Mr. Obvious wrote:
Your question about who did do it totally misrepresents the burden of proof. It is not up to Avery to prove who did it. It is up to the state to prove that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm just stating an opinion on why I think he's guilty. Obviously the burden of proof is much greater than that in a court of law and the state had mounds of evidence.
Dumping the car on the property unnoticed by Avery would not be too hard considering how large the area is.
She was last seen Oct 31. Last seen at Avery's around 3:45 pm
5:30 pm that day Avery has a recorded phone call where his voice sounds normal.
She is reporting missing Nov 3 and the car was found Nov 5.
Avery was arrested Nov 9 from past convictions and possessing a firearm as a felon.
Nov 10 the charred remains are found on Avery's property.
He was charged with murder Nov 15.
So the car was found 5 days after she was last seen.
The body was found 10 days after she was last seen and after Avery was arrested.
Based on those facts, we do not know if the car or the body was on his property the day after she was presumably killed Oct 31.
They cleared the area of the Avery and then found these things.
If someone other than Avery killed her, that person had three days to handle the car and the body before she was even reported as missing.
I'm saying that setting him up before the police even knew she was missing wouldn't be hard.
A police conspiracy is hard to believe as far as them knowing who the actual killer is, but it isn't a stretch for them to arrange evidence to make him look guilty.
You clearly are getting all your information from the documentary.
The forensics proves the body was burned in the fire pit on his property, and nowhere else. So that means if it was a frame up, someone moved the body onto the property after Avery was already a suspect and burned it there, or someone did it before hand and Steven Avery never noticed someone burning a body on his property.
Sorry, that's a little hard to believe.
What is not hard to believe is that the police did not find everything on the first couple of searches. This is a massive property, not a quarter acre lot. The initial searches were done by another county's investigators not familiar with the property.
The system is not perfect by any stretch. I do think's it's possible the police planted evidence to enhance the State's case, but only because they believed they had the right guy (again, who else did it?). But even the planting of evidence is hard to swallow, when they know if they screw up in planting it the entire case would be thrown out and the law enforcement officers who did it would lose their jobs and possibly go to prison.
DC Area Runner wrote:
The part that boggles my mind about Avery's case is that if you believe he's guilty, then he must be the dumbest person on the planet to leave Teresa's car on his property, in addition to her burned body. I know he doesn't have a high IQ, but it's hard to believe someone could be that stupid.
This is somewhat hard to believe, but not entirely unbelievable. First of all, no one has ever claimed that Steven Avery is some high IQ Doctor Hannibal Lecter genius who can carry out the perfect murder. He's not that bright. Secondly, if he did kill her that afternoon, what were his real options with the Halbech car? This is a guy who thinks the police hate him and are always keeping an eye on him. If he drives it, or has someone drive it for him, off the property and dump it somewhere he risks being seen doing so. He couldn't have known exactly how long it would take the cops to consider her missing, either. Could he have crushed the car in the crusher? Perhaps. But his first order of business was burning the body and cleaning up any evidence. That took well into the night. By late that night or the next day, he had to believe the cops were going to turn up looking for her. It would have looked bad if they turned up while he was crushing the car. So, my guess is he stashed the car in a remote corner of the property because that was his only good option in the heat of the moment, and he was hoping it either wouldn't be found, or if it was, he could just claim he didn't put it there, which is what he did.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
DC Area Runner wrote:A couple of thoughts:
Avery is a bad guy, there's lot of evidence to support this - the burned cat, the horrible letters to his ex-wife while he was in prison and subsequent statements by his ex-fiancee.
To go back to an earlier question, putting all conspiracy theories aside for a second, if Avery didn't do it, then who did? What we know is that Steven was the last known person to see her alive and her last known location was HIS property. Sure you can argue about police planting evidence and all, but the fact that he was the last known person to see her alive and it was on his property means there's a pretty darn good chance it was him.
He is a bad guy. I don't think anybody is disputing that.
Your question about who did do it totally misrepresents the burden of proof. It is not up to Avery to prove who did it. It is up to the state to prove that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is a total lack of accountability in our system for misbehavior by both police and prosecutors. That, combined with the vast disparity in resources between the state prosecutors and defense attorneys for the indigent and a variety of legal procedural rules that strong favor the prosecution, makes it very difficult to believe that this man received a fair trial.
How can you say the State didn't prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when you didn't sit through the trial and hear the evidence as it was presented? The jurors could only consider the evidence admitted, and nothing else.
Your other points are valid. It helps to be rich if you're accused of a crime. OJ would probably have never beaten the murder rap if he had had to use a public defender. But, this problem is true in every democracy in the world. I honestly don't know how to fix it.
Freedom Trail wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:He is a bad guy. I don't think anybody is disputing that.
Your question about who did do it totally misrepresents the burden of proof. It is not up to Avery to prove who did it. It is up to the state to prove that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is a total lack of accountability in our system for misbehavior by both police and prosecutors. That, combined with the vast disparity in resources between the state prosecutors and defense attorneys for the indigent and a variety of legal procedural rules that strong favor the prosecution, makes it very difficult to believe that this man received a fair trial.
How can you say the State didn't prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when you didn't sit through the trial and hear the evidence as it was presented? The jurors could only consider the evidence admitted, and nothing else.
Your other points are valid. It helps to be rich if you're accused of a crime. OJ would probably have never beaten the murder rap if he had had to use a public defender. But, this problem is true in every democracy in the world. I honestly don't know how to fix it.
Where did I say that? I only pointed out that asking "who else could have done it" is a totally misleading question as he (and defense team) have no obligation to prove anybody else did it.
I do not believe he received a fair trial.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Freedom Trail wrote:How can you say the State didn't prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when you didn't sit through the trial and hear the evidence as it was presented? The jurors could only consider the evidence admitted, and nothing else.
Your other points are valid. It helps to be rich if you're accused of a crime. OJ would probably have never beaten the murder rap if he had had to use a public defender. But, this problem is true in every democracy in the world. I honestly don't know how to fix it.
Where did I say that? I only pointed out that asking "who else could have done it" is a totally misleading question as he (and defense team) have no obligation to prove anybody else did it.
I do not believe he received a fair trial.
But you didn't see the trial, did you?
guilty# wrote:
1. Avery’s past incident with a cat was not “goofing aroundâ€. He soaked his cat in gasoline or oil, and put it on a fire to watch it suffer.
2. Avery targeted Teresa. On Oct 31 (8:12 am) he called AutoTrader magazine and asked them to send “that same girl who was here last time.â€Â On Oct 10, Teresa had been to the Avery property when Steve answered the door just wearing a towel. She said she would not go back because she was scared of him (obviously). Avery used a fake name and fake # (his sister’s) giving those to the AutoTrader receptionist, to trick Teresa into coming.
3. Teresa’s phone, camera and PDA were found 20 ft from Avery’s door, burned in his barrel. Why did the documentary not tell the viewers the contents of her purse were in his burn barrel, just north of the front door of his trailer?
4. While in prison, Avery told another inmate of his intent to build a “torture chamber†so he could rape, torture and kill young women when he was released. He even drew a diagram. Another inmate was told by Avery that the way to get rid of a body is to “burn itâ€â€¦heat destroys DNA.
5. The victim’s bones in the firepit were “intertwined†with the steel belts, left over from the car tires Avery threw on the fire to burn, as described by Dassey. That WAS where her bones were burned! Suggesting that some human bones found elsewhere (never identified as Teresa’s) were from this murder was NEVER established.
6. Also found in the fire pit was Teresa’s tooth (ID’d through dental records), a rivet from the “Daisy Fuentes†jeans she was wearing that day, and the tools used by Avery to chop up her bones during the fire.
7. Phone records show 3 calls from Avery to Teresa’s cell phone on Oct 31. One at 2:24, and one at 2:35–both calls Avery uses the *67 feature so Teresa doesn’t know it him…both placed before she arrives. Then one last call at4:35 pm, without the *67 feature. Avery first believes he can simply say she never showed up (his original defense), so tries to establish the alibi call after she’s already been there, hence the 4:35 call. She will never answer of course, so he doesn’t need the *67 feature for that last call.
8. Avery’s DNA (not blood) was on the victim’s hood latch (under her hood in her hidden SUV). The SUV was at the crime lab since 11/5…how did his DNA get under the hood if Avery never touched her car? Do the cops have a vial of Avery’s sweat to “plant†under the hood?
9. Ballistics said the bullet found in the garage was fired by Avery’s rifle, which was in a police evidence locker since 11/6…if the cops planted the bullet, how did they get one fired from HIS gun? This rifle, hanging over Aver’s bed, is the source of the bullet found in the garage, with Teresa’s DNA on it. The bullet had to be fired BEFORE 11/5—did the cops borrow his gun, fire a bullet, recover the bullet before planting the SUV, then hang on to the bullet for 4 months in case they need to plant it 4 months later?
I loved the show.
1) I REALLY don't care about any of the stuff above (but will address it in a later post). Once I think cops are planting evidence, I'm voting not guilty. So once I see that white box without the evidence sealed, I'm voting not guilty. There is no explanation for that seal being broken. None that makes me think that this idiot cops might not have planted evidence.
2) There is no explanation at all for the cop calling in Teresa's license plate number. A plausible explanation is they found the car after she was murdered elsewhere and then moved it to frame Avery. Another possibility is that the cops were illegally on Avery's property at the time (which if true, as explained in #1, I'm voting not guilty).
3) The fact that her key was found in his bedroom by one of the cops he sued after tons of searches is just too hard to believe. The local cops were supposed to not be involved and low and behold one of the cops he sued finds the key after weeks in plain view? Really? And oh yeah none of her DNA is on the keys? Please explain to me why her DNA - only his - would be on the key. This again leads to point #1 and I'm voting not guilty.
Please think about the key again. A criminal mastermined who supposedly raped, stabbed and murder a woman in own bedroom but wasable to clean it all up perfectly leaving no blood or DNA behind (which I neve really believed was possible and leads me to #1) somehow does all of that leaves her key in the room in plain sight?But oh yeah, he was so great at cleaing the rape/murder scene up but wasn't able to wipe his own blood away from her car? And if he murdered her in his home and burned her body right there, why would her blood be in the back of her car? And why would his blood be in the car? It wouldnt which leads me to believe her body was moved which is supported by the fact that experts say the fire behind his house wouldn't be hot enough to incinerate bones (apparently that was introduced at Trial but not shown in the documentary).
Plus since the documentary has come out, internet sleuths realized that Teresa carried a bundle of keys - not a single key.
http://evoke.ie/extra/viral/new-evidence-uncovered-in-the-making-a-murderer-case-by-people-onlineAll of that being said, is it possible, Steven killed her? Yes. But so could some of his relatives (two of them, including the one who supposedly saw her walking up to his trailer only allibied themselves and in a very specific manner that was strange to me) or the ex-boyfriend (why were the voice mails deleted?).
Is he guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Not even close.
guilty# wrote:
1. Avery’s past incident with a cat was not “goofing aroundâ€. He soaked his cat in gasoline or oil, and put it on a fire to watch it suffer.
2. Avery targeted Teresa. On Oct 31 (8:12 am) he called AutoTrader magazine and asked them to send “that same girl who was here last time.â€Â On Oct 10, Teresa had been to the Avery property when Steve answered the door just wearing a towel. She said she would not go back because she was scared of him (obviously). Avery used a fake name and fake # (his sister’s) giving those to the AutoTrader receptionist, to trick Teresa into coming.
3. Teresa’s phone, camera and PDA were found 20 ft from Avery’s door, burned in his barrel. Why did the documentary not tell the viewers the contents of her purse were in his burn barrel, just north of the front door of his trailer?
4. While in prison, Avery told another inmate of his intent to build a “torture chamber†so he could rape, torture and kill young women when he was released. He even drew a diagram. Another inmate was told by Avery that the way to get rid of a body is to “burn itâ€â€¦heat destroys DNA.
5. The victim’s bones in the firepit were “intertwined†with the steel belts, left over from the car tires Avery threw on the fire to burn, as described by Dassey. That WAS where her bones were burned! Suggesting that some human bones found elsewhere (never identified as Teresa’s) were from this murder was NEVER established.
6. Also found in the fire pit was Teresa’s tooth (ID’d through dental records), a rivet from the “Daisy Fuentes†jeans she was wearing that day, and the tools used by Avery to chop up her bones during the fire.
7. Phone records show 3 calls from Avery to Teresa’s cell phone on Oct 31. One at 2:24, and one at 2:35–both calls Avery uses the *67 feature so Teresa doesn’t know it him…both placed before she arrives. Then one last call at4:35 pm, without the *67 feature. Avery first believes he can simply say she never showed up (his original defense), so tries to establish the alibi call after she’s already been there, hence the 4:35 call. She will never answer of course, so he doesn’t need the *67 feature for that last call.
8. Avery’s DNA (not blood) was on the victim’s hood latch (under her hood in her hidden SUV). The SUV was at the crime lab since 11/5…how did his DNA get under the hood if Avery never touched her car? Do the cops have a vial of Avery’s sweat to “plant†under the hood?
9. Ballistics said the bullet found in the garage was fired by Avery’s rifle, which was in a police evidence locker since 11/6…if the cops planted the bullet, how did they get one fired from HIS gun? This rifle, hanging over Aver’s bed, is the source of the bullet found in the garage, with Teresa’s DNA on it. The bullet had to be fired BEFORE 11/5—did the cops borrow his gun, fire a bullet, recover the bullet before planting the SUV, then hang on to the bullet for 4 months in case they need to plant it 4 months later?
I'll now address your points.
1) He may not be a guy I want babysitting my kids but logic like that is what got him convicted in the rape case.
2/7) This does trouble me a little but maybe he liked her work and is paranoic about protecting his identity.
3) A phone can't be moved? Of course it can. Again, scientific experts have stated that the bones were defintiely moved. Moreover, another relative could have done it and burned her there. Prove to me Steven did it and not a relative.
4) A friend of mine used to work for the courts here in Maryland. She told me to HIGHLY skeptical of what jailhouse informants say as they are trying to get their sentence reduced. Even if true, it doesn't prove that he killed Terea. Agian, the thinking of "Oh he's a bad dude" is what got him convicted of a rape he didn't commit.
5) Scientists say that a burn pit couldn't burn hot enough to make her bones be like that, suggesting the bones were moved. The jury agreed as they ddint' convict him of mutilating the corpse.
8) His sweat was never found on the hood. That's something the DA wants you to believe. Avery's attorney's have pointed that out in recent weeks. Yes some of his DNA was. We already know they have access to his DNA. SO if they are going to plant the key, they could easily plant DNA. Plus one of the crime inspectors who was looking at the car admitted he didn't know if he changed out his gloves after being inside of it so he could have transferred Avery'd DNA.
9. This is rural Wisconsin. These guys hunt all the time. I'm sure there are bullets all over the place. The fact that the bullet was found four months after the fact shows you how inept the investigation was which leads to reasonable doubt considering the cops HAD A TON OF MOTIVE TO FRAME HIM.
Freedom Trail wrote:
#10. Avery's ex-fiancee has now come out and said he is a monster and 'not innocent', and that he threatened her to make him look good in the documentary when they were still together.
The documentary completely misrepresents why she left Avery in the first place. For these tow to even call themselves documentarians is a complete joke. They must come from the Michael Moore school of documentary.
It's logic like this that leads to false convictions. No one every said Avery is the pope.
Which is more likely? That cops planted evidence or that Steven Avery killed her? I'm much more confident that the cops planted evidence than that he killed her.
We don't have trials to figure out that people aren't great guys . We have trials to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they did something.
Freedom Trail wrote:
The system is not perfect by any stretch. I do think's it's possible the police planted evidence to enhance the State's case, but only because they believed they had the right guy (again, who else did it?). But even the planting of evidence is hard to swallow, when they know if they screw up in planting it the entire case would be thrown out and the law enforcement officers who did it would lose their jobs and possibly go to prison.
So you just admitted the police might have planted evidence and to you thatt's not reasonable doubt? Are you crazy?
How is it 'hard to swallow' when you consider a) they were facing $35 million lawsuit which may not have been covered by the county's insurance and which some of the officers may have been personally responisble for paying for? and b) The seal on Avery's blood was broken.
It's not hard to swallow at all. One I see the motive of the police to frame him and then the broken seal, my vote of "not guilty' is sign, sealed and delivered.
Rojo,
Please expalin the 4:35 phone call to her cell phone asking why she hadn't come when he later admitted she was on the property. Please explain that.
The main problem here is that the documentary cherry picked evidential anomalies, and wrapped them in a big conspiracy blanket. It did not present an objective take. Avery had a good attorney, not just a barely competent PD like his nephew. Are we to believe that this attorney, featured so prominently in the documentary, bungled this case so badly that he couldn't use just one or two of these evidential anomalies to sow some reasonable doubt in at least one juror, and get at least a mistrial? If what the documentary presents is an accurate portrayal, a freaking first year law student could have done better.
Unless you believe not only the county cops and DA are corrupt, but the next county's too, and the judge, and the appelate judges, and the Upreme Court judges. And the twelve jurors are either hopelessly biased, or competely stupid, or both. And Avery's attorney couldn't find any objective juror in the jury pool.
The documentary makes a mockery of the truth, and insults Halbech's family and the twelve jurors. It presents this proposition to us: because Avery was wrongly convicted in 1985, he must be again in 2005. Wrong! He wasn't framed in 1985, he was wrongly convicted, and not because the cops were out to get him, but primarily because he was identified by the victim as the man who raped her. There was no DNA analysis in 1985. This unfortunately happens a lot, although less so today because of better science.
Freedom Trail wrote:
The forensics proves the body was burned in the fire pit on his property, and nowhere else. So that means if it was a frame up, someone moved the body onto the property after Avery was already a suspect and burned it there, or someone did it before hand and Steven Avery never noticed someone burning a body on his property.
Please don't tell that to Avery's lawyer. He said recently in a lengthy interview with Rolling Stone that he feels like the bone evidence clears his candidate.
http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/making-a-murderer-steven-averys-lawyer-on-the-evidence-left-out-20160115#ixzz3yOhpYp5javery's lawyer said:
The bones were a very important part of the case that we thought pointed towards, at a minimum, reasonable doubt and that's something that didn't get a huge amount of coverage in the documentary....
(In my closing) I challenge him (the DA) to explain to you why these bones were moved." Because there was absolutely no doubt that the bones had been moved, certainly to the burn barrel and possibly a third location as well. The state never even offered [an explanation about] that; they completely ignored it. Didn't even address it, and neither did they [address it] at the Dassey trial, I believe.
rojo wrote:
Freedom Trail wrote:The system is not perfect by any stretch. I do think's it's possible the police planted evidence to enhance the State's case, but only because they believed they had the right guy (again, who else did it?). But even the planting of evidence is hard to swallow, when they know if they screw up in planting it the entire case would be thrown out and the law enforcement officers who did it would lose their jobs and possibly go to prison.
So you just admitted the police might have planted evidence and to you thatt's not reasonable doubt? Are you crazy?
How is it 'hard to swallow' when you consider a) they were facing $35 million lawsuit which may not have been covered by the county's insurance and which some of the officers may have been personally responisble for paying for? and b) The seal on Avery's blood was broken.
It's not hard to swallow at all. One I see the motive of the police to frame him and then the broken seal, my vote of "not guilty' is sign, sealed and delivered.
So, no one on that jury was as smart as you?. They were all idiots who got fooled by the State, and Avery's attorney slept through the trial. Yeah, ok.
I honestly don't know what to believe at all in the documentary. When documentarians have no interest in the truth but rather only in pursuing an agenda of exposing police and prosecutorial misconduct, they use the things they want and put those things in the context they want. And then they get a big contract and famous, and a whole bunch of fools like you buy it hook, line and sunker.
I wonder if the trial transcript is available.
rojo wrote:
Freedom Trail wrote:The forensics proves the body was burned in the fire pit on his property, and nowhere else. So that means if it was a frame up, someone moved the body onto the property after Avery was already a suspect and burned it there, or someone did it before hand and Steven Avery never noticed someone burning a body on his property.
Please don't tell that to Avery's lawyer. He said recently in a lengthy interview with Rolling Stone that he feels like the bone evidence clears his candidate.
http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/making-a-murderer-steven-averys-lawyer-on-the-evidence-left-out-20160115#ixzz3yOhpYp5javery's lawyer said:
The bones were a very important part of the case that we thought pointed towards, at a minimum, reasonable doubt and that's something that didn't get a huge amount of coverage in the documentary....
(In my closing) I challenge him (the DA) to explain to you why these bones were moved." Because there was absolutely no doubt that the bones had been moved, certainly to the burn barrel and possibly a third location as well. The state never even offered [an explanation about] that; they completely ignored it. Didn't even address it, and neither did they [address it] at the Dassey trial, I believe.
Rolling Stone? Are you kidding me? What, they're trying to recover from their horrificly false rape story so they can maybe pay off all the lawsuits.
What I would ask Avery's attorney is, why couldn't you convince one juror of your theory on the bones? Or at least raise reasonable doubt. Great that you're giving interviews to Rolling Stone while your client is in prison and you keep losing in court on nis behalf.
Freedom Trail wrote:
Wrong! He wasn't framed in 1985, he was wrongly convicted, and not because the cops were out to get him, but primarily because he was identified by the victim as the man who raped her. There was no DNA analysis in 1985. This unfortunately happens a lot, although less so today because of better science.
You are leaving out a lot of stuff here. Maybe you have forgotten but you should go back and watch the first episode again. The police elicited that identification. The sketch artist drew the sketch from a mug shot of Steven Avery rather than from the witness description. It ignored prominent parts of witness description. They then
The police ignored contrary evidence.
The DA did not provide all the exculpatory evidence to Steven Avery, as required.
Honestly to attempt to paint his wrongful conviction as an innocent mistake is disingenuous.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Freedom Trail wrote:Wrong! He wasn't framed in 1985, he was wrongly convicted, and not because the cops were out to get him, but primarily because he was identified by the victim as the man who raped her. There was no DNA analysis in 1985. This unfortunately happens a lot, although less so today because of better science.
You are leaving out a lot of stuff here. Maybe you have forgotten but you should go back and watch the first episode again. The police elicited that identification. The sketch artist drew the sketch from a mug shot of Steven Avery rather than from the witness description. It ignored prominent parts of witness description. They then
The police ignored contrary evidence.
The DA did not provide all the exculpatory evidence to Steven Avery, as required.
Honestly to attempt to paint his wrongful conviction as an innocent mistake is disingenuous.
I'm not suggesting it was an innocent mistake. You are right, there was probably some prosecutorial misconduct there. But what I meant was they did not knowingly frame an innocent man. They believed they had the right man, and they played fast and loose with the rules to get a conviction. The end justifies the means, so to speak.
And the victim still identifed Avery in court under oath. She was not forced to do that.
Of course, after the documentary has been exposed as less than objective, I really don't know what to believe in it.
Unfortunately I don't think we will ever know who really killed Halbach, the case just has so many unanswered questions. It can't be a safe decision now, because even if Avery killed her, the unsealed evidence box means that the police were somehow involved with this past their rightful duties. Now that they interfered, there's no way to rightfully convict anyone. I think Avery is guilty though, but the nephew is innocent.
Freedom Trail wrote:
Rojo,
Please expalin the 4:35 phone call to her cell phone asking why she hadn't come when he later admitted she was on the property. Please explain that.
.
This one is fairly easy to explain if I'm Avery or his lawyer. He could easily be calling her to say, "Hey Theresa, I forgot to ask you. How soon will those photos be posted? When will the magazine come out?" Something along those lines.
Avery has never claimed he called her to say "Why didn't you show up?" The DA is saying that in interviews now 10 years later. Please show me a single piece of evidence where Avery said at the time he called her to ask where she was.
Now thanks to google, I just read on reddit
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3zb435/why_did_steven_avery_make_the_435_phone_call/that in an interview with police Avery says he called her back to tell her he realized he had another car he wanted to have her sell. I have no idea if that's true as it's just a post on reddit.
-Rojo
PS. I'll admit The *67 thing is fishy to me but I'd like to see how often he used that feature for his calls. Maybe he did it all the time. But let's say he didn't. He maybe he had a thing for her. That doesn't mean the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt he did it.
WHen I see evidence indicates it's likely the state planted evidence, then I'm not convicting. The state instantly loses all credibility.
Freedom Trail wrote:
What I would ask Avery's attorney is, why couldn't you convince one juror of your theory on the bones? Or at least raise reasonable doubt. Great that you're giving interviews to Rolling Stone while your client is in prison and you keep losing in court on nis behalf.
Well you need to remember this happened in a small town in Wisconsin where all sorts of media influenced the trial. One juror has come out recently and said she regrets her guilty verdict. She says feared for her own safety if she didn't vote guilty.
http://www.etonline.com/news/179248_making_a_murderer_juror_says_that_steven_avery_was_framed_as_petition_to_free_him_tops_250k_signatures/"They told us really that they were afraid that if they held out for a mistrial that it would be easy to identify which juror had done that and that they were fearful for their own safety," Demos added.
I believe I also read she said she felt like if they framed Avery, they could certainly frame her for something as well.
It's important to remember also how much he jury pool was tainted by the press. I'll admit if I was a juror back then and I heard about the kid's confession on the news, it would be hard to say, "Not guilty" as you are going into the trial thinking,"This guy is guilty as hell." Remember, this was 10 years ago before the Internet was in full force. So people weren't really familiar with the idea of false confessions and what not. I'm not sure if most jurors are still familiar with how often that happens.