Steven Avery (making a murderer) Guilty or innocent?

weisses

John_D80 wrote: »

Thats kind of my whole point and the reason that the whole world has got behind him and his case.

Based on the doc alone he is innocent, as the makers intended him to be seen. But its what is not in the doc that tells the truth.

There is still enough conflicting evidence presented in that Doc to cause reasonable doubt

Unless what is presented is factually false

John_D80

weisses wrote: »

There is still enough conflicting evidence presented in that Doc to cause reasonable doubt

I'm sorry but that reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Both sides managed to discredit each others evidence at times during the trial.

To make an informed decision, you must look at the trial as whole in all instances.

Graham Dwyer was (rightly) convicted with far less material and physical evidence than Avery was but there aren't many people advocating his case. I'm sure if the makers of ''Making a Murderer'' wanted to they could present him in an equally flatering light as they did to Steven Avery.

weisses

John_D80 wrote: »

I'm sorry but that reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Both sides managed to discredit each others evidence at times during the trial.

To make an informed decision, you must look at the trial as whole in all instances.

Graham Dwyer was (rightly) convicted with far less material and physical evidence than Avery was but there aren't many people advocating his case. I'm sure if the makers of ''Making a Murderer'' wanted to they could present him in an equally flatering light as they did to Steven Avery.

Don't think so ... Jury only needs reasonable doubt, and that was presented in the Doc

Problem was the Jury

Richard Mahler claims

“After the trial, I found out…[one juror] was the father of a Manitowoc County Sheriff’s deputy. Another juror, his wife works for the Manitowoc County Clerk’s Office… I thought to myself, they shouldn’t have been on the jury. That was a conflict of interest

The allegation states that there was behind-the-scenes vote-trading, which lead to the compromise that was suggested in the show.
“That was the actual word the juror used and went on to describe the jurors ultimately trading votes in the jury room and explicitly discussing, ‘If you vote guilty on this count, I will vote not guilty on this count.””

This was also left out of the Documentary

And more that was left out

http://www.avclub.com/article/read-pro-steven-avery-list-what-was-left-out-makin-230634

Eircom_Sucks

personally feel he's not guilty , the fact alone that manotowic police found the car key 7 or 8 days after initially searching his place , plus they were never meant to be a part of the search , alot of fishy **** going on there

John_D80

weisses wrote: »

Don't think so ... Jury only needs reasonable doubt, and that was presented in the Doc

The documentary was purposely engineered to leave you, the viewer with doubt. Is that not obvious to you?

Of course you are going to think this was the case. I did too before I actually went out of my way to read up on it.

weisses

John_D80 wrote: »

The documentary was purposely engineered to leave you, the viewer with doubt. Is that not obvious to you?

Of course you are going to think this was the case. I did too before I actually went out of my way to read up on it.

I just did and read up on it ..Hence my previous post

Or did the documentary makers influenced all these points as well ?

Rabo Karabekian

John_D80 wrote: »

So.... much ...... waffle ........ in one post.

Being devoid of any desire to trawl through that TLDR post of yours, I'll just answer this bit.

Yes I do.

It was 19 lines (most of the TLDR was quoting your posts) all directly responding to things you said. If you can't wade through 19 lines of text, all in direct response to what you've said, I think you might be on the wrong site.

John_D80 wrote: »

Joking aside folks (this is the AH forum after all), I really dont see the point of debating an issue with people who have plainly based their opinion solely on the documentary that is highly highly flawed in that is basically ignoring very important facts. Especially when all the evidence that wasn't shown in the doc is widely available for all to scrutinise.

I was as outraged as everyone else is when I saw it first but it didn't take long to change my mind when I really looked into it.

I'm not trying to wind people up here.

None of the evidence (that I've seen) either from the trial (and left out of the documentary) or post-trial indicates anything that is irrefutable truth. This is why people are asking you to point out exactly what was irrefutable about the evidence. The only thing that you've pointed to that might be considered 'proof' is the DNA found in the car, but as has been pointed out numerous times, this is far from irrefutable.

I'm not sure why you think people would be blindly waving the flag for Avery: he seems to have been quite an odious person (particularly in his earlier years) and there is nothing in the documentary that would make me think that he's definitely guilty or innocent. The salient point is there are numerous areas which would definitely suggest police tampering with evidence. If that's the case, there's is no way that you can say that he is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

That was only 9 lines. I'm sure you can manage that.

Flint Fredstone

John_D80 wrote: »

Bingo, you figured me out!!

I mean there is no way someone would genuinely have the temerity and outright gall to express an opinion that differs from the majority. God forbid, especially on THE INTERNET!!!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I didn't say anything like that. You are carrying on as if you are the only one here that has bothered to investigate after the documentary. I've seen all that stuff you refer to, I've also seen it explained. If you lost the superiority complex there might be a decent discussion to be had.

John_D80

weisses wrote: »

I just did and read up on it ..Hence my previous post

Or did the documentary makers influenced all these points as well ?

You clearly said that the documentary alone was enough to provide reasonable doubt. Can you not see what a ludicrous statement that is when the documentary only showed about 5% of the actual evidence?

EDIT:Sorry what you actually said was the doc alone was enough to 'not convict'. My bad.

John_D80

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

I didn't say anything like that. You are carrying on as if you are the only one here that has bothered to investigate after the documentary. I've seen all that stuff you refer to, I've also seen it explained. If you lost the superiority complex there might be a decent discussion to be had.

Its quite obvious that there are plenty people who didn't bother doing even a little deeper reading on it.

As someone that has read the trial transcripts you should have been able to see that from reading their posts.

John_D80

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

It was 19 lines (most of the TLDR was quoting your posts) all directly responding to things you said. If you can't wade through 19 lines of text, all in direct response to what you've said, I think you might be on the wrong site.



None of the evidence (that I've seen) either from the trial (and left out of the documentary) or post-trial indicates anything that is irrefutable truth. This is why people are asking you to point out exactly what was irrefutable about the evidence. The only thing that you've pointed to that might be considered 'proof' is the DNA found in the car, but as has been pointed out numerous times, this is far from irrefutable.

I'm not sure why you think people would be blindly waving the flag for Avery: he seems to have been quite an odious person (particularly in his earlier years) and there is nothing in the documentary that would make me think that he's definitely guilty or innocent. The salient point is there are numerous areas which would definitely suggest police tampering with evidence. If that's the case, there's is no way that you can say that he is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

That was only 9 lines. I'm sure you can manage that.

Just about. Thanks.

recylingbin

Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. Why take a chance?

The Raptor

John_D80 wrote: »

The documentary was purposely engineered to leave you, the viewer with doubt. Is that not obvious to you?

Of course you are going to think this was the case. I did too before I actually went out of my way to read up on it.

Didn't some of the jurors have doubts too? 7 of them originally thought he was innocent. These were the people day in, day out who watched it unfold in front of them. So I don't think the documentary was made to leave us with doubt.

Ken Kraft was also asked to take part but refused. We could have seen the other side during the whole trial.

He too put doubts into peoples minds on television holding a press conference the day after Brendan's confession and thats what he wanted. It was like as if he had all the proof needed.

John_D80

The Raptor wrote: »

Ken Kraft was also asked to take part but refused. We could have seen the other side during the whole trial.

Everyone knew the filmmakers agenda perfectly well. Of course they would not have taken part.

Were Teresa's family asked to take part? Any other law enforcement officials? What about prominent members of the Community in Manitowoc? After all Stevens family and friends took part didn't they?

From day one the makers of the doc had one goal. And it certainly wasn't to present the 'other side' as you call it.

Birneybau

recylingbin wrote: »

Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. Why take a chance?

Really?

John_D80

recylingbin wrote: »

Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. Why take a chance?

Birneybau wrote: »

Really?

He's joking I'm sure!! At least I hope so! :-)

Senna

Say he did do it and say the police did plant evidence, do you think he should get off because of the polices actions?

The Raptor

John_D80 wrote: »

Everyone knew the filmmakers agenda perfectly well. Of course they would not have taken part.

Were Teresa's family asked to take part? Any other law enforcement officials? What about prominent members of the Community in Manitowoc? After all Stevens family and friends took part didn't they?

From day one the makers of the doc had one goal. And it certainly wasn't to present the 'other side' as you call it.

Yes Teresa's family was asked to take part but refused. For a brother who loved talking and being on TV, you would think that he would take part and tell the whole world just how guilty he was.

The filmmakers didn't know at the start how it was going to go. They stood back quietly to film it. Either side of it. After all, its real interesting that a man due to get 36 million was released from prison two years earlier for a crime he didnt commit and spent 18 years in prison for. Did he do it or not.

So no, everyone didn't know their agenda. The cops and detectives didn't want the story exposed to the whole world. It shows them in a bad light.

Also, during the trial Ken Kraft says "so what if we planted the evidence". What a thing to say. Of course, they wouldn't take part, they were too busy framing someone and lies can catch up with you the more people they had to talk to.

smash

John_D80 wrote: »

Documentary was the most lopsided and biased piece I have ever seen. When you look at all the evidence that was left out of the doc, it's obvious they are both guilty as well.

Avery is one sick puppy.

There was no left out evidence which points to his guilt. Any supposed evidence that came out as being omitted by the directors of the documentary has all been debunked or was completely unsubstantiated. It was Ken Kraft who spread the rumours just to save face. For some better insights have a look here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/40dquo/prodefense_information_that_was_left_out_of_mam/

mynamejeff

big rapey head on him ,

guilty of course

Rabo Karabekian

Senna wrote: »

Say he did do it and say the police did plant evidence, do you think he should get off because of the polices actions?

It would suggest that he did not receive a fair trial, so I would think a retrial or the case being struck out would be the only fair option.

Rayne Wooney

Senna wrote: »

Say he did do it and say the police did plant evidence, do you think he should get off because of the polices actions?

Yes otherwise why have a justice system

Miniegg

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that a scenario was in place where some members of the MCPD agreed that should a serious crime be committed in Manitowoc, pin it on Steven Avery. Their livelihoods, reputations and those of their familes were at stake at the hands of a dirty lowlife scumbag with serious behavioral issues.


The possibility of this scenario is evident in the fact that the MCPD were not supposed to be involved in any way in the investigation. The fact that certain officers illegally got themselves involved surely throws doubt over the whole investigation. Doubly so, the fact that it was those same officers that found all of the evidence pointing Avery to the killing surely makes the whole investigation farcical. That is before we even look into how dubious or not the evidence actually was.


The police had much more of a motive to frame Avery for the murder than he had to actually commit it. Surely this is evident to all?

Senna

The Raptor wrote: »

The filmmakers didn't know at the start how it was going to go.

Yes they did, they only got involved after he was arrested, after his release for the rape, after the $36m lawsuit fell apart, after questions were being asked about the investigation.
The documentary is about the botched investigation, which was already known.

The documentary is a good story, but it just shows the power of TV and maybe the naivety of the general public.
Everyone who has reviewed the case is sure of his guilt, the innocence society would be the first to take on the case, since Avery was already helped by them once, but they won't touch it. Why do think that is? They didn't watch the documentary, they reviewed the case.

The Raptor

Senna wrote: »

Yes they did, they only got involved after he was arrested, after his release for the rape, after the $36m lawsuit fell apart, after questions were being asked about the investigation.
The documentary is about the botched investigation, which was already known.

The documentary is a good story, but it just shows the power of TV and maybe the naivety of the general public.
Everyone who has reviewed the case is sure of his guilt, the innocence society would be the first to take on the case, since Avery was already helped by them once, but they won't touch it. Why do think that is? They didn't watch the documentary, they reviewed the case.

How else would they get involved before he was arrested?

Cienciano

This is from youtube, the best explanation of what happened imho:

The police didn't kill Theresa Halbach. Andrew Colborn located that RAV4 with the assistance of Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas who illegally trespassed onto the Avery Salvage Yard on the night of November 3rd 2005. Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas suspected something was up since the Avery Salvage Yard was the last place they knew Theresa visited on Oct.31st Halloween day. They went snooping on the property and found the car. They checked the car and found the key in the ignition and blood in the cargo area. Mike or Ryan removed the key from the ignition to ensure that no one could easily move the car off of the Avery property... freaked out about this huge discovery they call the Manitowoc Sheriffs Department. Andrew Colborn fielded the call that night and went out and met Ryan and Mike at the Salvage Yard so he could view the car for himself. Ryan and Mike show him the car and to be certain its Halbachs he "calls" in the plate number to dispatch. Colborn has to "call" in... instead of "radio" in... the plate number to Manitowoc dispatch because he wasn't in his police cruiser at the moment, but rather on foot and in the "field' on the Avery Salvage property. This mistake places Colborn at the scene and in contact with Halbachs RAV4... 2 days before it is officially located on November 5th, 2005, by Pam Sturm.... This is problematic for Colborn because all call and radio transmissions to dispatch are recorded and logged onto the Manitowoc Police server. Andrew Colborn is now operating outside of police protocol at a potential crime scene that he has no official directive to be at. He tells Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas to basically STFU about what they found and not mention to anyone that they were ever on the Avery Salvage property that night. Ryan or Mike turns the RAV4 key over to Andrew Colborn. Mike and Ryan are told to go home. Andrew Colborn then immediately calls Lt. James Lenk and briefs him about the discovery of the Halbach car and breaches of protocol he committed on the Avery property, also about Ryan Hillegas and Mike Halbach being there. Lt James Lenk realizing that Colborn's calling in Halbachs plate is a serious mistake with potential consequences orders Andrew Colborn to remove the license plate from Halbach's car and then report to him immediately.
What James Lenk and Andrew Colborn, or the others for that matter, don't realize at this point and are completely unaware of is that Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych have kidnapped, raped, shot and then burned Theresa Halbach in the privacy of the gravel quarry off of Jambo Rd on Halloween evening. They choose to burn her body to dispose of their DNA evidence of the crimes. They hid Halbach's car in the rear of Avery Salvage and wiped it clean of their prints. I believe it is Scott Tadych's idea to secretly transport the cremains of Halbach from the gravel quarry and dispose them into Steven Avery's burn pit. Scott Tadych transports Halbach's cremains in secret by using one of Barb Jandas burn barrels from her yard. Scott Tadych fails to collect all of Halbach's cremains from the original burn site in the gravel quarry, thus leaving some behind that FBI investigators later find... but he also fails in making certain all of Halbach's cremains are out of Barb Jandas burn barrel after dumping them into Steven Avery's burn pit. This is why investigators found small bits of Halbach in Barb Jandas burn barrel. Thus making a total of three sites where Halbach's cremains are found. Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey are unaware that Ryan Hillegas and Mike Halbach have found Theresas car on the property and that Lenk and Colborn are now involved and in play with their scheme. .........By shear colossal luck, two completely independent frame jobs targeting one man, Steven Avery were shaping up into the perfect storm. On one front, from Lenk and Colborn regarding the RAV4, ....and on the other unconnected front by Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey regarding the cremains of Theresa Halbach. One party wasn't aware of the other's involvements at any point during the days leading up to the official discovery of Halbach's RAV4 at the Avery Salvage Yard hence why the investigation and murder trial made zero sense to anyone especially the Jury.
None of the evidence could be connected because it was all unrelated... everybody was guessing. But Buting and Strang had zeroed in on a part of it but couldn't fully form a solid defense to prove it. The Jury couldn't conceive that Manitowoc officers could have conspired to kill Theresa Halbach to frame Steven Avery as Ken Kratz insisted they had to if they wanted to follow the theory the defense presented of the frame up of Steven Avery by Manitowoc officials. And Ken Kratz was right... Imagine Scott Tadych's confused and utter relief when Steve Avery's blood was found in the Halbach car and the RAV4 key found in Steve Avery's bedroom..... he must have been like.... WTF?! A quote from Scott Tadych after Steven Avery is convicted of Theresa Halbach's murder.... "THIS IS THE GREATEST THING TO EVER HAPPEN" ..... We will see Scott, we will see....................."
This is probably the most credible theory I have come across so far. Notice how the events here not only make logical sense, but they also line up with how many of the parties involved behaved during the documentary i.e how Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas seemed like they knew more about what happened than they were leading on. As well as Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey's bizarre hostility towards Steven Avery.

Senna

The Raptor wrote: »

How else would they get involved before he was arrested?

You stated they stood back and filmed both sides of it, they did not, the doc was about the botched investigation from averys side, I was pointing out your statement is incorrect by admission of the documentary markers.

The Raptor

Senna wrote: »

You stated they stood back and filmed both sides of it, they did not, the doc was about the botched investigation from averys side, I was pointing out your statement is incorrect by admission of the documentary markers.

I didn't state that at all.

I was replying to someone who stated that the filmmakers had one agenda.

I said that they stood back to film quietly. Full stop there. They would have taken any side but her family refused and the police department refused. That's the second side to the story.

letsseehere14

To Cienciano. If all calls are logged, such as Colburn call to the dept calling in the reg then where is the log of Ryan and Mikes call in to get Colburn out?

The Raptor

letsseehere14 wrote: »

To Cienciano. If all calls are logged, such as Colburn call to the dept calling in the reg then where is the log of Ryan and Mikes call in to get Colburn out?

Am i missing something, did Ryan, the ex and Mike, her brother call Colburn out?

Or was this when they were searching his property? And they found her car?

letsseehere14

The Raptor wrote:

Or was this when they were searching his property? And they found her car?

The Raptor wrote:

Am i missing something, did Ryan, the ex and Mike, her brother call Colburn out?

It was a theory put forward a few posts above. I was just pointing out a hole in that theory.

John_D80

The Raptor wrote: »

Yes Teresa's family was asked to take part but refused. For a brother who loved talking and being on TV, you would think that he would take part and tell the whole world just how guilty he was.

The filmmakers didn't know at the start how it was going to go. They stood back quietly to film it. Either side of it. After all, its real interesting that a man due to get 36 million was released from prison two years earlier for a crime he didnt commit and spent 18 years in prison for. Did he do it or not.

So no, everyone didn't know their agenda. The cops and detectives didn't want the story exposed to the whole world. It shows them in a bad light.

Also, during the trial Ken Kraft says "so what if we planted the evidence". What a thing to say. Of course, they wouldn't take part, they were too busy framing someone and lies can catch up with you the more people they had to talk to.

Major facepalm for you here bud. The film makers only got involved long after the case was well and truly rolling. More careful editing suggested they were around from the start but thats just not true.

hufpc8w3adnk65

What other documentrys are out there that show the other side of the case?

The Raptor

John_D80 wrote: »

Major facepalm for you here bud. The film makers only got involved long after the case was well and truly rolling. More careful editing suggested they were around from the start but thats just not true.

Alright Ken Kraft

Major facepalm for you.

Here's their story and how it came about

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/us/freed-by-dna-now-charged-in-new-crime.html?_r=0&referer=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/03/how-we-made-making-a-murderer-filmmakers-moira-demos-and-laura-ricciardi-pull-back-the-curtain.html

It was after reading an article, which is linked in the one above

Here it is
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/us/freed-by-dna-now-charged-in-new-crime.html?_r=0&referer=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/03/how-we-made-making-a-murderer-filmmakers-moira-demos-and-laura-ricciardi-pull-back-the-curtain.html

Dated 23 Novemver 2005. They packed up and moved to start filming.

When did they find Teresa's car on Avery's property, November 5th. I don't remember when Steven Avery was arrested but it mustn't have been that much longer.

A space of 18 days or 3 weeks. That was not very long enough. At this stage, they did not know what way it was going to go. How you suggest they did and they only had one agenda, I don't know.

John_D80

The Raptor wrote: »

Alright Ken Kraft

Major facepalm for you.

Here's their story and how it came about

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/us/freed-by-dna-now-charged-in-new-crime.html?_r=0&referer=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/03/how-we-made-making-a-murderer-filmmakers-moira-demos-and-laura-ricciardi-pull-back-the-curtain.html

It was after reading an article, which is linked in the one above

Here it is
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2005/11/23/us/freed-by-dna-now-charged-in-new-crime.html?_r=0&referer=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/03/how-we-made-making-a-murderer-filmmakers-moira-demos-and-laura-ricciardi-pull-back-the-curtain.html

Dated 23 Novemver 2005. They packed up and moved to start filming.

When did they find Teresa's car on Avery's property, November 5th. I don't remember when Steven Avery was arrested but it mustn't have been that much longer.

A space of 18 days or 3 weeks. That was not very long enough. At this stage, they did not know what way it was going to go. How you suggest they did and they only had one agenda, I don't know.

Lol you do realise your post just proves MY point and not yours, dont you??

Brilliant!!"

The Raptor

John_D80 wrote: »

Lol you do realise your post just proves MY point and not yours, dont you??

Brilliant!!"

A mere 3 weeks isn't long into the case like you said it was.

They didn't know how it was going to go so they didn't have one goal on their agenda like you said they did. It could have went any way. They could have found a new suspect if they looked hard enough. But to say that the filmmakers had one goal is absolutely rubbish. They also came out that the detectives wouldn't talk to them or Teresa's family. They would have filmed their side too if they wanted to speak up.

Don't get all upset that people are trying to tell you the facts and you won't accept them.

Rabo Karabekian

The Raptor wrote: »

Don't get all upset that people are trying to tell you the facts and you won't accept them.

I think that's his general way of operating since he started posting about this.

The Raptor

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

I think that's his general way of operating since he started posting about this.

He sounds like Ken Kraft wailing.

HardenendMan

I am bemused by John_D80's reasoning. And I find that everyone who decides Avery is guilty has the same flawed reasoning.

If someone says he is not guilty, they are clearly implying that physical evidence to the contrary has been planted (key, blood, bullet etc).

For you to be sure of "guilty", you need to show evidence that could not have been planted.

If there is one piece of such evidence I would love to hear it. Rather than be told to google it and only finding the same old same old refutable points.

shamrock55

I honestly think both are innocent,stitched up big time

John_D80

The Raptor wrote: »

A mere 3 weeks isn't long into the case like you said it was.

They didn't know how it was going to go so they didn't have one goal on their agenda like you said they did. It could have went any way. They could have found a new suspect if they looked hard enough. But to say that the filmmakers had one goal is absolutely rubbish. They also came out that the detectives wouldn't talk to them or Teresa's family. They would have filmed their side too if they wanted to speak up.

Don't get all upset that people are trying to tell you the facts and you won't accept them.

I've taken the time to find out the facts. Wish some here would do the same. I've yet to meet anyone who still believes in their innocence, having acquainted themselves with the full story. Except for here it seems. Or else guys are just making out they know what they are talking about!! 😊 😊 😊

Do you seriously think for one second that the family or the law enforcement officials would hav jeopardized the case by actively engaging with documentary film makers while the trial was ongoing?? Get real mate.

It was never going to happen so stop making out that the filmmakers were impartial. Anyone wit a brain can plainly see that is not true.

HardenendMan

John_D80 wrote: »

I've taken the time to find out the facts. Wish some here would do the same. I've yet to meet anyone who still believes in their innocence, having acquainted themselves with the full story. Except for here it seems. Or else guys are just making out they know what they are talking about!! 😊 😊 😊

Why don't you just stick up just one of these facts? Just to prove your argument no?

Or maybe you know they are refutable and don't prove guilt?

MonkieSocks

why would Avery, who was probably gong get a lot of money, through a filed a $36 million federal lawsuit against Manitowoc County.

Kill a Woman, who a lot of pepople knew was going out to his peoperty.

Meticulously clean up all the blood eidence in the alledged killing sites

( Garage/House ).


Then leave a Car Key and Bullet fragment for the Police to find.


Burn the body in a barrell, then move the remains of what was in that barrell to burn pit close to his front door.


Then move her car to the edge of a stockpile of wrecks the he had in his yard.


IMO Bringing Brendan Dassy into this case, actually made the Police look more guilty of a frame up than anything else.

Supernintento Chalmers

John_D80 wrote: »

I've taken the time to find out the facts.

You're confusing facts with what, in your opinion are facts.

Quit waffling and make a post detailing these "facts" along with links that back them up.

John_D80

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/jurytrialtranscripts/

This is the site where I read the trial transcripts so have at it chaps. It's the whole trial from start to finish. All 30 days give or take a few. Be warned though it's heavy going and by the time your done you'll wish you never started. I was genuinely drained from it.

Obviously I didn't read every last page. There are thousands after all but There was a handy index elsewhere on the same site that directs you to a lot of the most important testimony. Also a thread on reddit that does the same as far as I remember.

So surely that will keep ye from saying I only told ye to Google it!! :-) :-) :-)

Can't do any more for ye chaps.

Wompa1

Not sure about Steve Avery...he could be guilty for sure but it seemed like the police went above and beyond to make sure they got a conviction. So much so, that they didn't carry out a proper investigation.

What's amazing is the fact the series of events claimed and used to convict Steven were very different to those used for Brendan. I know they couldn't bring up the other case in each but to have completely different takes on the murder goes to show that the investigation was hugely flawed.

Supernintento Chalmers

John_D80 wrote: »

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/jurytrialtranscripts/

This is the site where I read the trial transcripts so have at it chaps. It's the whole trial from start to finish. All 30 days give or take a few. Be warned though it's heavy going and by the time your done you'll wish you never started. I was genuinely drained from it.

Obviously I didn't read every last page. There are thousands after all but There was a handy index elsewhere on the same site that directs you to a lot of the most important testimony. Also a thread on reddit that does the same as far as I remember.

So surely that will keep ye from saying I only told ye to Google it!! :-) :-) :-)

Can't do any more for ye chaps.

Yes you can.
You can post a summary of your findings.

HardenendMan

John_D80 wrote: »

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/jurytrialtranscripts/

This is the site where I read the trial transcripts so have at it chaps. It's the whole trial from start to finish. All 30 days give or take a few. Be warned though it's heavy going and by the time your done you'll wish you never started. I was genuinely drained from it.

Obviously I didn't read every last page. There are thousands after all but There was a handy index elsewhere on the same site that directs you to a lot of the most important testimony. Also a thread on reddit that does the same as far as I remember.

So surely that will keep ye from saying I only told ye to Google it!! :-) :-) :-)

Can't do any more for ye chaps.

Still won't post one fact eh? I'm not surprised. I am 99% sure I would not find what you found by reading the trial docs. You have flawed logic.

John_D80

Supernintento Chalmers wrote: »

Yes you can.
You can post a summary of your findings.

Here's a summary.

Avery killed Teresa Hallbach.

Tried by jury.

Found guilty.

Sentenced to life.

Feel free to fill in the g a p s by actually taking the time to find out the truth instead of swallowing the first story you hear about it.

John_D80

HardenendMan wrote: »

Still won't post one fact eh? I'm not surprised. I am 99% sure I would not find what you found by reading the trial docs. You have flawed logic.

Here's logic for you. Anything I post will be challenged by people who are basing their opinion on a biased documentary.

I'll happily engage with anyone who actually knows what they are talking about.