I think that it's fine for people to entertain the idea that SA was framed. I just haven't seen any proof of it yet. JMO
That is exactly how I feel too, Ranch. I actually enjoy reading everyone's theories, and opinions about this case. I don't post a lot on this case, but I do read all of the posts about this case every day. I find them all very interesting to read.
However: I have not seen any proof either of planting or tampering with any evidence.
Even one of Avery's trial attorneys admitted they do not have the proof they need to substantiate the framing/tampering claim and he said that after the documentary came out. And that really makes sense because if they did have supporting evidence showing the evidence admitted against Avery was tampered with or LE framed him then the first appellate court would heavily weigh those facts when rendering a decision but they have to be facts and not just claims or allegations or theories.
Now if I saw undeniable proof there had been planting or tampering it would certainly change my opinion about this case totally. But all of this was already brought out by his trial attorneys and presented to the jury back in 2005.
Avery's case has been up on appeal twice already and was denied both times. So the higher courts obviously do not believe the claims are supported by facts for I am sure the claims of tampering and framing were a large part of their appellate issues both times when it has been appealed to no avail.
In a way selfishly, I would like to see a re-trial for Avery because DNA and forensic evidence has advanced so much in 10 years. Since there are many things left to be tested I would think it may be an even stronger case than the first. And the nice thing about it no matter which side test the item/s the results has to be turned over to the other side if the experts are going to testify about those new findings, if any.
I do admit that Brendan's case bothers me a whole heck of a lot more than Avery's which doesn't bother me at all. While I do believe Brendan was involved, I believe he was coerced out of paralyzing fear to do what he did that day. So, imo, Brendan shouldn't have been charged with first degree, and I think his attorney should have gone with the fear/abuse factor as his defense. Many people unfortunately do things they don't want to do because they are intimidated and greatly fearful of the another person. Yes, they can even participate in a violent acts in order to appease their abuser. While some say they believe LE led Brendan, I didn't see any evidence of that in the interviews, but I do believe Avery did (lead/force by intimation) Brendan into helping him commit this heinous crime that he really wanted no part in. Avery also knew how to lead or force Brendan into doing things. He also knew his mental capacity. It may never become known but I think Avery had abused Brendan emotionally, physically, and sexually as well after he got out. When someone is abused by someone like Avery the victim (Brendan) will do anything the abuser tells them to do without question. And I do believe Brendan was abused by Avery.
Again, IMHO, Avery has the traits of a psychopath. Not only does he kill his defenseless pet cat just for the hell of it by putting oil/gas on it and then throwing it in the fire to be burned alive while watching it burn to death... he also destroyed Theresa in the same way by stoking the fire watching her body burn up. Animal cruelty and a fascination with fires are two main traits they have. Psychopaths also will target/manipulate someone they know they can take advantage of like Avery did with Brendan, imo. I see this when Brendon tells his mom about Avery being sexually inappropriate and making lewd gestures. SA had done this before THs murder yet Brendon did not tell even his own mother until he knew Avery had been arrested. Brendan feared Avery, imo. I believe Avery did much more than Brendan told his mom. Imo, he didn't have the courage to tell her everything. It was too embarrassing to tell his mother what really happened.
Also when a psychopath has it in their mind they have been wronged then they come back with a vengeance tenfold...to not only get even but having the feeling they are ahead by doing something much worse than the wrong they feel happened to them. To me this is why he can say with a straight face he is innocent. Psychopaths are so good at presenting what they want everyone else to see when its to their advantage and they have been able to fool some of the most learned mental health professionals. Deep down they are devoid of emotions except when it comes to themselves and they are always the victim according to them. But sometimes their mask will drop to show what is underneath the surface... like burning a cat alive, trying to run a woman off the road and pointing a gun at her. I don't believe for one second the gun was unloaded at the time, and he was a domestic violence abuser. Most psychopaths never murder anyone but those who do usually have a criminal history showing violence. That is why the FBI profilers always delves into the past criminal behavior of a someone they think is a suspect.
IMO.