things that didn't add up. SA didn't have the brain power to figure out how to clean up a crime scene to that degree. They said she was murdered in the garage, the only evidence they found was a shell casing with her DNA on it. That's pretty incriminating, but still where's the blood?

---

Did anyone see that people who watched the show found a picture of Theresa Halbach where it shows she carried a set of keys not just one?

---

I think the brother and the ex boyfriend have a lot of questions to answer.

---

Spoiler below:

 

 

 

 

By the end of the show I felt comfortable thinking that Steven Avery did indeed commit the crime. I of course googled a lot more information than just what the documentary provided. I do also believe the cops had a hand in staging 'some' of the evidence, but I think he did it.

 

As for the kid, whether he was involved or not, he did not have a fair trial. The way they treated him and coerced him into admitting things that may or may not be true was horrific. He needs a new trial for sure. Throw out that garbage statement and those stupid drawings and give the kid his due.

I felt pretty similarly to you. I'm also far from an expert on law, but I highly question whether the kid is even fit to stand trial/testify. He was unbelievably lost and hopeless. Classic "I'll say whatever I can to get to make these people approve" vibe.


Also, some of the officials surrounding their case need to be dis-barred or have their badges taken. Unscrupulous, clueless, and evasive is not how I prefer my local law enforcement nor county officials.

---

I don't think steven did it. If you discount the planted key, planted blood, planted bullet and planted bones, there is no reason to think he did it.


The key is obviously the spare. Police would have found that in her apt.


The blood came from the obviously tampered with vial.


The bullet doesn't make sense. If she was shot in the garage, where's the blood? Plus it was only found when Lenke was on site (again).


The bones are very intriguing. Found in three different places. Barrel, quarry and Steve's pit. Evidence points to a cremation in the quarry, then using the barrel to move the remains to the pit.


That being said, I think the best suspects are that Scott guy or the ex-boyfriend. I think one of them did it, then the police framed Avery. Maybe they knew who really did it - that's not clear - but they had 36 millions reasons to put in on Steven.


Very interesting stuff.


Apparently some hot shot from Chicago is on the case now.

---

There was a lot of things that didn't add up. SA didn't have the brain power to figure out how to clean up a crime scene to that degree. They said she was murdered in the garage, the only evidence they found was a shell casing with her DNA on it. That's pretty incriminating, but still where's the blood?

 

Wasn't it a spent bullet that had her DNA on it?

 

It also had DNA of the woman who did the test on it, so if they followed protocol it wasn't even supposed to be used as evidence.

 

There was only enough DNA on it to run it once, so they were not able to run a second test on it where the DNA testing woman could be more careful and NOT get any of her DNA mixed in with the results.

 

And yep, where the heck is all the rest of the blood from the shooting?

 

Very suspicious indeed.

---

I survived the Gus Bradley Error.

Here is an interview with Dean Strang one of SA's attorneys (the shorter one). Actually there are at least two, but I've only seen the first one so far. He answers questions average people asked on a social media site (I think) and some of my questions were answered and things make a bit more sense now even if it's still annoying as heck that this miscarriage of justice happened. 

 

It's about 20 minutes long and like I said, answers some questions. And raises others.

 

Watched the second part. It was interesting but some of the same material was covered and it was on a local (Wisconsin) network news show so they weren't going to get too hairy with their questions. 

---

Just finished episode 4 and omg.


These people are infuriating!!

The entire series was frustrating! I was pausing it every few minutes and telling my husband, "Did you hear that? Oh my God this is RIDICULOUS!" 

 

I'm certain my blood pressure was up every time I watched it. Did you see the link I shared to the interview with Dean Strang, one of SA's attorneys? He was able to answer some questions I had but then some answers just made me questions some stuff even more. Crazy stuff, man.

---

The entire series was frustrating! I was pausing it every few minutes and telling my husband, "Did you hear that? Oh my God this is RIDICULOUS!" 

 

I'm certain my blood pressure was up every time I watched it. Did you see the link I shared to the interview with Dean Strang, one of SA's attorneys? He was able to answer some questions I had but then some answers just made me questions some stuff even more. Crazy stuff, man.

I'll take a look. That attorney was just amazing! Loved that guy!

---

A little late and I'm sure people have seen it, but Brendan Dassey had his conviction overturned by a federal judge.

---

A little late and I'm sure people have seen it, but Brendan Dassey had his conviction overturned by a federal judge.

Wow, really?? Gotta check that out.

---