IP - Do you know how many people end up confessing to stuff because they think that they can talk their way out of it, or believe that they can say just enough to avoid big trouble...and who believe that they're leaving at the end of the interview, be it to turn in a class project, go to the mall, watch tv, etc.? Lots. Bunches. Probably a vast majority. My point is this: his wondering if he'd be back in school after confessing to his part in the rape and murder of an innocent woman doesn't in any way remove his criminal culpability, nor must it signify that he "doesn't understand shit".
If doesn't remove any culpability. It does conflict with the idea that he understood what was going on. What sort of physical evidence would you personally need to see produced to exonerate him or his uncle?
The Keepers, which is something of a sequel (totally different crime in a different city) to this, I think, is really good.
I haven’t watched in a year, but I’m fairly certain not a trace of the victim was found in the room where he alleged the rape and mutilation occurred, at his uncle’s house.
That's what I'm getting at. Most of the physical evidence is circumstantial. Which is amazing if he actually did it. He doesn't strike me as a Dexter level mastermind. And yet so dumb as to leave a droP of blood in plain sight in the car, and dump remains just across the way also in plain sight. But damn, somehow he thoroughly cleaned around old deer blood and whatnot to remove any trace of her in the house
Tenny, what is the evidence that the victim was ever at the alleged scene of the murder? The scene is the scene because of the confession.
There was a bleach-stained pair of jeans that he wore on the night of the murder, and which resulted from cleaning the scene with bleach. We know this because Dassey said so, and accompanied the investigators back to his home to retrieve the jeans. That the confession must have weighed heavily on the minds of the jurors is beyond any debate. That they convicted him on a totality of the evidence presented, even having heard and considered his explanation and defense, is similarly beyond any debate, but also any reasonable doubt, at least in their minds.
Do me a favor. List for me all the physical evidence on this crime. We have a burn barrel with human remains (which were tested to be likely the victim's, but had been dumped out by investigators hindering any further analysis). We have a drop of blood in her car, I believe was Dassey's. The car itself in the lot, unnoticed or discovered for days and found quickly under strange circumstances. And the confession of this guy. And let's not forget the same police force falsely accused and convicted him of a similar crime before. So what do they mean by scene of the murder and how do they know besides the testimony?
Right, but the defense wanted it tested to see if it came from a lavender top sample in police custody from his prior false imprisonment for a crime he was framed for (I feel like I have to mention that a lot, in case anyone thinks he couldn't possibly be framed when he already has been). The FBI had the only test at the time, and the results were inconclusive but falsely portrayed as indicating it wasn't from a lavender top tube. As I recall, the tube had been drawn from (seal marks), but there is no explanation for when that would have happened or why-- and there should be, as it is evidence in custody.
Here is the garage that they allegedly cleaned with bleach: https://occ-0-2433-1001.1.nflxso.net/art/c6807/afa6bb83ee55e7cd2cd5b60febe0918e84cc6807.jpg How? How could human blood splatter be cleaned, but old spills, including deer blood from months prior, is still there? How did he deal with the piles of junk that have remained in the same position for months or years?
Tenny: Do you think that evidence was planted in Steven Avery's case? If so, are okay with Steven Avery's conviction?
Just finished this series after reading recommendations for it here and found it very interesting. What amazes me is the number of people that are absolutely convinced of the innocence of both perps based solely on the information presented in the documentary, without considering that that information has been carefully edited and presented. A little digging shows that key trial evidence was not shared with the audience, and makes the jury's decision more understandable.
It amazes me that people accept the guilty verdict based on the evidence, when the evidence was manipulated, deliberately misrepresented and in some cases planted. Do you not care that the fbi testimony was false? Or that all of the physical evidence is circumstantial even if genuine?
No problem. I may not have stated what I meant clearly. There are absolutely some serious questions raised. And, based on what was presented, there seem to be at least some errors and at most some tampering on the prosecution side. My point though is, Avery's trial was IIRC 9 days. That's maybe 70+ hours of detail that the jury was privy to, while viewers of the documentary get what, maybe 5 hours of the trial (if that)? Plus, what the viewer gets to see is heavily edited. Thus I don't see how anyone can conclude, based solely on what they see in the documentary, that they are in a better position than the jury to decide either innocence or guilt.
