Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Commanchie

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Anyone listen to the ‘Real Crime Profile’ podcast about the case? It’s pretty good and mostly free of bias (one lady is biased). There’s 3 people talking about the case, ex FBI, Scotland Yard Cop and some other person (biased lady). I’m on Part 3 and they have gone to town on Kratz and the detectives involved. The beauty of it is they are looking at the case from a purely professional capacity.

Enjoyed it also but please remember. Cops neither defend nor prosecute. They bring charges and then its left to legal professionals

Tipsy McSwagger

Commanchie wrote: »

Enjoyed it also but please remember. Cops neither defend nor prosecute. They bring charges and then its left to legal professionals

Ye because cops don’t know how the legal system is supposed to work.

Commanchie

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Ye because cops don’t know how the legal system is supposed to work.

Exactly so to judge 2 cops opinion of a case or participants in the trial is irrelevant.

Tipsy McSwagger

Commanchie wrote: »

Exactly so to judge 2 cops opinion of a case or participants in the trial is irrelevant.

Complete rubbish. These are two experienced cops who know how the legal system works. Jesus you don’t even need to be a cop or lawyer to have an opinion on the trial. As long as you are looking at the facts you can form an opinion. Should Brendan Dasseys confession have been used against him in court, no. Was there any other evidence to tie Brendan Dassey to the crime, no. So if you don’t allow the confession there is no evidence against him and he doesn’t go to prison for life. Thats the trial of Brendan Dassey nicely summed up in 2 short sentences.

Commanchie

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Complete rubbish. These are two experienced cops who know how the legal system works. Jesus you don’t even need to be a cop or lawyer to have an opinion on the trial. As long as you are looking at the facts you can form an opinion. Should Brendan Dasseys confession have been used against him in court, no. Was there any other evidence to tie Brendan Dassey to the crime, no. So if you don’t allow the confession there is no evidence against him and he doesn’t go to prison for life. Thats the trial of Brendan Dassey nicely summed up in 2 short sentences.

Thank **** youre not representing someone in court. My 7 years of study were a waste i should of went wherever you self educated or medicated, cant make out which is more likely.

pixelburp

Mod: bickering posts deleted. Seriously, stop winding each other up.

Kingp35

jv2000 wrote: »

The additional scientific tests for SA could be a bit more biased however, I am actually a scientist (not forensic) and the approach they took of knowing the outcome they wanted and working backwards is not generally supported in the scientific community

This is important. I'm sure a lot of people were swayed by the scientific testing done by Zellner and her team but it's pure conjecture and guess work on their part and they are looking to support and conclusion they've already reached.

"Experts" in criminal trials can really say whatever you want them to say by doing the above and working backwards. it's why you often get "experts" on both the defence and prosecution side who think the exact opposite of each other.

Commanchie

Kingp35 wrote: »

This is important. I'm sure a lot of people were swayed by the scientific testing done by Zellner and her team but it's pure conjecture and guess work on their part and they are looking to support and conclusion they've already reached.

"Experts" in criminal trials can really say whatever you want them to say by doing the above and working backwards. it's why you often get "experts" on both the defence and prosecution side who think the exact opposite of each other.

No thats more the case if using mental health and medical as you can match the symptoms to the end result.

With forensic testing its either black or white. KZL has shown the cracks in a fair trial thats all she needs to do

robwen

https://twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1060999822789042178?s=19

Mountainsandh

Kingp35 wrote: »

This is important. I'm sure a lot of people were swayed by the scientific testing done by Zellner and her team but it's pure conjecture and guess work on their part and they are looking to support and conclusion they've already reached.

"Experts" in criminal trials can really say whatever you want them to say by doing the above and working backwards. it's why you often get "experts" on both the defence and prosecution side who think the exact opposite of each other.

Not really. It's the nature of the beast, so to speak. You are trying to duplicate something that has already happened and has been presented as evidence.

It is my understanding that scientists wishing to confirm a theory often use duplication and reproduction of an outcome.

In the case of an investigation or trial where you only have the outcome, it makes sense to attempt duplication with the help of experts in that field.

I don't know how anyone can possibly try and rubbish that.

Kingp35

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I don't know how anyone can possibly try and rubbish that.

Quite easily tbh. There have been countless studies on the validity of forensic "science" in criminal trials and just how unscientific a lot of it is. Working backwards it not scientific, it's pure guesswork. You are taking a conclusion and then guessing as to how that conclusion was reached when in reality there could be thousands of possibilities.

In the case of Stephen Avery, I understand there is no other way of really doing it but the amount of people in this thread taking the testing done by Zellner as "fact" and "proof" of Avery's innocence is a bit mad.

jv2000

Kingp35 wrote: »

Quite easily tbh. There have been countless studies on the validity of forensic "science" in criminal trials and just how unscientific a lot of it is. Working backwards it not scientific, it's pure guesswork. You are taking a conclusion and then guessing as to how that conclusion was reached when in reality there could be thousands of possibilities.

In the case of Stephen Avery, I understand there is no other way of really doing it but the amount of people in this thread taking the testing done by Zellner as "fact" and "proof" of Avery's innocence is a bit mad.

A lot of this is dependent on the type of test being done. In the case where they are comparing different DNA samples with that of the hood latch it is a straight up analysis done using the same detection limits as the state evidence, this will provide a side by side comparison per the documentary, repeating the experiment is done per protocol to ensure the reproducibility of the test being conducted.

Something like the blood spatter is a lot more contentious as it certainly is looking at the result or desired outcome and working backwards. Zellner's team did a good job in presenting a scenario that would account for the blood spatter and also showed that the actions the state presented during the trial could never have resulted in the spatter as presented. Just because they presented a scenario does not mean other scenarios are not possible, their presented scenario is more scientifically sound than the state's assumptions and fit's their narrative but is not definitely what happened. A very good alternative example of how blood spatter results can be manipulated by working backwards is presented in the Staircase, also on Netflix.

As for the bullet, once again they have done a good job of disproving the scenario presented by the state but Zellner's conclusions could probably be picked apart by a state expert in a retrial scenario, once again they looked at what was on the bullet and worked backwards.

jv2000

Kingp35 wrote: »

Quite easily tbh. There have been countless studies on the validity of forensic "science" in criminal trials and just how unscientific a lot of it is. Working backwards it not scientific, it's pure guesswork. You are taking a conclusion and then guessing as to how that conclusion was reached when in reality there could be thousands of possibilities.

In the case of Stephen Avery, I understand there is no other way of really doing it but the amount of people in this thread taking the testing done by Zellner as "fact" and "proof" of Avery's innocence is a bit mad.

And if it wasn't clear in my other response, I agree with you

Mam of 4

I love reading people's different opinions on MaM . The pros/cons , for and against .

I've never said I thought SA was innocent entirely , but I'm as sure as hell convinced that it didn't happen the way the Prosecution said it did , and also that neither SA nor BD got a fair trail , far from it .

TomOnBoard

Mam of 4 wrote: »

I love reading people's different opinions on MaM . The pros/cons , for and against .

I've never said I thought SA was innocent entirely , but I'm as sure as hell convinced that it didn't happen the way the Prosecution said it did , and also that neither SA nor BD got a fair trail , far from it .

I'd say that more or less summarises how most ppl who have bothered to study the case feel about it.

Mam of 4

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I'd say that more or less summarises how most ppl who have bothered to study the case feel about it.

I'm not the most articulate person , but it bugs me that if you question the evidence(or lack there of ) , or how corrupt the police , the Prosecution team were , you're automatically labelled as a SA Is Innocent fan club member .

There are no winners in this case , just too many unanswered questions , where it looks like the jigsaw pieces were made to fit in , just to finish the puzzle , rightly or wrongly .

Mountainsandh

Kingp35 wrote: »

Quite easily tbh. There have been countless studies on the validity of forensic "science" in criminal trials and just how unscientific a lot of it is. Working backwards it not scientific, it's pure guesswork. You are taking a conclusion and then guessing as to how that conclusion was reached when in reality there could be thousands of possibilities.

In the case of Stephen Avery, I understand there is no other way of really doing it but the amount of people in this thread taking the testing done by Zellner as "fact" and "proof" of Avery's innocence is a bit mad.

I agree on some points, but like you said there is no other way.

If you present KZ's scenario on the blood spatter as "junk science", then so is the prosecution's analysis.

It's clear that some methods are not as reliable/proven as just analyzing DNA for example, and yet they are commonly used for both defense and prosecution.

If the prosecution are allowed to present their findings to the jury, then so should Zellner be.

The analysis of the lead on the bullet makes a lot of sense, and if I were a jury this would sway me. It seems obvious that if the lead is picking up fragments of wood, it should also pick up fragments of whatever else it hits/passes through.

Could you reasonably explain that a bullet like the one used could hit someone's skull and NOT pick up any traces of bones, BUT instead pick up wood ? oh, and pick up some unknown source of DNA on the way (ie not blood).

The experiment with the key, held by Steven for 12 minutes, is also convincing and again were I a jury in such a case, would sway me.

What's being argued here ? he put the key in his mouth ? rubbed it under his armpits or his groin ? shoved it into his non-existent underwear ?
Same with the hoodlatch ?

The experiments she has had conducted are not fanciful, they are reasonable attempts to duplicate the state's findings.

That they may not be as reliable as a science theory that has been worked and reworked from the start in a lab is evident, like I said, it goes with the territory.

youcancallmeal

Just finished watching season 2. I still think Steven Avery did it but perhaps evidence was embellished/planted by law enforcement to make sure a guilty verdict was returned. One thing I find fascinating is the American court system, in particular the en banc part of the 7th Circuit Court. Interesting how judges opinions wildly differ. And I can totally understand why the supreme court didn't want to take it

8-10

youcancallmeal wrote: »

Just finished watching season 2. I still think Steven Avery did it but perhaps evidence was embellished/planted by law enforcement to make sure a guilty verdict was returned.

There's no reason to me why Zellner's recreated theory of her driving off the property and being followed by Bobby around to Kuss Road to be bludgeoned at the back of the car and then burned in the quarry couldn't have as easily been done by Steven instead of Bobby. Maybe even more plausible that he followed her than Bobby because he is known to have had the interaction with her on the property. Could he have been pissed off at something or offended or scared her to drive off? And decided to follow her in a rage....like he's done before to his cousin from the first episode of MAM1?

Zellner looks at everything exclusively through the lens of her client being 100% innocent, but pretends she's trying to just get to the truth. I think if you have a theory of what happened, and I do think she has good reason to have a theory where she left the property and good reason to question the burn site, then you should apply that theory to all potential suspects including SA to see what makes the most sense.

Overall however, I just don't believe he did it the way the prosecution maintains that he did with Brendan. And the jury's opinion itself shows doubt with that.

Scotty #

Finished watching this last night. Great TV.

In my opinion BD was fed enough to void his confession. I'm amazed that more of the 7 judges in the appeal didn't see it that way. That said, I would like to see his unedited confession tape from start to finish. I wonder if he said anything (unfed) that could be verified. I doubt it though since they never found her body for sure, only some bones suspected to be hers, and thus they never verified that she was raped or how she was murdered.

On that, is it true to say that Brendan Dassey was convicted of the murder of Teresa Halbach by cutting her throat in the bedroom of Steven Avery's trailer and that Steven Avery was convicted of the murder of Teresa Halbach by gunshot to the head in a garage on his property. If so, how can two people be convicted of the murder of the same person, by different methods, at different locations, and presumably at different times? Was she murdered twice??!!

Whether Avery murdered her or not (and I'm not convinced he did), the investigation was corrupt. The coroner being warned away, cops who were told to stay off site finding evidence on site after the room had already been searched several times, evidence not disclosed to the defence, reports not being made, and so on. It all stinks.

Also, one thing that stuck with me from the first season was Kenneth Petersen (the sheriff from the wrongful conviction) giving evidence in the Teresa Halbach trial, said that he wasn't convinced that Avery was innocent of the rape charge even after he had been exonerated by DNA evidence. I just thought it showed the cops attitude towards SA in a very bad light.

jv2000

Scotty # wrote: »

Finished watching this last night. Great TV.

In my opinion BD was fed enough to void his confession. I'm amazed that more of the 7 judges in the appeal didn't see it that way. That said, I would like to see his unedited confession tape from start to finish. I wonder if he said anything (unfed) that could be verified. I doubt it though since they never found her body for sure, only some bones suspected to be hers, and thus they never verified that she was raped or how she was murdered.

On that, is it true to say that Brendan Dassey was convicted of the murder of Teresa Halbach by cutting her throat in the bedroom of Steven Avery's trailer and that Steven Avery was convicted of the murder of Teresa Halbach by gunshot to the head in a garage on his property. If so, how can two people be convicted of the murder of the same person, by different methods, at different locations, and presumably at different times? Was she murdered twice??!!

Whether Avery murdered her or not (and I'm not convinced he did), the investigation was corrupt. The coroner being warned away, cops who were told to stay off site finding evidence on site after the room had already been searched several times, evidence not disclosed to the defence, reports not being made, and so on. It all stinks.

Also, one thing that stuck with me from the first season was Kenneth Petersen (the sheriff from the wrongful conviction) giving evidence in the Teresa Halbach trial, said that he wasn't convinced that Avery was innocent of the rape charge even after he had been exonerated by DNA evidence. I just thought it showed the cops attitude towards SA in a very bad light.

Good summary, you have nicely pointed out the flawed system in place. Although based on Kratz's behavior to date are you really surprised he convicted both for what are essentially separate murders of the same person?

I am really curious to see how all of the Brady violations will be addressed by the legal system but at this stage I would not be surprised if it was all swept under the carpet and dismissed. It really is incredible how these processes work (or do not work as the case may be).

8-10

Scotty # wrote: »

Also, one thing that stuck with me from the first season was Kenneth Petersen (the sheriff from the wrongful conviction) giving evidence in the Teresa Halbach trial, said that he wasn't convinced that Avery was innocent of the rape charge even after he had been exonerated by DNA evidence. I just thought it showed the cops attitude towards SA in a very bad light.

Was that the guy who clearly traced SA's photo into a sketch for the original case?

Scotty #

8-10 wrote: »

Was that the guy who clearly traced SA's photo into a sketch for the original case?

No, it was this guy...

8-10

Scotty # wrote: »

No, it was this guy...

Ah yes I remember that chap. Are these full depositions available anywhere?

retro:electro

Anyone who doesn’t believe that a police force can be inherently corrupt should look a little closer to home and remember what some Gardai here did to Maurice Mc Cabe. Not comparing like with like, but it’s a sobering reminder that if police take a disliking to you and even more importantly, if they feel you have their number; there’s no telling what they could do. If that’s what can happen here on our own little island within the actual institution itself, I dread to think of the consequences when you are totally powerless to what is going on around you.

Scotty #

8-10 wrote: »

Ah yes I remember that chap. Are these full depositions available anywhere?

I had a quick look for them. They were actually never used as the case fell apart 3 weeks later when Avery was arrested for TH's murder. They were never entered into evidence and so are still owned by the company who recorded them, Magne-Script Video Court Reporting Service.

Interesting article regarding them here > https://eu.postcrescent.com/story/news/2016/03/03/why-we-obtained-avery-lawsuit-videos/81205228/

Mountainsandh

8-10 wrote: »

There's no reason to me why Zellner's recreated theory of her driving off the property and being followed by Bobby around to Kuss Road to be bludgeoned at the back of the car and then burned in the quarry couldn't have as easily been done by Steven instead of Bobby. Maybe even more plausible that he followed her than Bobby because he is known to have had the interaction with her on the property. Could he have been pissed off at something or offended or scared her to drive off? And decided to follow her in a rage....like he's done before to his cousin from the first episode of MAM1?

Zellner looks at everything exclusively through the lens of her client being 100% innocent, but pretends she's trying to just get to the truth. I think if you have a theory of what happened, and I do think she has good reason to have a theory where she left the property and good reason to question the burn site, then you should apply that theory to all potential suspects including SA to see what makes the most sense.

Overall however, I just don't believe he did it the way the prosecution maintains that he did with Brendan. And the jury's opinion itself shows doubt with that.

Yeah it did cross my mind that it could have been Steven too. That's where Bobby's computer history comes in though, and also the fact that he was around that evening to call Jodi's attorneys, etc...
A retrial would help with that.

Scotty #

Apparently some new info being revealed this evening, 6.30 our time.

https://twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1063030739426512896

retro:electro

Don’t let me down Zellner!!!

jv2000

Scotty # wrote: »

Apparently some new info being revealed this evening, 6.30 our time.

https://twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1063030739426512896

Popular rumour is that they found sweaty Kratz's blood in the RAV 4..... Season 3, here we come.

Realistically though I am not expecting anything major but hope I am wrong.It cannot be a development in the case because the media would be all over it and if it is new evidence no doubt the state will have it dismissed on the grounds of being old evidence re-packaged or for being unfounded. There is a bit of a trend with their responses to the various motions and amendments.

jv2000

retro:electro wrote: »

Don’t let me down Zellner!!!

The most recent thing that Zellner was doing (in the eyes of the public at least) was examining the Dassey computer. Could be the downfall of a non-tech-savy person as I can imagine most people in that family would think that deleting a file and emptying the recycle bin would be enough to hide information.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Letter-to-Judge-Sutkiewicz-re-Motion-to-Issue-Subpoena.pdf

the whole year inn

Scotty # wrote: »

Apparently some new info being revealed this evening, 6.30 our time.

https://twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1063030739426512896

Surely this must be something ,hopefully it is.

nc6000

Wow, that's a lot of new information just tweeted by KZ!

retro:electro

Anyone care to give a break down?

Mam of 4

nc6000 wrote: »

Wow, that's a lot of new information just tweeted by KZ!

Could you tell us the gist of it please ?
Am not on Twitter , and can only see tweets from hours ago .

ETA,
Snap Retro

inforfun

After that it is a bit of Q&A that i cant be arsed to make screenshots of.

retro:electro

Hmm.. a lot of that was already covered in MAM2 no?

Drumpot

retro:electro wrote: »

Hmm.. a lot of that was already covered in MAM2 no?

That’s what I was thinking.... Nothing really new evidence wise, just a more refined narrative of what she thinks happened...

I’m still on the fence on who killed TH, not really sure what happened. But isn’t that all you have to do in court? Prove doubt!

She’s going hard after Other members of the family.

A documentary on their family Christmas dinner alone would be probably like a Jerry springer episode.....

retro:electro

#prayforbarb :pac:

Mountainsandh

Just off the top of my head, the new stuff is that :

• Scott is now officially placed at Avery's Salvage Yard at noon on the 31st. He has always denied that saying that he was at the hospital visiting his mother until about 3pm or even later I think. There are witnesses who place him there.
  
• Teresa called the Dassey's to get the address around 11.50 or so (I think that's what I saw)(possibly slightly earlier). The killer (Bobby?) contacted her back NOT WITH A PHONE (ie, probably on the computer, via text)(they must have identified the actual message/communication since I think KZ says there is evidence of the contact).
  
  (so whatever way Steven was calling her at the time on his mobile was irrelevant, she was explained directions by the killer)
  
• The Rav4 was seen driven out of Avery's at 3.45 pm by not just Blaine, but also another 2 witnesses. Driven by unidentified driver (although Blaine had said it was Bobby).
  
• The Rav4 was seen by 3 witnesses when it was parked by the dam (previously only 1 witness I think).
  
• The battery had to be replaced in order to move the Rav4 back to ASY. The model and type of battery are common in cops cars. The new battery was the wrong size for a Rav4. Something about being under warranty, but I don't know if KZ speaks about the old or new battery.
  
• There is proof that Scott called into work on night of 3rd Nov. (not video so likely to be clocking' card).
  
• SA's burn barrel was not used to burn items : there was vegetation and tin cans in the bottom that showed it was simply topped afterward with the burned contents of the Dassey's barrel.
  
• The most exciting and promising imo : Bobby Dassey's garage is being analysed.

Tipsy McSwagger

There’s no way either Bobby or Scott would know how to plant the blood evidence. Most people wouldn’t be able to do it, It’s not a straight forward thing to do. Zellner is blaming the cops for planting the blood in MaM, who next Averys mother?

Mountainsandh

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

There’s no way either Bobby or Scott would know how to plant the blood evidence. Most people wouldn’t be able to do it, It’s not a straight forward thing to do. Zellner is blaming the cops for planting the blood in MaM, who next Averys mother?

Both are hunters and so are often "handling" blood (when dressing game : collecting it, mopping/wiping it off...they probably would know more about blood handling than you and I). She is not blaming the cops for the blood. She mentioned dilution and using a rag instead of the more sophisticated syringe or swab during the program (dilution fitted with the shape and looks of the drops iirc).

Tipsy McSwagger

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Both are hunters and so are often "handling" blood (when dressing game : collecting it, mopping/wiping it off...they probably would know more about blood handling than you and I). She is not blaming the cops for the blood. She mentioned dilution and using a rag instead of the more sophisticated syringe or swab during the program (dilution fitted with the shape and looks of the drops iirc).

Do hunters plant blood?

Uncharted

Drumpot wrote: »

She’s going hard after Other members of the family.

A documentary on their family Christmas dinner alone would be probably like a Jerry springer episode.....

The Avery family are a strange pack of individuals,that's for sure.

Weirdos.

Thepoet85

Tipsy McSwagger wrote:

There’s no way either Bobby or Scott would know how to plant the blood evidence. Most people wouldn’t be able to do it, It’s not a straight forward thing to do. Zellner is blaming the cops for planting the blood in MaM, who next Averys mother?

You could also argue that Steven and Brendan wouldn't have known how to clean up the supposed blood in the trailer and the garage.

This case constantly brings up more questions than answers. I'm not sure of their guilt nor innocence.

Tipsy McSwagger

Thepoet85 wrote: »

You could also argue that Steven and Brendan wouldn't have known how to clean up the supposed blood in the trailer and the garage.

This case constantly brings up more questions than answers. I'm not sure of their guilt nor innocence.

Well Brendan states they cleaned it with bleach, which was on the jeans he wore and entered into evidence in his trial. Planting blood is a whole different kettle of fish. Whatever happened to Avery’s taillight story?

Mountainsandh

Thepoet85 wrote: »

You could also argue that Steven and Brendan wouldn't have known how to clean up the supposed blood in the trailer and the garage.

This case constantly brings up more questions than answers. I'm not sure of their guilt nor innocence.

I think this is exactly where KZ wants people to be. Remember, she is looking to make a case for reasonable doubt.
She is not an investigator either, so the theories that she presents are just that, and they all have one purpose : establish reasonable doubt, present other potential criminals, so that a retrial is inevitable.

She says herself, she tries hard to find out who else could have done it, but ultimately, she doesn't have to.

She simply has to present enough evidence, or dismantle enough evidence to create doubt. I think she's got that, and more than enough.

She's smart though, and she knows that she also has to work on people :

a) Bobby and Scott, who, with everyday that passes without a disclaimer, are incriminating themselves a bit more. If they are innocent, surely at this stage they should come forward (lawyered up as suitable) and talk to her, give an affidavit of their version, or somewhat publicly (at least in some official manner) deny at least parts of what she is saying. Family members and other witnesses, who can surely feel the heat too. There could be one ready to crack.

b) Public opinion : as she stated, the more publicity, the more pressure, the best chance of having a case retrialed.

c) the DA and other officials who hold the reigns of the justice system. She is very subtly starting to present an opportunity for them to be the heroes everyone's been waiting for, to be the good guys who finally restored justice and stopped corruption in its tracks.
Who knows, there could be a cop about to crack too, there could be one weighing the for and against a disclosure at this point, to save their own back (to an extent) before the **** hits the fan.


Tipsy, re-your earlier comment, I can't reply for the piece of straw stuck in my eye.









I think if KZ gets the results she expects from a forensic examination of Bobby's garage (Teresa's blood or DNA), and if she has a definite proof that the replaced battery came from a recent cops car (so it can't be argued that it was a cops car bought by the ASY for parts), these will give a more definite credibility to her theories, which is bound to help. (we probably won't be told that until MaM3 though, or a retrial )

Sunflower 27

I watched both series. I think Brendan is involved but not with regards to Steven, but with Bobby and Scott. Not necessarily involved in the killing, but the covering up.

In the phone call to his mum, he admits to being involved in "some of it" but is adamant he doesn't want to see Steven. Maybe he's afraid of steven, but maybe he can't face the fact he has fingered an innocent man.

I think Brendan took the rap for his brother. Has he ever said he knows Steven didn't do it?

Brendan almost got off in series 2 without implicating his brother. I think he is holding out for his release without naming anyone.

It is quite obvious to me in the phone call between SA and Barb and the raving Scott that Steven is innocent.

That Stevens own family admit now Teresa left that day and said on stand she didn't... It's just so obvious Steven was framed.

I hope he is out soon. I'm not convinced Brendan knows nothing at all.

I also think it's guilt that Bobby doesn't visit his brother. Brendan is in there for his brother. Maybe he felt he wasn't as important to anyone or his mum as Bobby so was ok to take the blame.

Really want to see how this all unfolds....

the whole year inn

How are they allowed to analyse bobby garage and surely at this stage there is nothing left?

Sunflower 27

the whole year inn wrote: »

How are they allowed to analyse bobby garage and surely at this stage there is nothing left?

I think if there was blood there that it can still be detected. DNA as well. A man was convicted near where I live for a murder committed nearly 30 years ago when DNA was found on items that had been kept from the scene as evidence.

There is so much pointing to Teresa leaving the salvage yard now. It makes it very unlikely she died the way Brendan said she did. I know it seemed unlikely in the first place (no blood/DNA) but this seems to confirm further she didn't die at the hands of Avery.