Okay, I have just begun watching this series (
just started episode 5). Here is my take, at this point. My opinion could, of course, change, by the time I'm finished. Plus, I really want to read the court docs and forensic docs, if avail. So, again, this is just a first pass free flow of thoughts.
1) I think they should vacate Brendan Dassey's conviction. For a number of reasons, as follows and in no particular order.
a) "interviewing" him without his parents' knowledge, or an attorney present.
b) the leading questions were appalling and should never have been admitted at trial.
c) the defense investigator coercing him into not only signing a confession but directing him on what to say and draw, and them telling him to call his mother and confess, knowing full well his call would be recorded. And all this occurring, without his atty present. An atty, who, btw, thought he was guilty. imnsho, that atty should be disbarred and the investigator's license yanked. That debacle had inadequate defense written all over it.
All things considered, I think an egregious injustice was done wrt Brendan. I also think that the LEOs/DA threw him under the bus, just so they could convict Avery. And that, imnsho, is the most glaring thing in this whole mess.
2) There is no question in my mind that evidence was planted (
i.e., keys, shell casing, Haibach's vehicle, and AV's blood). Esp considering that the same LEOs who were named in a lawsuit, were the one's who had full access to SA's property.
3) Afaics, Haibach was obviously not killed in SA's house... even if he was her killer.
4) The quite obvious harassment of SA's gf was weird. Not sure what that bit was about.
Now, as for Avery? While I think they may have railroaded him, I am skeptical LEOs killed Haibach. If he is, as he claims, innocent, I think they targeted him for a few possible reasons, to include but not limited to that he was allegedly the last person who saw her alive (
<= this is the big one), the pending lawsuit, the evidence of who murdered her was slim to none and they had to pin it on someone so townspeople could sleep at night, and/or that the Avery family were outsiders and hated in a close-knit town, so pinning it on him, made sense.
That said, I am admittedly on the fence about SA's innocence. Why?
In, either episode 2 (
or 3 or 4, sorry, not sure which), there is a call between he and his mother. This is after his arrest. His behavior, or rather, his voice tone raised all sorts of red flags. He was extremely demanding and petulant. That, of course, doesn't make him guilty. However, the guy spent 18 years in prison as an innocent, and was facing the potential of going back? I expected to hear fear. Not the demanding and totally entitled tone I heard during that call. That call came across like he was brow-beating his mom.
His parent's demeanors were interesting as well. They seemed to initially think he was guilty. Or rather, they came across as skeptical. The mother also came across as brow-beaten. Even with him behind bars. I don't know how to really describe it but it is just, I don't know. Odd.
Then, there's the past deeds. Pouring gasoline on a cat and throwing it into the fire? It's one thing to light bugs on fire with a magnifying glass when you're like, 10. Animal torture (
yes, I realize, bugs are animals, too, but I'm referring to warm blooded animals), esp the kind of animals that are considered pets by many? The psychology of a person who would do that takes it to another level, completely (
Macdonald's discredited triad theory, notwithstanding).
So, if SA is guilty? I highly, highly, doubt it went down as LE claimed. Esp in light of the fact that their leading questions drew out a story from a mentally challenged 16 year old kid, so they had to stick with that version. At the very least, we know she was shot. Since her remains were burned, there was no way to prove the other allegations (
i.e., rape, torture, etcetera). Esp in light of the extremely small window of time between his gf's two calls from jail. With this in mind, I think it is possible there was an altercation, and he lost his temper. Then, once he realized what he had done, he tried to cover it up by burning her body. <= this last bit still seems implausible when I re-read it...
Imho, the more likely scenario is that she was murdered by someone else. I think LE found Haibach's vehicle elsewhere, and probably her remains, too. Which is why they called in the plate. The problem was, it was out in the middle of nowhere, so the only "
tie" to her killer was that AV was allegedly the last person who saw her alive. And since they were sure he was the killer, they needed a stronger tie-in. Thus the planting of evidence and coercion of Brendan.
Anyway, sorry this turned out to be so long. This is my take away, atm. Now, back to watching the rest of this series. Yes, a marathon viewing!
My opinion only
