LemonMousse
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 939
- Reaction score
- 0
Strang might represent Avery again :
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...rang-we-may-represent-steven-avery-again.html
I've taken a week or so break from researching this case, and my first article back has Strang admitting he himself is unsure of Avery's innocence :
--------------------------------------
Which I think is a common sentiment for the people who have chosen to take an objective look at the case instead of hopping on the "Making a Murderer" bandwagon and discounting any detail that doesn't point to Avery's innocence. Myself, I believe it's possible the police could have planted all of the evidence and Avery might still guilty. I would have voted not guilty because I have MORE than reasonable doubt as to if he is guilty.
I also have reasonable doubt that he is innocent. Glad to hear that Strang agrees.
I think most, if not all, will agree that the trial was anything but fair and with even the limited amount of investigation and tunnel focus on avery, we can't be sure that any number of junkyard characters could be responsible.
Unless Avery and Dassey are freed , there will likely never be a real investigation of this murder. Having the investigations and their trials being acknowledged as unfair and a complete sham, is first step to any kind of action that might confirm who the killer was. On a higher level, I still don't understand who's authority it would come under to investigate the abuse of the system , which was used to convict avery and dassey. Also, who is capable of investigating law enforcement and scrutinizing their behavior in handling the investigation ?
I saw Strang and Kratz on that Kelly Files segment, and it came across as far too brief to be of worth. Kratz felt the strongest evidence was the DNA on the hood latch. Which points to him being oblivious to the concept that most people believe all or some of the evidence was planted, whether it be by law enforcement and/or Avery's brothers.
There could be an hour segment, just on that blood topic alone. I was hoping they'd have cleared up things like the vial of blood having a hole in the top of of it, which the documentary used to manipulate the audience and never explained that the hole is HOW THE BLOOD GOT IN THE VIAL!So we still have countless people still walking around believing this was some kind of smoking gun. I admit, while watching the documentary, I was one of those people!
![]()
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3xpof9/hole_in_the_top_of_the_blood_tube_normal/
Sadly, the media is now more interested in gaining ratings/viewers via the popularity of the documentary than actually breaking it down and sorting fact from fiction. Some even report statements in the Avery appeal transcripts as if they are something he is just now saying, but the appeal is like 6 years old. journalism is dead
Amazing that we still haven't seen avery trial transcripts. One would think that Avery and his legal team would want those made available as soon as possible while the public interest is white hot. Or... maybe there is reason to NOT give the full picture ? Whatever the reason is, I am suspicious as to why we haven't seen them yet.
I apologize for my suspicion if the Avery trial transcripts have been made public in the past few weeks, and I have just yet to discover them. If so, definitely link them as I'd love to see them.
Sorry if this is a tremendous shock, but you are not the only person "taking an objective look at the evidence". We all are.
Why, why, why must people always do this? Try and pretend that other people aren't being as "objective" just because they've possibly reached a different conclusion. It's childish and irritating.....and, to be honest, generally trotted out in the absence of persuasive arguments.
And, thank you, but the fact that Strang has said he's not sure (while Buting remains convinced of innocence) has been raised before...by me. I think it's quite telling that both lawyers, having seen far more of the evidence than any of us, are not persuaded of his guilt.