Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
JanIreland said:
The motive from the sounds of it was sadistic / sexual or both .
Did you believe Brendan ? I didn't ...........her throat was probably not cut , she could of been strangled and shot after death which really cuts down her blood ....
He has a deep cut on his finger...that has not been questioned , I'm guessing that bled ......
Click to expand...

Does SA have a history of sexual sadism? Yes, but he was exonerated for it! So, what is SA's motive? Not sexual, IMO.

I believe Brendan has the mental capacity of a 9 year old and just said what the LE wanted to hear so he could go home. They kept telling him "they were on his side". How many times did they call him a liar? 75? A kid like Brendan cannot process information the way a person of normal intelligence can.

I believe the truth is the confession he wrote down.

JMO
 
c@rol said:
I saw it as signs of a possible struggle. Wouldn't expect it to be anywhere.. maybe under her fingernails but..
I know there are some theories around the ex. Just thought it was interesting. Could be from anything.
Click to expand...

Please don't misunderstand. I don't think it is a bad question or thought. Who knows with these people! But I guess what I am saying is that the blood in the SUV was linked to Avery and he did have that cut on his finger. That said, no fingerprints makes it very suspicious.

Apparently there wasn't anyone else's blood found in the vehicle at least or anywhere else for that matter, so even if he did have scratches, without her body and without any other blood evidence, it becomes kind of a moot point, unfortunately. Not to say it isn't relevant.

The problem with the way our system works is that pretty much regardless of anything, there are only 2 ways to get a new trial. Proof of unconstitutionality or hard evidence of a new suspect. SA was fortunate in Case #1 to have that information be uncovered. But the burden of proof turns over to the convicted person rather than the state.

If SA didn't do this it is so extremely sad that a citizen can have this happen twice to them. We all know BD didn't do anything, so it is even worse for him!
 
JanIreland said:
your not alone , I have read here for years and I just can't understand how people are coming up with some of this stuff . I respect everyone's opinions but when I see comments starting with " I have just watched the documentary and I'm convinced he's innocent" I just can't believe it as people here usually know better from my experience .

Ignore Brendans confession as I believe he should not of been convicted.
Ignore the blood , Key and garage evidence and I still think there is a strong case against Steven Every .
Click to expand...

Wow.

Ignore the blood, key, garage and Brendan's testimony?

Fine. Let's do that.

What do we have left implicating Steven?

Zip, basically.

And before you start trying to sneer "people usually know better" etc, perhaps you could familiarise yourself with the evidence?

"Ropes and chains found in the ashes" = pure invention.
 
TheDuchess said:
Thanks for posting this. I did not picture this as the layout whatsoever, so appreciate you sharing this. So I will say that the location of the RAV 4 was actually in the opposite back corner of the property as SAs trailer, which I had not realized. Does anyone know what the approach to the lot would be? Would visitors come in via the entrance by the bus. I realize that it is an actual "road" called Avery Road, but it only seems to lead to all of their homes. Also, does anyone know if the vehicle was visible from any of the other roads circling around the property? I know that SA mentioned in his interview that there were several ways to enter the property without anyone seeing it.

P.S. Any sleuths know if the date that SA referred to as seeing headlights might have been the same day or time that the cop called in the plates?
Click to expand...

What I find odd is the bus driver seeing TH taking photos? Isn't it a little far to see SA trailer from the bus drop-off?
 
ElleElle said:
That is it's own was enough for me to have reasonable doubt. LE calls in a plate when it is found, correct??
Click to expand...

They also call them in at other times. They call them in to verify a number they had written down as being a missing vehicle or a suspect vehicle to make sure that they have the right info. LE calls in numbers all the time. This was an example of something that was made a big deal out of when it was not at all important.
 
Sleuther87 said:
Has anyone read Michael Griesbach's book about Steven Avery, The Innocent Killer? (Griesbach was the ADA who helped exonerate Avery from his rape conviction.)

One guy who's read it claims there's some interesting parts about Steven Avery's post-exoneration life, including some severe incidents of perjury and domestic violence. For instance:



https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur...e_innocent_killer_a_true_story_of_a_wrongful/
Click to expand...

From what I saw, I don't think they had a healthy relationship. Especially if she was a drunk. JMO
 
norest4thewicked said:
They also call them in at other times. They call them in to verify a number they had written down as being a missing vehicle or a suspect vehicle to make sure that they have the right info. LE calls in numbers all the time. This was an example of something that was made a big deal out of when it was not at all important.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but Colborn didn't even provide a halfway bad reason for why he called it in, much less a good reason. He "couldn't recall" anything. "*shrug* I dunno" was Colborn's entire testimony for literally everything.
 
ElleElle said:
What I find odd is the bus driver seeing TH taking photos? Isn't it a little far to see SA trailer from the bus drop-off?
Click to expand...

If you look at that map diagram thing a few posts back, it's a straight shot from where the bus drop off is to where she was taking photos.
 
Tawny said:
That's all well and good, but Colborn didn't even provide a halfway bad reason for why he called it in, much less a good reason. He "couldn't recall" anything. "*shrug* I dunno" was Colborn's entire testimony for literally everything.
Click to expand...

But, you didn't see the testimony before or after his testimony. You don't know what was said because this film took that testimony out of context. Police officers call in numbers all day every day. Maybe he honestly didn't remember why. And he certainly couldn't just guess. It was just something used to make him look bad when there could be many reasons and he possibly didn't remember.
 
norest4thewicked said:
They also call them in at other times. They call them in to verify a number they had written down as being a missing vehicle or a suspect vehicle to make sure that they have the right info. LE calls in numbers all the time. This was an example of something that was made a big deal out of when it was not at all important.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I was looking for an alternate reason as to why that might of happened. Puzzling though that Colborn couldn't confirm that as a possibility on the stand.

Reddit timeline has been very helpful.
 
norest4thewicked said:
But, you didn't see the testimony before or after his testimony. You don't know what was said because this film took that testimony out of context. Police officers call in numbers all day every day. Maybe he honestly didn't remember why. And he certainly couldn't just guess. It was just something used to make him look bad when there could be many reasons and he possibly didn't remember.
Click to expand...
OK - then give me one good reason that the very police officer that was being sued for $36 million by the prime suspect in this case called in the license plate of the missing woman several days prior to her vehicle being found in said suspects car lot. And why he didn't remember.
 
norest4thewicked said:
But, you didn't see the testimony before or after his testimony. You don't know what was said because this film took that testimony out of context. Police officers call in numbers all day every day. Maybe he honestly didn't remember why. And he certainly couldn't just guess. It was just something used to make him look bad when there could be many reasons and he possibly didn't remember.
Click to expand...

Re-watched. Colbourn appears very shady, and the phone call does not make any sense. Why run a plate without following up on it? Did he write a report?

[video=youtube;KpsRtPCWHoM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpsRtPCWHoM[/video]
 
Ok, I read the first thread, but am just starting on this one. I'm sorry if this came up in thread #2, but I wanted to mention it before I lose the thought I've had for the past 25ish pages entirely. :)

The thing that to me says Steven couldn't have done it is the timeline. If he didn't kill her in the garage or trailer, as I think most people agree, how could he have had the time to go out to the woods, commit the crime, happen to be back in time for a cheery phone call with Jodi, and a bonfire with Brendan, etc? (And didn't Jodi call twice?) If she was seen at 3:30 by the school bus driver and Jodi called around 5:30, that's two hours to go from normal day to finding a motivation for committing a crime somewhere off-site. It could be done, I think, but to this extent? He would have had to have done a LOT of back and forth and would have happened to be in the right place at just the right time multiple times. I think technically possible, but it's reaching an awfully lot!

Other than that piece which puzzles me, I am completely in agreement that he could be innocent OR guilty, but there was definitely plenty of reasonable doubt!

Ok, on to reading thread 2!
 
ElleElle said:
No, but it does not mean SA was a rapist or a killer, which is what he got pinned for.
Click to expand...

It does not, but it definitely does refute people's arguments that he's an honest guy who just made a few mistakes as a kid.
 
norest4thewicked said:
But, you didn't see the testimony before or after his testimony. You don't know what was said because this film took that testimony out of context. Police officers call in numbers all day every day. Maybe he honestly didn't remember why. And he certainly couldn't just guess. It was just something used to make him look bad when there could be many reasons and he possibly didn't remember.
Click to expand...

Is there a way to read a transcript of his entire testimony?
 
Tawny said:
That's all well and good, but Colborn didn't even provide a halfway bad reason for why he called it in, much less a good reason. He "couldn't recall" anything. "*shrug* I dunno" was Colborn's entire testimony for literally everything.
Click to expand...

But, you didn't see the testimony before or after his testimony. You don't know what was said because this film took that testimony out of context. Police officers call in numbers all day every day. Maybe he honestly didn't remember why. And he certainly couldn't just guess. It was just something used to make him look bad when there could be many reasons and he possibly didn't remember.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 116 more.
Total: 1,947 (members: 117, guests: 1,830)

Online statistics

Members online
117
Guests online
1,830
Total visitors
1,947
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,901
Messages
18,131,602
Members
231,183
Latest member
Webster23
Back
Top