If these are the main two pieces of evidence not supplied, I think I will stick by the conclusion of the film, and agree they weren’t important. And I remember them talking about the bullet? The fact that it matched the gun, when there were TONS of found bullets on the property from Avery’s gun, that was months later…

I have only watched 4 episodes but it caught my attention that the brother mentions grieving before they even find the car. And then corrects himself and says that maybe they’ll grieve with her back. Um, I’m not an English native speaker but that sounded very weird to me. Don’t people grieve a loss? Did he already…

YES. EXACTLY. My personal (not all that in-depth) theory is that he found the car, and her body in the back, nearish the Avery property at that point, which then gave him time to work with his buddies to get the evidence planting wheels in motion. The sheriffs wouldn’t want to risk him getting out on a DNA test again,…

The fact that they continue to insist that he is guilty while never addressing the corruption involved (which is really what this case is about), only proves that they have something to hide.

The weird part is if they are both guilty as charged, how can you convict them using completely different scenarios of the crime?

Dean Strang may have lost the case, but he won my heart.

During his closing arguments, Kratz said it didn’t matter if the RAV4 key was planted in Steven’s bedroom. That “reasonable doubt is for innocent people.”

As much as Avery’s conviction bothers me because I just can’t fathom a jury finding him guilty when the most damning evidence was discovered by officers named in his lawsuit who weren’t supposed to be there.

So his argument is that the police couldn't have planted a bullet shot from a gun they had confiscated months earlier? Sure. No way a corrupt police force couldn't shoot the gun when it was confiscated and hold on to the bullet to plant later.

Thank you. People keep conflating the two, along with the idea that planted evidence = cops killed her and framed him.

From the article: “Dean Strang, the defense attorney that stole our hearts, countered that the DNA under the hood was never identified as sweat and didn’t require that Avery had ever touched the car”.

Don’t forget, “Reasonable doubt is for innocent people.” After saying that he should have just been disbarred on the spot.

I cannot say enough how much this simple comment says it all. Good job! :)

Shitstorm of lying liars with exceptionally large heads. That guy was fucking framed. And the mentally challenged teen.. that’s tragic.

Jezebel, you need to stop posting Steven Avery stories so I can actually get some work done at work instead of just reading endless comment sections.

this fuckin guy

I think as far as Len and his investigator were concerned, Brendan was an inconveniently sized couch that wouldn’t fit through the doorway. Do you ask the couch what it thinks? Nah, you twist it and turn it and consider it a problem and a challenge until you get it in the house.

Nothing discovered by Manitowoc police (regardless of whether it was planted or not) should have been allowed in the trial. Maybe they didn’t plant it. Tough shit. You have a conflict of interest. Oh, you are a really nice family man and the lawsuit doesn’t mean anything to you? Tough shit. You have a conflict of…

That’s by far the best news Avery could get. Assuming they can get that juror and one or two others to come forward and provide testimony or affidavits, then that’s exactly the kind of thing that can lead an appellate court to grant a new trial—presumably in a different venue.