I live in Manitowoc.

Big, big deal here. Natives are all in a buzz about it.

Did you know Steven Avery or the Avery's personally before all of this hoopla, do tell.

I'm going to make a list of things that I can remember that support both sides, to see how it adds up.

SUPPORT FOR STEVEN AVERY
1. Police had motive to plant or supplement evidence
2. There is no reason burnt bones would be in 3 different spots, while the main amount of Bones were in Avery's burn pit. If anything, there would be very few remains in Avery's burn pit and he would have moved them elsewhere.
3. Nobody with Calumet who searched the property the 1st and 2nd time ever saw the key. Manitwoc officers end up finding the key, after nobody else had.
4. Lenz & Colburn both were with the police force back when Avery was convicted falsely of the 1985 rape.
5. Colburn suspiciously calls in Hallbach's plate 2 days before the vehicle is even found to check who's it is. He already knows what vehicle it is. Then he cannot recall how he got that information.
6. The 1985 vial of Avery's blood was tampered with. Fact. There was a hole the size of a hypodermic needle in the top.
7. Avery has a trash compactor and routinely uses it, there is no reason he would just leave the car sitting on the property.
8. Avery's phone call with his fiance around 5pm and 8pm do not seem to indicate any strange life changing activity was going on. If he had committed such crimes, that would not have left him with much time to clean up as they alleged and he would be more likely to just not answer the phone, or keep the phone calls very short making an excuse he had to sleep or go somewhere.
9. The bus driver (who is the most reliable witness) disproves Bobby Dasseys timeline.
10. Bobby Dassey and his step dad alibi themselves, yet the bus driver disproves their timeline.
11. There is no DNA evidence in the garage or trailer of blood. The floor in fact had traces of other DNA of people in the Avery family, if it was bleached, there was not be any DNA to begin with.
12. We are to believe that Avery is such a homicidal psychopath that he couldn't wait a few months until he received a fat settlement that he was undoubtedly about to get?
13. Manitwoc officers magically get a premonition that they need to search the garage, again. After it was already searched. My magically find a bullet, yet no other DNA. So Avery scrubbed the garage head to toe, all of the hundreds of loose items in there, and just said, ah screw it I'll just leave the bullet fragment just sitting on the ground.



SUPPORT FOR PROSECUTION
1. Support for throwing cat over a fire, can possibly show that Avery could have psychopathic tendencies. This all depends on how it occurred though
2. Victim remains found on his property
3. Last to see the victim
4. Car found on property

Reasonable doubt. That is all you need. There certainly is reasonable doubt. Even if you THINK Avery probably or might have done it, if you aren't REALLY REALLY sure, you cannot convict him.

From my understanding, he didn't throw a cat IN the fire, but rather over it, and the cat caught fire. Basically, he wasn't trying to kill a cat, he was just being a jackass. At least that's what he says.

I would like to note however that Avery has this tendency to find himself in bad situations and yet it never seems to be his fault...is he one of those people who like to go through life always being the victim of bad circumstance? Because often times those people bring those bad circumstances on there own.

I don't know if I agree with that or not. It appeared on the documentary he didn't fight any of the previous cases against, and expressed remorse for those. Didn't say he didn't do it, etc. He may have just been painted in that light for the purposes of proving the point of the documentary, though.

A 2005 AP story reported he doused the cat in gasoline and threw it in the fire, which is a little different than his version in the documentary in which he said he basically just tossed the cat over the fire.

That is terrible. That makes me lean more towards that he may have done it. Even if he did do it, it's almost a certainty that evidence was planted.

I am open to the idea that he did it. However, I am not open to the idea that the state had enough of a case to convict him.

Maybe someone can help me here. It seems awfully weird that the same judge that presided over the original trial also resides over the appeals as well. That seems like a conflict of interest. It also happened in the West Memphis Three trials and appeals. It just seems like a reeruned policy.

my own research online

I also think if Avery did it, he'd have used the smelter in the auto yard, not a fire pit. They'd have never found her remains encased in pot metal ingots.

Colonel Mustard in the library with a lead pipe.

I saw an interview with Dean Strang (one of the defense lawyers for Steven) and he said that a forensic anthropologist told them that a burn pit wouldn't generate nearly enough heat to burn through a body as thoroughly as the bones that were found. That makes me think she was burned at the quarry by someone else and then remains transported to the burn pit. Plus the fact that bones were found in three separate locations means the remains were moved.

exactly....like I said....we're really supposed to believe he burned her IN HIS OWN BACK YARD...and then moved a couple handfuls to the quarry leaving 90 percent of her IN HIS OWN BACK YARD.

maybe Brendan would believe that....but the public at large....I don't think so.
this point should have been one of the biggest arguments for his innocence. but according to what I saw on the show...it was mentioned maybe twice...

That and would have crushed the car....

A majority of people are idiots.

Finished it tonight, and holy ****.

Remind me to stay the **** out of Wisconsin. The whole mother****ing state is corrupt - county cops, prosecutors, judges, DOJ.

Finished tonight. Cops defintely planted evidence. The judicial system was biased. The judge that sentenced him and basically called him the worst human being ever, is the one who decides the appeal? WTF?

So many holes....where is the blood if she was killed in the bedroom or garage? Why doesn't he use the car crusher? and many more.

Yeah it was a biased documentary. But, it was riveting.

Are they going to do something about those corrupt cops?

Never met him or his family.

However, people that I know who do know him believe he was fully capable of doing it. It's 2nd hand info, so I can't confirm one way or another.

Most of the natives I talk to resent the fact the national media and social media are getting involved in something they know nothing about...aside from a "slanted" documentary. I just smile and listen because tempers are rising. "Where is the concern about just for the victim?"

Finished it. Great TV.

After I went online to see if there was more to the story and they evidently left out some pretty crucial revelations from the trial -- like the fact that the murder victim and Steve Avery had a history and that she had lodged a complaint because he had met her once only wearing a towel and propositioned her.

Wasn't there so can't vouch for it -- but stuff like this along with the fact that they found DNA from other than blood inside her car leaves some doubt on his innocence...

Regardless, the behavior of the cops and defense lawyers were crazy -- just absolutely crazy...

White House Issues Response to 'Making a Murderer' Petition


The petition to free Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey, the subjects of Netflix's popular series, was started on Dec. 20 and has reached over 129,000 signatures.

The White House issued a response to a petition to pardon Steven Avery and his cousin Brendan Dassey, the subjects of Netflix's popular series Making a Murderer, on Thursday.

In a statement posted via its We the People site, the White House explained that President Obama is unable to free Avery and Dassey because their alleged crime, the murdering of 25-year-old Teresa Halbach, is a state criminal offense.

"Under the Constitution, only federal criminal convictions, such as those adjudicated in the United States District Courts, may be pardoned by the President. In addition, the President's pardon power extends to convictions adjudicated in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and military court-martial proceedings. However, the President cannot pardon a state criminal offense," the statement reads.

"Since Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey are both state prisoners, the President cannot pardon them. A pardon in this case would need to be issued at the state level by the appropriate authorities."

The petition, launched Dec. 20, pleaded for both subjects to be given a full pardon and claimed "the justice system embarrassingly failed both men, completely ruining their entire lives."

It reached 100,000 signatures, the amount required in order to elicit a response from the White House, within 30 days and has currently amassed over 129,000.

I didn't know him for shit but goddamn Ken Kratz has such a punchable face...

The DNA in the car is actually a point to the cops planting more than it is to him actually being in it. If he opened the hood, if he started the car, if he removed the battery cables ..... there would be at least a partial finger print. There was none. However you CAN plant DNA without fingerprints, you can't do what they say he did without leaving them.

the key having no other dna on it other than averys...wow.
I think he could be guilty.... he could be. he could have done it. but...from what I've seen, if I was on the jury I'd have to say I have reasonable doubt, so I'd have to vote not guilty. how in the **** any of those jurors could sit there and honestly say they have no doubt is just beyond me! they didn't know of Avery's previous involvement with the victim....so what...there was enough evidence to provide doubt.

but whether he did it or not....the simple fact that those suspect cops who where DIRECTLY involved in his first conviction (and ALMOST inarguably RAILROADED his ass!!!!) were super ****ing DUPER directly involved in the next one.....that should be grounds for dismissal of these charges! THE END. that they were involved AT ALL you'd think would be grounds for dismissal.....that they were involved to such an extent that THEY found the key 4 months after the first search....that the tampered with blood vial came from them with Lenks name on the transfer form.....just wow. unbelievable.

Never been on a jury before?

Lol, my wife keeps saying that. Those exact words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Kratz

He's a peach.

He is the prize. He has the six figure income and the $350,000 house. Just ask him.

You guys know the show did not present all of the evidence right?

If the police and prosecutor misconducted themselves then a new trial is in order. But to act as if his guilt or innocence should be determined by the editorial process of a tv show....well

The evidence left out still does not make a compelling case. There are still about a billion holes in the prosecution's case. Similar shit happened in the West Memphis Three case so it does happen.

and much of the "evidence" cited by these articles comes from one source - Ken Kratz, and has not been verified anywhere else.

BINGO

Ken Kratz the bad guy on Super Troopers?

‘Making a Murderer’ Left Out Crucial Facts, Prosecutor Says


Since Netflix released the documentary “Making a Murderer” in mid-December, its imprisoned central character has received a wave of support, including more than 275,000 signatures on a petition asking President Obama to pardon him.

The 10-part series, by the filmmakers Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos, depicts a true-crime saga that seethes with troubling questions over whether Steven Avery, a Wisconsin man convicted of the 2005 murder of a young woman, was framed by law enforcement officials.

But the prosecutor in the case, Ken Kratz, said viewers convinced of Mr. Avery’s innocence did not get to see important evidence that led a jury to convict him.

The series “really presents misinformation,” Mr. Kratz said in an interview on Monday.


He portrayed the program as a tool of Mr. Avery’s defense and accused the filmmakers of intentionally withholding facts that would lead viewers to see his guilt.


Much less than a dispassionate portrayal of the case, the film is a result of the filmmakers’ “agenda” to portray Mr. Avery as innocent and stoke public outrage, Mr. Kratz said. “That is absolutely what they wanted to happen,” he added.

Ms. Ricciardi, Ms. Demos and one of Mr. Avery’s lawyers, Dean Strang, disputed Mr. Kratz’s remarks in interviews on Monday, arguing that the documentary couldn’t have included every facet of the case.

“Our opinion is that we included the state’s most compelling evidence,” Ms. Ricciardi said.


Mr. Strang echoed that view. “No one’s going to watch a 600-hour movie of gavel-to-gavel, unedited coverage of a trial,” he said.

“Making a Murderer” has given rise to an army of armchair detectives since its release the week before Christmas. Ten years in the making, the film tracks the legal troubles of Mr. Avery, the part owner of an auto salvage yard who, in 2003, was freed after 18 years in prison when DNA evidence cleared him in a 1985 sexual assault.

He later sued Manitowoc County, Wis., officials for $36 million. Then in 2005, shortly after several county officials were deposed over their handling of evidence in the case, Mr. Avery was accused once again. This time, he was charged with the murder of Teresa Halbach, a 25-year-old photographer who had visited his property to take pictures of a vehicle for Auto Trader magazine.

In 2007, Mr. Avery was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole. The same year, his 16-year-old nephew, Brendan Dassey, was convicted of participating in the murder as well as the sexual assault of Ms. Halbach. He is serving life with the possibility of early release in 2048.

A second petition at Whitehouse.gov with more than 70,000 signatures calls on Mr. Obama to pardon Mr. Dassey along with Mr. Avery. (The president only has the power to grant pardons for crimes prosecuted under federal, not state, law.)

The documentary impugns the criminal justice system’s pursuit of Mr. Avery and Mr. Dassey at nearly every turn, pointing the finger at investigators, prosecutors and a defense lawyer who was assigned to Mr. Dassey.

The most explosive contention comes from Mr. Avery’s defense team — that law enforcement officials planted evidence to frame him.

On Monday, Mr. Kratz called the scenario “nonsense,” and he said the jury in Mr. Avery’s trial considered evidence either left out or glossed over by the filmmakers.


That evidence included DNA from Mr. Avery’s sweat found on a latch under the hood of Ms. Halbach’s Toyota RAV4, a discovery made by investigators after they were led there by Mr. Dassey, Mr. Kratz said.

Mr. Avery’s blood was found inside Ms. Halbach’s vehicle, and the documentary explains the defense theory that it could have been planted there by officers who had access to a vial of his blood. Sweat, however, never came up.

“How do you get Avery’s sweat underneath a hood latch of a vehicle?” Mr. Kratz said. “That is completely inconsistent with any kind of planting.”

Mr. Kratz also said a bullet with Ms. Halbach’s DNA on it found in Mr. Avery’s garage was matched to a rifle that hung over Mr. Avery’s bed. The gun was confiscated when officers searched his trailer on Nov. 5, 2005, and the bullet was found in the garage in March 2006, Mr. Kratz said.

“If they planted it, how did they get a bullet that was shot from Avery’s gun before Nov. 5?” he said.

Mr. Strang, the defense attorney, said on Monday that the DNA found under the hood was never identified as sweat and that its presence did not require that Mr. Avery touched the car. And bullet fragments were all over the property, where the family often shot guns. That Ms. Halbach’s DNA was on the bullet “really didn’t move the needle one way or another,” Mr. Strang said.

Mr. Kratz acknowledged some missteps in the handling of Mr. Avery’s case, saying he wished the Manitowoc County sheriff’s deputies had been less involved in the investigation. “That made the case a little more challenging for me, because I certainly took every step to keep those people out of it,” he said.

He also expressed regret about a news conference he held when Mr. Dassey was charged in early 2006. The documentary portrayed the prosecutor’s lurid description of the rape and murder of Ms. Halbach in front of a bank of news microphones as polluting the potential juror pool.

Mr. Kratz thought, at the time, that it was important to refute accusations of wrongdoing by law enforcement officers, he said.

“In retrospect, I wish I would have simply released the complaint and allowed the media to cover that however they wanted to,” he said.

Ms. Ricciardi and Ms. Demos on Monday disputed the idea that they were working on Mr. Avery’s behalf. They were inspired to create the documentary after reading about the new charges against him on the front page of The New York Times in 2005, Ms. Ricciardi said.

“He was uniquely positioned to take us and viewers from one extreme of the American criminal justice system to the other,” she said.


Ms. Ricciardi rejected the accusations of bias from Mr. Kratz, saying that his refusal to be interviewed for the documentary rendered them baseless. Mr. Kratz, who resigned as prosecutor in 2010, said he declined to participate because he did not believe the film would be impartial.

Neither the groundswell of outrage over the case, nor the attacks that have been directed at him personally, have shaken Mr. Kratz’s certainty that justice was served.

“Steven Avery committed this murder and this mutilation, and Steven Avery is exactly where he needs to be,” he said. “And I don’t have any qualms about that, nor do I lose any sleep over that.”

This documentary just hammers the fact that you should never ever talk to the police. They are liars and they do not have your best interests at heart.

The FBI testing of the blood sealed the deal. The defense brought in the chemical analyst to dismiss the results but I wouldnt doubt much of her testimony went over the jurors heads.

It also seemed desperate at that point. The blood was the defense only real shot at proving he was framed and/or the killer was actually still out there. He was screwed from a Federal level on down.

And Lenk....man that dude could easily be a hitman. Ice cold...just straight up ice friggin cold.

We weren't that far from there..I'm never going back. How in the **** does a judge allow evidence from police who weren't even supposed to be on the scene...MONTHS LATER

ROFL:clap:

Shots fired

I was watching CROPSEY right after this (horror documentary) and a lot of the same issues came up. It's worth watching for a number of (related) reasons...

The ex-boyfriend always stuck out to me...

It never ceases to amaze me how people fold right up when the police start going on about how they're trying to "help" and how they'll let others know how you cooperated or they'll go hard on you if you don't help.

Just say I want my lawyer.

My biggest question...how in the **** is Brendan Dassey's original lawyer, Len Kachinsky, still allowed to practice law?

The guy has his investigator pull a detailed written confession, complete with illustrations, out of Dassey. When that scene started, I had to rewind it to confirm it was actually Dassey's own people doing this because I was sure it had to be the prosecution making him confess.

Then Kachinsky sends Dassey, with the written and illustrated confession, to talk to the prosecution--without Kachinsky even present. WTF?!
Never seen or heard of anything like it. Just ****ing bizarre.

It was telling when they brought up police training to get a confession and not necessarily the truth. Which is the overlooked fail in this whole thing is the disservice the state of Wisconsin did Teresa Halbach and her family by never properly investigating her murder. As a result, they're having to relive everything right now with all the buzz surrounding this docuseries.

Not to mention that at the same time, the investigator was working for the prosecution in the Avery case. Conflict of interest much?

what's your point?

Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction.

that is the jurors duty.
so I'll say again.....reworded...how in the **** any of those jurors could sit there and honestly say they have NO reasonable doubt is just beyond me!

as a matter of fact it was discussed that initially it was pretty much split down the middle and that a couple of folks were total turds in their lack of participation and lack of entertaining any other concept other than GUILTY. too bad none of the folks that DID have reasonable doubt folded and went with the crowd. seems to me they failed in their duty. if you have a reasonable doubt...then you must vote not guilty. amiright?

hell the cops from the first wrongful conviction....their absolute and TOTAL participation would have been enough of a reasonable doubt for me. not to mention the lack of blood in either supposed murder scene.
honestly....I think he probably did it. but as a juror....I'm pretty sure I'd have doubt.

Wasn't even split down the middle. According to the juror that was medically dismissed, when they initially started deliberations there were 7 that thought not guilty, 3 guilty, and 2 undecided. But the 3 that thought he was guilty were adamant, and possibly had their minds made up before the trial.

That Dassey kid shouldn't be in prison..he had no clue what happened

The investigators would question him..he would answer with something they didn't like so they steered him with their questions and said what they wanted him to say

Was there a body in the fire pit
No
Are you sure
Yes
Don't lie to us. We are here to help. You seen a and or foot or head or arm in the fire didn't you
Yeah
Yeah what
I seen toes

Horseshit..that kid didn't see shit..he was sitting on his ass playing playstation or watching movies

Then his first lawyer was the most worthless rat faced **** alive..every time he smiled I wanted to kick a puppy

Second one wasn't much better. They play 3 hours of his taped confession, but prosecution AND defense agree to not play the rest of the tape, including the part where he tells his mom he made it all up - that the investigators "got inside my head"?!?!?!

I forgot about the part..his defense probably didn't watch the whole video himself

There was defntely reasonable doubt. No blood at the scene. 4 months later they find the evidence? Give me a break. He may be guilty but the cops totally ****ed this up. Just how did he kill her like they say he did without the blood being everywhere?

I see that Kathleen Zellner has picked up Avery's case. She specializes in exonerations and has like 13 so far. Brendan's case was picked up by Northwestern so he is in good hands as well.

YES!!!

I noticed the listing on Netflix as "Season 1"....so perhaps they will follow the exoneration proceedings as well. I want him out before either of his parents pass.

The only words you should say are:

"I plead the fifth and I want my lawyer."

Pleading the fifth isn't a sign of guilt, it is the smart thing to do.

"God I apologize...I keep thinking of the ribbon....."

I wanted to kick his ass so bad. So damn fake.

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/...0160107?page=4

This case is so damn much like the West Memphis Three that it's scary. If it continues to follow that path, there will be at least a few more hours of shows to follow the post-conviction stuff. The West Memphis Three HBO specials (called "Paradise Lost") are interesting in that part 1 just followed the trial and really didn't say anything about guilt/innocence. Part 2, 10 years later, introduced some questions and concerns that people had about the trial. Part 3, almost 10 years after that, basically just said, "holy shit, get those guys the **** out of prison!".

"Hello?"
"Yeah?"
"Yeah."

"What does 'inconsistent' mean?"

The 1st time I saw that, I honestly thought his attorney was just trying to make a point. Trying to make a video to show how suggestible Dassey was to show to the court. Then it occurred to me they are actually trying to make this poor idiot kid say he did the these things, because they are lazy.

this!
yeah whatever dude

wow.
yeah #2 goes a LOOOOOONG way towards me better understanding how in the hell those jurors all voted to convict!
in a perfect world you'd stick to your guns and say...no ****ing way you guys can sit there and honestly say you don't have reasonable doubt....but I get it.

you're on a jury with relatives of the cops who are under fire! I get it...I can see why someone said this.

"If they could frame Steven Avery, they could do it to me,'"

My wife and I thought it was strange how the police insisted that Averys girlfriend Jodi stay away from him during the trial. Interesting article popped up today...looks like that may have been staged to get her out of an abusive situation with Avery.

http://news.yahoo.com/steven-averys-...170646126.html

Steven Avery's Ex-Girlfriend's Confession Might Change Our Minds About His Innocence
Mic By Philip Lewis

In a shocking update Wednesday night, the ex-fiancée of convicted murderer Steven Avery told the world "he's not innocent." Avery, the subject of Netflix's popular crime documentary Making a Murderer, is presumed by many to be innocent in the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach, a local photographer.

However, Jodi Stachowski's interview with HLN's Nancy Grace show has many viewers scratching their heads. "Steven's the one person I don't trust," Stachowski said in the interview, according to the Daily Beast. "He's like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, behind closed doors, he's a monster." This revelation comes as a surprise to those who recognize Stachowski as a caring partner to Avery.

Stachowski told HLN senior producer Natisha Lance that she knew Avery was guilty of murder "because of the way I know he is." When the interviewer asked Stachowski if Avery was capable of murder, Stachowski acknowledged that he could have been.

"Yeah," Stachowski told Lance during the interview, as reported by the Daily Beast. "Hurting people. He told me once, excuse my language, 'all bitches owe him' because of the one that sent him to prison the first time. We all owed him."

Making a Murderer follows Avery, who spent 18 years in prison after being convicted of sexual assault in 1985. He was then exonerated and released in 2003, and then sentenced for the 2005 murder of Halbach, although the evidence is unclear. But Stachowski believes the time has come to reveal "what a monster he is," she said during the interview. "He's not innocent."

Avery met Stachowski in 2003, after his release from prison. Stachowski allegedly told directors Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos that she was not interested in being on Making A Murderer. "Steven called me and told me that if I didn't say anything good and nice about him, I'd pay," Stachowski told Lance, according to MTV. "He'd beat me."

Twitter had mixed reactions toward Stachowski's revelation, much of it skepticism.

Stachowski's two-year relationship with Avery was troubled, and filled with alleged abuse, according to Stachowski. "I ate two boxes of rat poison just so I could go to the hospital and get away from him and ask them to get the police to help me," she told Lance during the segment, according to the Daily Beast.

During the interview, Stachowski recalled Avery threatening to burn her house down, verbally threatening her and physically assaulting her. "I was in a bath and he threatened to throw a blow dryer in there, and he told me that he'd be able to get away with it," Stachowski told Lance.

"He'd beat me all the time, punch me, throw me against the wall. I tried to leave and he smashed the windshield out of my car so I couldn't leave him."

When asked if she believes Avery is guilty of killing Halbach, Stachowski said, "I do, because he threatened to kill me and my family and a friend of mine."

Stachowski, who maintains that she has never watched an episode of Making A Murderer, said the documentary is "all lies."

"It was all an act," Stachowski told Lance, the Daily Beast reported. "He told me how to act. He said smile, be happy. I didn't know what to do. I didn't want to get hurt."

They staged arresting her multiple times to get her out of an abusive situation with a guy who was no threat to her on account of his being in jail?

Guess I missed that part of the documentary. It just seemed strange the police could basically put a restraining order to keep them from contacting each other when he was already behind bars.

Ya, I don't buy that at all.

Just like the Judge claiming his crimes got worse..WTF? guy was in prison for 18 years for a crime HE DIDN'T COMMIT.

Bottom line.. the State wasn't about to pay the guy after falsely accusing him TWICE.

It would not surprise me a bit if Nancy "The Un****able Monster" Grace fed her each and every line of that interview. That bitch thinks everyone is guilty all the time. She bled all over the screen for months after the Casey Anthony verdict.

Nancy Grace = former prosecutor. One who was found to have conducted prosecutorial misconduct in two cases.

I hate Nancy Grace with every fibre of my being.

Like a 1,000 supernova suns.

But...Of course, Casey Anthony actually was guilty. Doesnt matter how wrong the jury got it.

I don't see how the ex got locked up for smiling at her fiancé either? How does that break an illegal no contact order to begin with, when the cops are the ones that had them just happen to pass each other in jail?

How is that even possible?

You know I watched this and it made me wonder what's in the water up there..everyone seems like they are missing chromosomes.

Inbred.

In a somehwhat related note, supposedly SA molested his nephew.

lol!

With all the anecdotes about Avery being a low life, I'm firmly in the camp that he probably murdered Halbach but Calumet and Manitowoc realized there wasn't enough concrete evidence on their first few days of the investigation to convict the literal poster boy of the Innocence Project, so they planted the key, bullets and the blood in the RAV4 to link a physical trail to SA.

Brennan Dassey's confession was meant to the be the slam dunk in order to both have a conspirator if the physical evidence wasn't enough as well as to allay notions of reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. Cynically, I think members of the Avery/Dassey clan sacrificed Brennan to ensure Steven got taken down, too.

She needs to be punched in the face along with her twins. Could you imagine being raised by her, yet the pour sap married to her? They will probably turn out being serial killers. I do not condone punching women or babies, she is the exception.

You could tell that Colborn guy was lying lol. Holy crap. I don't know if he did it or not, but either way, that sheriff's department and county is corrupt and shady as hell.

I thought the same exact thing.

I still don't believe in the motive.

Avery was about to get PAID.

I'm still wondering what the motive is supposed to be...

The other Dassey boy came out of nowhere and gave zero fux about his uncle. His testimony was equal a blow as the fbi blood test results.