https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxgbdYaR_KQ

new documentary series.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxgbdYaR_KQ
>
>new documentary series.

just added this to my queue last night when it popped up in my suggestions. looked pretty interesting.

GamerTag and PSN: PokeEmAll

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Similarly...I think he did it.

------------------------------

17x NBA Champions

With Adnan, I don't really know *what* to think.

Here, at least the motive/evidence of the framing is pretty damn noteworthy.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

From the doc, we are just overloaded with the evidence put together by the defense. That's what makes everything seem so outrageous and the story so interesting.

I think if we saw both sides of the case, it would be much less interesting. At least for Steve Avery's case.
Brendan's just seems like an outright miscarriage of justice. The first trial I could possibly understand. But the appeal denials seem completely unfair

_______________________________________

Not sure about an outright conspiracy - that's....rather unbelievable to me. But they downplay how not good of a guy Avery is. You forget that this guy murdered a cat by setting it on fire and chased his cousin down with a gun. He's not a good dude...and, rape case aside, seems impulsive and unstable. Add in 18 years in jail for nothing...well, not a guy I'd want to know.

As with any doc - this is heavily skewed and edited. There's so many questions and it IS a very engaging story with such sad elements.

Adnan did that shit tho.

------------------------------

17x NBA Champions

But, just as the jury was "not to consider" the actions of the police in the wrongful conviction of Avery earlier, I'm not really going to consider the actions of teenage Steven Avery when judging a 40-year-old man about to get a million-dollar payday from the state who has absolutely no motive to kill this woman.

The *police* have a greater motive to kill the woman than Steven, really. At least the police benefit from Teresa's death if they frame Steven for it. Steven doesn't really know the woman, appeared to be happy in his relationship, and had the case against the state nearing its conclusion. He gets no benefit, unless you believe he is a full-blown sociopath-- which is a really tough sell from what we see.

Especially if we don't believe Brendan's murder story, because Brendan *was* there during the proposed murder/burn time-- there were also the phone calls he received from Jodi during the time the murder was allegedly going down in Steven's garage. I just can't imagine Steven is honestly smart enough to pull that off-- and I certainly don't believe that Brendan is smart enough to cover up/lie for Steven.

Unless we believe Steven killed her during a window of time that differs from the State's story, and he killed her somewhere other than his trailer/garage. In which case... why were her bones in the backyard? Why would he park the car on his property? Where would he have killed her? I'd buy that he killed her there, except for the fact that her blood isn't found anywhere and, since she was shot, that seems insanely improbable.

Even though dude is a few bulbs short of a branch, there's nothing there that indicates to me why dude would shoot her a bunch, burn her up, and LEAVE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE ON HIS PROPERTY, lol. Again, he'd have to be a full-blown Dexter-level sociopath to kill her just cuz he felt like killing and talk about it like he does... and again, I don't think he's smart enough to be that.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

fucking crazy

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

(SPOILERS BELOW)

Bones being discovered off-site. This conclusively proves that the body was moved after it was burned. If Avery burned the body on his property as the state suggests, it makes literally no sense that he'd leave 95% of the bones on his property and only move a chunk of the pelvis to the quarry.

It seems much, much more likely that the body was burned in the quarry, the bones were moved to Avery's backyard, and someone fucked up and left that small piece of bone behind.

It's not *impossible* that Avery burned the body in his backyard, left the almost all of the remains there and decided to move one small piece to some far-off site...but it's extremely unlikely. The Avery's are obviously not a smart bunch, but that shit would literally make zero sense.

Obviously none of us know the truth of what happened here, but just this issue of the bones would have given me enough reasonable doubt that I would've refused to convict him if I were in the jury. Add in the laundry list of other sketchy and questionable shit, it's a complete sham that he was found guilty...

----

The Avery's are obviously not a smart
>bunch, but that shit would literally make zero sense.
>

Steven ain't the brightest bulb, but the car being left in the yard, the bones sitting around, etc. seems beneath him. I mean I'd have to believe the guy has no intelligence to think he did all that. Meanwhile he'd have to be SUPER smart to be as good an actor as he was. In all his interviews he never lost that "Aw shucks" personality.

My gut feeling is that he did it and they planted evidence to ensure they'd catch him, but I dunno. It doesn't really add up any way you slice it.

The lack of the DNA in the bedroom and garage. ESPECIALLY the garage. So in all of that clutter they don't find one spec of her DNA? (Until magically finding the bullet by the corrupt cops.)

They literally said he had 5 days to clean it up....how Sway?!

So let's say that is somewhat plausible.....you telling me that the same guy that can clean up 2 crime scenes to spotless perfection is also stupid enough to leave her car on the property "hidden" under some limbs and plywood? When he has a car crusher literally 100 feet away?! Why not crush the car and burn it?

I am pretty sure he didn't do it. I can't piece together who else would have done it, but there definitely wasn't enough evidence to lock him up for it. And the irony that he's got a bill in his name to prevent this exact thing.

________________________________________________
R.I.P. Soulgyal <3
SUPA NERD LLC.
Knowledge Meets Nature
Musica Negra
#13irteen

Now it's coming out that there's a shitload of fairly damning evidence against Avery that didn't make it into the doc. None of this necessarily invalidates the larger points the doc is making about corruption and class disparity and abuse of power and the shortcomings of the justice system, but these seem like major points of contention that were purposefully omitted because they make Avery look bad.

I'm not saying any of this proves he's guilty or that there wasn't a miscarriage of justice (both defendants should have gotten appeals at the very least), but it doesn't sound good.

Also, with that all of that said, if you truly believe that there were a conspiracy, you can explain a lot of this shit, especially re: the gun and bullet.

LINK:
http://www.avclub.com/article/read-damning-evidence-against-steven-avery-making--230224

— In the months leading up to Halbach’s disappearance, Avery had called Auto Trader several times and always specifically requested Halbach to come out and take the photos.

— Halbach had complained to her boss that she didn’t want to go out to Avery’s trailer anymore, because once when she came out, Avery was waiting for her wearing only a towel (this was excluded for being too inflammatory). Avery clearly had an obsession with Halbach.

— On the day that Halbach went missing, Avery had called her three times, twice from a *67 number to hide his identity.

— The bullet with Halbach’s DNA on it came from Avery’s gun, which always hung above his bed.

— Avery had purchased handcuffs and leg irons like the ones Dassey described holding Halbach only three weeks before (Avery said he’s purchased them for use with his girlfriend, Jodi, with whom he’d had a tumultuous relationship — at one point, he was ordered by police to stay away from her for three days).

— Here’s the piece of evidence that was presented at trial but not in the series that I find most convincing: In Dassey’s illegally obtained statement, Dassey stated that he helped Avery moved the RAV4 into the junkyard and that Avery had lifted the hood and removed the battery cable. Even if you believe that the blood in Halbach’s car was planted by the cops (as I do), there was also non-blood DNA evidence on the hood latch. I don’t believe the police would plant — or know to plant — that evidence.

----

We witnessed in the doc how the police knowingly manipulated evidence, and how they brought forth expert testimony from multiple people that was shaped specifically to look like Avery was guilty.

So I don't really care what the other evidence left out was, because it can't be trusted due to the complete violation of evidence-collecting protocol exercised by the state. I don't even need to believe in a full-blown conspiracy to know that.

This is exactly why protocol is so damn important-- because let's say Avery actually did it, and all of that evidence points toward Avery doing it... then they've given the entire world reason to doubt it (and hopefully given Avery a chance at an appeal one day soon), because they flagrantly and knowingly violated nearly every protocol! Which means by attempting to frame a murderer, they might have planted the seeds that will let that murderer go free.

And that's the *best* case scenario-- that Avery actually did it and they scarily abused their power and got dumb fucking lucky. The other scenario-- that they successfully framed an innocent man and scarily abused their power to send him and his nephew away-- is too bone-chilling to think about.

So I keep seeing this article posted, and it doesn't change the facts. Literally every shred of evidence presented by the state can be discredited thanks to their violations of protocol. No one can convince me, "Well, you see, *this* piece of evidence here? They're telling the truth on this one."

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

is that she'd told her bosses she was uncomfortable going to the Avery property because of how he acted on past occasions (like waiting for her outside in only a towel), and that he was *67-ing his (multiple) calls to her on the day she disappeared.

None of that is evidence of his guilt, of course, but it suggests he was pretty fixated on her. It's easier to believe he could abduct, rape and murder her if he was borderline obsessed and quasi-stalking her over the phone over the course of a long length of time than if she just randomly showed up on his doorstep one day.

At the end of the day, there was clear and obvious police misconduct, which in and of itself should have been enough to ensure he wasn't convicted. The evidence was clearly tainted. I absolutely believe they planted the key and blood. In getting a more complete painting of the facts, however, I'm more inclined to believe the police planted evidence to ensure a conviction, rather than outright framing him. (Which is very close to being just as bad...but not quite.)

And, like I said above, even if Avery actually did it, it doesn't undermine any of the larger points the documentary is making, all of which are extremely important. I'm just not surprised this "new" evidence is hurting their credibility in the eyes of many people who now think they were twisting the facts to be more pro-Avery.

----

>is that she'd told her bosses she was uncomfortable going to
>the Avery property because of how he acted on past occasions
>(like waiting for her outside in only a towel), and that he
>was *67-ing his (multiple) calls to her on the day she
>disappeared.

Again, considering they called multiple cops/experts to deliver skewed versions of events and they called at least two character witnesses to knowingly lie and say negative things about Avery, it's impossible to take that testimony at face value. It's the problem with the whole case.

If the case had been handled by the book from the word go, and that was testimony from the bosses, then I'd buy it in a heartbeat. But now, whether it's true or not, I can't buy it, because I've seen the misconduct in so many areas of the state's case.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

it's that character testimony is all over the place. You talk to some people and Adnan was a sweetheart. Others were not nearly as kind. Similarly inconsistent stuff with Jay too. I'm wary of anything used as "see? he has a history of this!" unless it's truly hard evidence. You can paint people in any light you want with facts about their lives and testimony from a person who doesn't like them. I know guys who are 100% harmless but there's something about them that gives people the willies.

by that same token it's unlikely that Steven is the ho-hum "I'm not bothering anyone" type that this series has portrayed.

>by that same token it's unlikely that Steven is the ho-hum
>"I'm not bothering anyone" type that this series has
>portrayed.

The entire first episode is largely dedicated to what a tremendous creep Steven has been. The cat incident is there, the gun-at-his-female-cousin is there, the inappropriate sexual activity is there, his creepy-ass letters with death threats in them from prison during his first sentence are there. He didn't do the Gregory Allen crime, but after hearing his rap sheet, you understand how it was so easy to frame him.

They don't really go out of their way to remind us as the series progresses, that's true... but at the end of the first episode, when they allude to a murder having been committed on Steven's property, they did a very very good job of making my first thought, "Well, this dude is an obvious murderer type, so he must've done it."

Which then makes what the show subsequently does so effective: it turns that "he's a bad dude, he's been a bad dude his whole life, odds are he must've done it" mentality entirely on its head.

Agreed about the inconsistency of character testimony, though.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

like, one of the dimmest people I've ever seen really. He's on-another-planet-dumb.

Dumb is why he threw a cat in a fire. Dumb is why he pulled a gun on his cousin --> not because he intended to hurt her, but because he really thought that would resolve the conflict.

With this dumbness in mind, it seems almost impossible he could've killed her in the manner they described and cleaned up so well.

>The entire first episode is largely dedicated to what a
>tremendous creep Steven has been. The cat incident is there,
>the gun-at-his-female-cousin is there, the inappropriate
>sexual activity is there, his creepy-ass letters with death
>threats in them from prison during his first sentence are
>there. He didn't do the Gregory Allen crime, but after hearing
>his rap sheet, you understand how it was so easy to frame
>him.

him waiting for her in a towel shouldn't be a cause for alarm because his own cousin set a precedence that he was be outside scantily clad, doing sexual things...this may or may not be true...but others have said yeah he's been outside like this...so to me, that would be something in his character.

secondly the *67 could be as simple as him calling her and she not answering his calls at all, so he decides to *67 instead to see if she would answer because he's obviously trying to get this money and sell these cars...maybe on that last occasion he forgot to *67 or he said fuck it maybe she will answer since she missed our appointment.

none of this is damning, its all circumstantial evidence. So he called her 3 times, he had on a towel when she came by. None of this seems truly odd to me at all.

Fair enough. I was considering that (a) she reportedly told superiors that she was uncomfortable going there, presumably because of how he'd acted in past interactions, and (b) he reportedly specifically requested that it be her to come take the photos for that appointment and numerous previous ones.

When you add that shit on top of the *67 and weird towel thing, I disagree with you that it's not at least a bit odd. It's definitely weird IMO.

Like Frank said above, though...it's completely fair to question the veracity of those claims under the notion that once some evidence is tainted, it's ALL tainted. And even if those facts above are 100% correct, it's still not even close to proving or even suggesting his guilt.

At this point, all things considered, I'm starting to be inclined to think it's "more likely than not" that he killed her, but with these caveats:

-Even if the evidence was clean, I don't think it meets the burden of proof in a criminal trial. I'd have voted not guilty. "More likely than not" is not sufficient to convict someone of a crime.

-The police misconduct and failure to follow protocol is enough to invalidate his conviction, and at the very least should be grounds for an appeal.

-The larger points the documentary is making about abuses of power, class disparity, and the shortcomings of the justice system are still valid regardless of what any "new" or omitted evidence might say about this particular case.

----

>I'm starting to be
>inclined to think it's "more likely than not" that he killed
>her

... because everything you've been presented that makes you think he may have done it has been irrevocably tainted.

Just because he's a creepy and/or violent guy in the past doesn't mean he committed *this* murder. And the blurred line between "possible murderer" and "specific murderer" is exactly what justice systems like this one exploit to send not-guilty men to prison.

(I know you're not a jury member, so it doesn't really matter what you speculate openly. I'm just saying, lol.)

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>is that she'd told her bosses she was uncomfortable going to
>the Avery property because of how he acted on past occasions
>(like waiting for her outside in only a towel), and that he
>was *67-ing his (multiple) calls to her on the day she
>disappeared.
>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dean-strang-missing-evidence-making-a-murderer_568d51b3e4b0c8beacf53b78

*Miniswipe*

"The argument that ... she didn't want to go back to the Avery property was in fact blown up by two Auto Trader witnesses who did testify at trial. So this is a really good example of less significant prosecution evidence omitted and defense evidence omitted. The Auto Trader witnesses said reaction when came from his little splash pool in a towel was 'ew,' but not that she was unwilling to go back there."

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

>So I don't really care what the other evidence left out was,
>because it can't be trusted due to the complete violation of
>evidence-collecting protocol exercised by the state. I don't
>even need to believe in a full-blown conspiracy to know that.

I'm not sure I agree with this conclusion. I.e. if we know that one piece of evidence was tampered with- by perhaps just one person- then ALL of the incriminating evidence must be thrown out because "the well has been poisoned". I mean that makes sense from our general standpoint (as a TV audience) but I don't think the law works that way. To put it another way, if a judge has reason to think that one piece of evidence has been tampered with, then that one piece of evidence is deemed inadmissible. But the trial goes on. They don't throw out all of the other evidence and let the guy walk.

So yeah- I do think the additional evidence presented at trial (which was not included in the doc) was probably significant. At least the jury thought so.

After watching this doc I feel like the only correct conclusion to reach is one of uncertainty. Anyone who's definitively saying they thinks he's guilty or innocent gets the side eye from me. The trial was a mess.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Believes Steven was framed and should get a new trial far from Wisconsin.

https://twitter.com/todayshow/status/684373410038718464

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

I am telling everyone in my life they have to see it.

-------------------------------
If life is stupendous one cannot also demand that it should be easy. - Robert Musil

no show has made me this mad! OMG

_________________________________________
"Too weird to live.... too rare to die..."

IG: KnowOne215 | PS+ ID: KnowOne215

http://i.imgur.com/UnJMkih.gif

_______________________________

))<>((
forever.

I just can't get with episodic television series.

Can anyone give me a brief explanation of the theme or agenda of it? I kinda assume it's an indictment of the criminal justice system. True?

and you will have no ability to not watch the next 9 as soon as humanly possible.

Enjoy.

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

but nope. It only gets worse. SMH

_________________________________________
"Too weird to live.... too rare to die..."

IG: KnowOne215 | PS+ ID: KnowOne215

Very well made. To the point where I thought it was scripted for the first 3 episodes. I don't think he's totally innocent. I think he was set up. I think the evidence as shown to us clearly show that there was some meddling and the evidence to prove is culpability are paper thin at best.

My main gripe with this case is that they use Branden Massey's testimony to nail him.In that account they talk about stabbings and cutting body parts on a mattress on which they recovered no blood whatsoever.How do you make so much blood disappear? The only DNA from the victim is the most convenient bullet ever. Stevens Avery's blood in the car is also the only DNA tying him down to the victim which had to be planted.That FBI blood test was way too conveniently quick. The fact that all appeals and higher courts refuse to give him a proper retrial is hella weird to me.

I see people signing petition for a pardon. I don't know about all that. At the very least a properly conducted investigation and trial that completely has nothing to do with anyone involved in the previous ones.

time is money, money is time
so i keep 7 o'clock in the bank and gain interest in the hour of God
I'm saving to buy my freedom, God, grant me wings, I'm too fly not to fly _ Saul Williams

if i were on that jury there's no way i could convict Steven or Brendan based solely on the evidence introduced at trial. there are too many holes in the state's theory.

- if Steven (and/or Brendan) kidnapped, raped, murdered and mutilated Teresa in Steven's trailer, garage and fire pit - why would Steven need to put Teresa's body in her SUV as evidenced by the blood and hair found in the back of the SUV? that says to me that Teresa was likely held and/or killed elsewhere and the killer or someone else may have used the SUV to move her or her body.

- if all of that ^ happened in Steven's trailer and garage there would've been much more of Teresa's DNA found. Steven isn't savvy enough to have sanitized the crime scene w/in 4 days such that none of Teresa's DNA was in the trailer and only that tiny trace was on a bullet fragment found DAYS after the police had secured the crime scene.

- Brendan's statements changed each time he told the story of what had happened. and he missed details only the killer(s) would have. i think. i need to get back into that part w/more depth. but most importantly - Brendan always started out telling the truth and when confronted by the interviewer's disbelief and alternate theory of the facts Brendan would agree w/the interviewer. he did this w/the cops, his mother, and his first lawyer's investigator. he is an entirely unreliable witness.

- Brendan's cousin Kayla should be scorned and shamed forever. but anyway, she's also unreliable. the state asked her which newscast she'd seen that had all of those gory details. umm...ALL OF THEM?!!? wtf???

...just. ugh.

and then of course there were the judges. i often feel like i'm trying my cases against the state AND the judge. i had that same feeling watching this.

and i think Steven's lawyers were great - except i winced HARD when Strang argued that the cops were framing Steven b/c they think he's guilty. b/c that argument lets the cops and the jury off the hook and makes it too easy for the jury to convict. i understand what he meant and i agree w/him but i wouldn't have made that argument. the state smartly picked up on it and told the jury that even if they disregard the planted evidence (bones in fire pit and blood in SUV) there's enough evidence to prove Steven's guilt. i disagree w/the state but that bit was set up in part by Strang's argument on this point.

the whole thing though...so sad. so sad.

fuck you.

Man, there was no way in hell as a juror I could have found that man guilty.

So many inconsistencies in the evidence, plus the fact that the officers flat out lied on the stand. There was audio evidence of them lying, shit was even in transcripts.

I tried to put myself in the shoes of the jury. Even trying to convince myself that he did it to see if it would make me feel like he really did. Didn't happen at all. Dude was fucked from the start.

If this would have happened in a larger area like some city I think he would have gotten off. These small town folk were either too scared or too stupid to make the right call.

=================
Official Okay-Super Villain™

I only play the games that I win at -
Gamertag: Innovator
PSN: DurtyGambino
Steam: Durty Gambino
Twitch.tv/durtygambino

given the current climate w/police shenanigans and whatnot.

recently i've seen 2 juries acquit defendants who raised a frame-up-by-cops defense. i was stunned. and this happened in a small, suburban jurisdiction not in a big city.

fuck you.

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

and i dunno that the new trial would rely on the same defense strategy.

my question was - if Steven could have his first trial today w/the current cultural climate as related to police shenanigans, would he more likely have a jury that's more receptive to his defense?

fuck you.

>and i think Steven's lawyers were great - except i winced HARD
>when Strang argued that the cops were framing Steven b/c they
>think he's guilty. b/c that argument lets the cops and the
>jury off the hook and makes it too easy for the jury to
>convict. i understand what he meant and i agree w/him but i
>wouldn't have made that argument. the state smartly picked up
>on it and told the jury that even if they disregard the
>planted evidence (bones in fire pit and blood in SUV) there's
>enough evidence to prove Steven's guilt. i disagree w/the
>state but that bit was set up in part by Strang's argument on

And I thought his lawyers were amazing aside from that. It's hard to say because we're only seeing clips but it felt like a game changer, because as you said it pretty much un-burdened everyone.

I also wanted to see more follow up on that recorded call the sergeant made about the Rav4, but again we are only seeing clips