Quote: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?

---