Making a Murderer

[downzy]

On February 5, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Dazey said:

To be fair this guy is guilty as hell no matter the technicalities of the case. "Oh yes your honour, the burned up body of the woman who came to visit me? The one whose blood and car keys were found in my trailer? Oh, yeah that was nothing to do with me!" 

You mean the key that investigators missed the first six times they searched the place, only to discover it on the seventh go around by the guy who was forbidden to enter the crime scene?  

What about the fact that no blood was discovered inside the bedroom or garage where she was supposedly killed?  Or how about no fingerprints were discovered inside the car where Avery's blood was discovered (which supposedly came from a cut on his hand; so if he was wearing gloves to protect against finger prints, how did he leave blood behind?).  And it was established that the burned bones of the victim had been moved from where they were discovered.  

Again, he may very well be guilty, but almost all the evidence you point to is highly questionable.  

[Dazey]

1 minute ago, downzy said:

You mean the key that investigators missed the first six times they searched the place, only to discover it on the seventh go around by the guy who was forbidden to enter the crime scene?  

What about the fact that no blood was discovered inside the bedroom or garage where she was supposedly killed?  Or how about no fingerprints were discovered inside the car where Avery's blood was discovered (which supposedly came from a cut on his hand; so if he was wearing gloves to protect against finger prints, how did he leave blood behind?).  And it was established that the burned bones of the victim had been moved from where they were discovered.  

Again, he may very well be guilty, but almost all the evidence you point to is highly questionable.  

I still think he's guilty as hell. 

[downzy]

On February 5, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Dan H. said:

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. The case is shady and skewed, and possibly has grounds to be thrown out due to the behavior of the police and the shoddy evidence at times, but honestly it's pretty clear to me that there are only about three probable situations that lead to the victims death

 

1. There was some kind of intricate and ridiculously convoluted frame job that was nearly perfectly pulled off by officers and politicians who had proven to be stupid and sloppy at multiple points in the case.

2. Avery is just the unluckiest human being on the planet and it was all just a bizarre coincidence

3. He did it, but not to the extent that was described(the gang rape etc) and it just got muddled up with all the other issues going on with the cops and his past conviction

 

If I was a juror on the case, I would have probably went with a guilty verdict as well

 

With respect to your first point, well, they did a fine job proving guilt of an innocent man the first time around.  Why wouldn't they try to do the same again, especially, since this time, they had motive.

[Dan H.]

Just now, downzy said:

 

With respect to your first point, well, they did a fine job proving guilt of an innocent man the first time around.  Why wouldn't they try to do the same again, especially, since this time, they had motive.

It's possible, for sure. Just seems unlikely

[MrPoe]

What kind of moron would park the victim's car on his property, knowing that a full search was underway. Especially someone that spent almost 20 years in prison? Uh, not even the biggest moron would do that.

[Dan H.]

1 minute ago, MrPoe said:

What kind of moron would park the victim's car on his property, knowing that a full search was underway. Especially someone that spent almost 20 years in prison? Uh, not even the biggest moron would do that.

Happens all the time. Whether you think it is moronic or not. People are capable of really dumb shit.

[downzy]

21 minutes ago, Dan H. said:

It's possible, for sure. Just seems unlikely

Unlikely to the point of beyond a reasonable doubt?  

The problem I have with all of this is that there's precedent for officials doing it to Avery before (or at least, being complicit or negligible, and then covering up their crimes).  You don't think that a multi-million dollar lawsuit filled a few weeks before the girl's disappearance and murder is just coincidental?  

The legal system is suppose to work the basis of reasonable doubt.  How anyone watches this documentary and says that that standard was met in Avery's case is beyond me.  I've read the evidence that they left out the documentary (buying handcuffs a few weeks before, abusive to his then fiancé, calling and leaving messages on the victim's answering machines many times, etc.).  But it still does not change the physical problems with the evidence as it was presented (no victim blood in the garage or bedroom, no Avery fingerprints in the victim's vehicle, the key being found on the seventh search of the property, the fact that Avery had access to a car bailer and didn't use it, etc.).  

[Dazey]

41 minutes ago, downzy said:

But the documentary makes light of two different questions:

1) Did Avery do it?

2) Were Avery and his nephew's constitutional and legal rights violated during or as a result of the investigation and/or trial?

With respect to the first question, absolutely no one can know with any certainty.  There is no 100 percent.  Is it beyond a reasonable doubt?  Maybe.  If you fall into that group, then you still have to answer question two.

I'm not sure how anyone watches this documentary and concludes that Avery's rights, and particularly the rights of his nephew, were not trampled upon as a result of the decisions made by the police, the judge, and the prosecution.  There are wholesale instances where protocols were not followed, questionable evidence being deemed admissible, defense denied the opportunity to raise the prospect of another killer, and in the case of the nephew, a suspect's legal representation actively working against the best interests of his client.  It doesn't matter whether you think he's guilty or not.  Was due process followed?  Is the appeals process too cumbersome and biased towards the found guilty in this case?  

This is probably going to sound really bad but if the answer to 1 is yes then as far as I'm concerned the answer to 2 is "who gives a shit?"

[downzy]

2 minutes ago, Dazey said:

This is probably going to sound really bad but if the answer to 1 is yes then as far as I'm concerned the answer to 2 is "who gives a shit?"

Maybe so, but in most developed nations with robust legal systems, the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilty while respecting the legal rights of the accused.  It's the basis of innocent until proven guilty in the court of law, with the court of law present to ensure compliance with the legal rights of the accused.  

[Dazey]

21 minutes ago, downzy said:

Maybe so, but in most developed nations with robust legal systems, the onus is on the prosecution to prove guilty while respecting the legal rights of the accused.  It's the basis of innocent until proven guilty in the court of law, with the court of law present to ensure compliance with the legal rights of the accused.  

Oh, you're 100% correct. I just found myself not caring what happened to the dude as he's pretty obviously a waste of oxygen. 

[downzy]

5 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Oh, you're 100% correct. I just found myself not caring what happened to the dude as he's pretty obviously a waste of oxygen. 

Fair enough.  Personally, I just think there are too many questions left unanswered to conclusively determine the man's guilt, at least to the point of whether his rights were violated.  If we were talking about Jeffrey Dahmer who left a head in his refrigerator, then I might be more on your side.  

[Apollo]

5 hours ago, downzy said:

But the documentary makes light of two different questions:

1) Did Avery do it?

2) Were Avery and his nephew's constitutional and legal rights violated during or as a result of the investigation and/or trial?

With respect to the first question, absolutely no one can know with any certainty.  There is no 100 percent.  Is it beyond a reasonable doubt?  Maybe.  If you fall into that group, then you still have to answer question two.

I'm not sure how anyone watches this documentary and concludes that Avery's rights, and particularly the rights of his nephew, were not trampled upon as a result of the decisions made by the police, the judge, and the prosecution.  There are wholesale instances where protocols were not followed, questionable evidence being deemed admissible, defense denied the opportunity to raise the prospect of another killer, and in the case of the nephew, a suspect's legal representation actively working against the best interests of his client.  It doesn't matter whether you think he's guilty or not.  Was due process followed?  Is the appeals process too cumbersome and biased towards the found guilty in this case?  

Or there is always the option that the documentary is extremely biased, didn't show the full actions that happened, left out key evidence and presented things out of order to make them seem more damming.  Throw those aspects info any case and one could make it seem like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer weren't given fair trials. 

I chose to not take the documentary as gospel and did more research. The facts are pretty overwhelming against Avery and his nephew. 

There is a reason the jury found them both guilty, no appeals were successful and even the organization that helped free him the first time refused to take this case. 

The doc was interesting to watch. But like a Michael Moore documentary, it was extremely biased. So much so to make it almost a work of fiction. 

Yes, the found key is highly suspicious. But the blood, fingerprints, bones, personal property and witness reports made this a pretty easy case. Then throw in statements made by his ex-gf, his brother, former cell mate, and his own sons .....open and shut.

This doc is exactly similar to Robert Graysmiths original and famous book about the Zodiac Killer. It presented so many untruths that it almost ruined one innocent man's life and even today, 50 years later famous directors are basing movies off it and millions of people think it was accurate. Film fans rate the recent movie Zodiac as a classic. Even tho it's 90% fiction. Same thing with the Avery doc. People are freaking out without doing any more researching and seeing all the actual facts  

 

 

[Apollo]

5 hours ago, downzy said:

Unlikely to the point of beyond a reasonable doubt?  

The problem I have with all of this is that there's precedent for officials doing it to Avery before (or at least, being complicit or negligible, and then covering up their crimes).  You don't think that a multi-million dollar lawsuit filled a few weeks before the girl's disappearance and murder is just coincidental?  

The legal system is suppose to work the basis of reasonable doubt.  How anyone watches this documentary and says that that standard was met in Avery's case is beyond me.  I've read the evidence that they left out the documentary (buying handcuffs a few weeks before, abusive to his then fiancé, calling and leaving messages on the victim's answering machines many times, etc.).  But it still does not change the physical problems with the evidence as it was presented (no victim blood in the garage or bedroom, no Avery fingerprints in the victim's vehicle, the key being found on the seventh search of the property, the fact that Avery had access to a car bailer and didn't use it, etc.).  

Except they did find Avery's fingerprints on the hood and front latch of the car. Right where Brendon told them Avery touched it. 

And they did find Avery's blood in her car. That was one of GnR huge plot points. Avery's lawyers accused the police of planting the blood. And they had the FBI test the blood to prove that it came from old evidence from the first case. And the FBI testing concluded that the blood didn't have the storing substance in it. Thereby shutting down the accusation that the Police planted old blood. 

Her bones were found in his fire pit. Everybody agrees he had a huge bonfire the night she disappeared. And her personal belongings were found in another burn barrel on his property. 

And didn't they find a bullet fragment in the burn barrel or in the garage that matched the same kind of rifle that Avery owned?

So he was the last known person to see the victim, who he had already sexually harassed before, his nephew initially admitted to his mom and others that they did it, and the victims car is found on his property - with his finger prints and his blood on it. The victims bones and personal belongings are also found in various spots on Avery's property. 

Thats about 90% more evidence than is needed in most murder convictions. 

The only reasonable doubt stems from one of the most biased documentaries people will ever see. 

His ex cell mate said Avery told him the best way to get rid of a body is by burning it. His sons say he had a violent temper and they don't talk to him anymore. His brother and neighbor is convinced he did it. His ex gf says he was violent to her. 

Take away the documentary and just look at the actual facts and it makes complete sense why the jury and appeals courts had no issues. And why the innocent project people had no interest in taking on the case. 

The more logical theory is that Avery was still angry at the police and city for unjustly locking him away, he saw a huge payday ahead, and thought because of his prior false inprisonment that he would be untouchable this time and could get away with anything he wanted. 

[downzy]

16 hours ago, Apollo said:

Except they did find Avery's fingerprints on the hood and front latch of the car. Right where Brendon told them Avery touched it. 

And they did find Avery's blood in her car. That was one of GnR huge plot points. Avery's lawyers accused the police of planting the blood. And they had the FBI test the blood to prove that it came from old evidence from the first case. And the FBI testing concluded that the blood didn't have the storing substance in it. Thereby shutting down the accusation that the Police planted old blood. 

Her bones were found in his fire pit. Everybody agrees he had a huge bonfire the night she disappeared. And her personal belongings were found in another burn barrel on his property. 

And didn't they find a bullet fragment in the burn barrel or in the garage that matched the same kind of rifle that Avery owned?

So he was the last known person to see the victim, who he had already sexually harassed before, his nephew initially admitted to his mom and others that they did it, and the victims car is found on his property - with his finger prints and his blood on it. The victims bones and personal belongings are also found in various spots on Avery's property. 

Thats about 90% more evidence than is needed in most murder convictions. 

The only reasonable doubt stems from one of the most biased documentaries people will ever see. 

His ex cell mate said Avery told him the best way to get rid of a body is by burning it. His sons say he had a violent temper and they don't talk to him anymore. His brother and neighbor is convinced he did it. His ex gf says he was violent to her. 

Take away the documentary and just look at the actual facts and it makes complete sense why the jury and appeals courts had no issues. And why the innocent project people had no interest in taking on the case. 

The more logical theory is that Avery was still angry at the police and city for unjustly locking him away, he saw a huge payday ahead, and thought because of his prior false inprisonment that he would be untouchable this time and could get away with anything he wanted. 

Nope, they never found Avery's fingerprints on the hood and front latch of the car.  They found his DNA taken from a q-tip.

Also, simply because the FBI test did not find EDTA (the chemical found in stored blood) that would have proven it taken from the previous vile doesn't mean it wasn't in there.  It simply means it wasn't detected.  It's very possible that the level of EDTA was below the detection method.  Keep in mind that the defense was not permitted to do its own independent testing.  Also keep in mind that exposure to oxygen and sunlight would likely have an effect on EDTA levels discovered in the blood found in the Halbach's car.  Here's a fairly scientific rebuttal against the argument that the EDTA report by the FBI is questionable at best and garbage at worse:

 

"In regards to the documentary, the test showed that no EDTA was detectable in the blood swabs. Without a limit of detection, this information means nothing, absolutely nothing. It is possible that the test could only detect EDTA if EDTA composed at least 50% of the sample. The amount of EDTA in blood tubes is miniscule, almost negligible compared to the amount of blood. We are talking about 7 milligrams of EDTA in a 4-mL blood tube. If 0.1 mL was taken out, it would, at most, contain 0.2 mg of EDTA. The blood was swabbed from the vehicle, and probably only 1/10 of the blood (0.01 mL of actual blood), thereby diluting it further. The swab used was also wetted with some sort of solvent, maybe 0.1 mL. Now, there’s only 0.002 mg of EDTA in the blood swab. The swab most likely was diluted further for test purposes, probably taking the swab and re-suspending into at least 1 mL of solution. Using my numbers, which are probably conservative, the test would have to be able to detect 0.0002 mg (0.2 µg) of EDTA in 1 mL of sample. Outside of the amount of EDTA present in a 4-mL blood tube, these numbers are hypothetical for illustrative purposes only."

 

As for bones found in the fire pit, here again there are consistency problems.  The state argues that Teresa was killed by a bullet fired in the garage and then her body was burned in the fire pit 100 yards away.  So why was his blood in the car if he was moving the body 100 yards?   Why would he use her car to move a body 100 yards?  A bigger problem is the fact that there were bones found in a burn barrel that was 10 miles away.  So is the argument then that she was killed in the Avery garage, then driven ten miles where they burn part of the body, then driven back to the fire pit where the rest of her is burned?  None of that makes any sense.  As the defence argued during the trial:

"The other thing that wasn't covered in the documentary is, we presented an expert who's from Canada, and he had never testified for anybody but the Crown, the prosecution, before. He was really a world expert on finding cremains outside and in various locations [where one might] try to hide and dispose of a body. And he testified consistently with what we had found in the literature, which is: to burn a body takes either extremely high heat, or a very long, sustained, moderate medium-high type of heat, and it would be very difficult to burn a body in an open pit — an open fire — particularly to the degree that these bone fragments showed. At a crematorium, for instance, they use extremely high heat, and it still takes several hours. 

Here, you would have had to continually stoke a fire over, and over, and over for 12, 14, 16 hours — something like that — in order to produce this [type of effect]. And there was no evidence that any fire [like that] had [taken place]. There was a bonfire, but there was no evidence that there was any intense fire like that for such a long, sustained period of time."

 

You're really going to tell me that anything the nephew has to say is factual or admissible?  His story matches almost perfectly the story Kiss the Girls.  His testimony was so weak that the state didn't even bother calling him to the stand in his uncle's case.  

Again, I'm not saying that Avery didn't do it, but the facts are not there to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.  There's just too many contradictory and unexplained circumstances to come to conclusion you seem is assured.  

[wasted]

On 10 February 2016 at 3:21 AM, Apollo said:

He did it 

The amount of people in completely different organizations that would have had to be involved in a framing situation is ridiculous. 

Avery did it - 100% 

The documentary is done Michael Moore style. Ignore facts and just present and twist evidence to prove your own point. 

They could have presented both sides and had a tremendous five episode doc that didn't drag on so long. 

I only saw 1 ep. But then I watched a few more and he was up for murder again 18 years later. So when I get back I'll finish it. But it looked like impossible he didn't do it. At least the murder, not sure about the rape though. I was pretty hooked at ep 6. 

[wasted]

I don't think you need to prove a vast conspiracy. It's just planting the evidence that's important. Only takes 1 or 2 people to do it. 

 

Why Avery would leave the key in his trailer or blood in the car I'm not sure. 

 

[Dan H.]

Downzy, it is my understanding that they did indeed find DNA perspiration on the hood latch that matched Avery, and would be difficult to fake. That detail was excluded from the documentary.

 

Now, I have no professional background in criminal law, so as far as the trial and reasonable doubt goes, I can't say for certain if the system failed Avery or not. Perhaps there was room for reasonable dount. I certainly find the testimony of the mentally challenged teen to be flimsy at best, and actively coerced at worst.

 

One of my hang ups with the doc is that the film makers don't offer substantial alternative theories to the murder. They offer an emotional and carefully crafted and edited defense of Avery, but no prosecution, no possibility of his guilt, and no alternative explanations.

 

While I find the show to be super emgaging, well made, and very thoughtful, it is simply a trial by public favor, presented and packaged as a one sided argument that in no way is interested in trying to find out why or how this woman was murdered, but rather is a passionate and biased argument for the innocence of the person convicted.

 

Given the information I've read, I don't find that there is a realistic or likely alternative to Avery being guilty of the killing, or at least having some involvement or knowledge of it.

 

Even if the kids testimony is bullshit (and it smells an awful lot like bullshit) I still believe the most likely scenario is Avery being a murderer.

[wasted]

The police did seem out to get Avery as part of this weird incestuous criminal family. Maybe they did nail him for the wrong crime and then he got out 18 years later and sued them. 

Do I think there are corrupt cops? Yes. 

Would they be pissed off to made to like monkey's asses by this guy they obviously hated? Yes. 

The only reason I can think Avery did it is because his girlfriend left him. He must have been thinking might as well rape/murder and go back to jail. 

But god damn if the cops and prosecution didnt look dodgy as fuck. Then Ken Kratz gets busted for sexual harrassment of his own abused client. 

I can't see how he couldn't have done the murder though. But did they frame him just to make sure?

If new evidence or testing can prove the blood did come from the tube he'll be out. 

 

Marty we have to go back into the case.

[gunsguy]

On 2/20/2016 at 8:43 PM, Dan H. said:

Downzy, it is my understanding that they did indeed find DNA perspiration on the hood latch that matched Avery, and would be difficult to fake. That detail was excluded from the documentary.

 

Now, I have no professional background in criminal law, so as far as the trial and reasonable doubt goes, I can't say for certain if the system failed Avery or not. Perhaps there was room for reasonable dount. I certainly find the testimony of the mentally challenged teen to be flimsy at best, and actively coerced at worst.

 

One of my hang ups with the doc is that the film makers don't offer substantial alternative theories to the murder. They offer an emotional and carefully crafted and edited defense of Avery, but no prosecution, no possibility of his guilt, and no alternative explanations.

 

While I find the show to be super emgaging, well made, and very thoughtful, it is simply a trial by public favor, presented and packaged as a one sided argument that in no way is interested in trying to find out why or how this woman was murdered, but rather is a passionate and biased argument for the innocence of the person convicted.

 

Given the information I've read, I don't find that there is a realistic or likely alternative to Avery being guilty of the killing, or at least having some involvement or knowledge of it.

 

Even if the kids testimony is bullshit (and it smells an awful lot like bullshit) I still believe the most likely scenario is Avery being a murderer.

Not going to pretend I know alot about DNA but I do know that DNA is not present in perspiration...  So what exactly did they find?

[Dan H.]

10 hours ago, gunsguy said:

Not going to pretend I know alot about DNA but I do know that DNA is not present in perspiration...  So what exactly did they find?

Well, no. Sweat in and of itself is not made up of DNA. However when you sweat, you are shedding small amounts of dead skin cells, which do contain DNA. I'm guessing that's what the investigators mean when they say that they found DNA in the sweat on the hood latch

[downzy]

On February 20, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Dan H. said:

Downzy, it is my understanding that they did indeed find DNA perspiration on the hood latch that matched Avery, and would be difficult to fake. That detail was excluded from the documentary.

 

Now, I have no professional background in criminal law, so as far as the trial and reasonable doubt goes, I can't say for certain if the system failed Avery or not. Perhaps there was room for reasonable dount. I certainly find the testimony of the mentally challenged teen to be flimsy at best, and actively coerced at worst.

 

One of my hang ups with the doc is that the film makers don't offer substantial alternative theories to the murder. They offer an emotional and carefully crafted and edited defense of Avery, but no prosecution, no possibility of his guilt, and no alternative explanations.

 

While I find the show to be super emgaging, well made, and very thoughtful, it is simply a trial by public favor, presented and packaged as a one sided argument that in no way is interested in trying to find out why or how this woman was murdered, but rather is a passionate and biased argument for the innocence of the person convicted.

 

Given the information I've read, I don't find that there is a realistic or likely alternative to Avery being guilty of the killing, or at least having some involvement or knowledge of it.

 

Even if the kids testimony is bullshit (and it smells an awful lot like bullshit) I still believe the most likely scenario is Avery being a murderer.

It's my impression based on watching the documentary that the intention of the filmmakers wasn't so much to prove a man's innocence (since such is a near impossibility; courts find people not guilty, not innocent), but to show the staggering failings of the U.S. judicial system.  The point isn't to say that Steven Avery is innocent, but how could a judicial process be conducted in such a way that upholds the notions of fairness and reasonable doubt.  The filmmakers admit they were selective in their edits, but only for the purposes of highlighting what they felt was the prosecutor's strongest arguments and evidence and explain why there are issues with each.  It is a passionate and biased argument, not necessarily for a person, but for a process that makes it possible and likely for innocent people to be found guilty.  I would like to assume that for most people, the prospect of imprisoning an innocent person outweighs the prospect of letting a guilty person walk.  

I'm friends with a few lawyers here in Canada and they've told me that such a case would never have happened in Canadian courts.  You mention how you found the testimony of the nephew to be flimsy.  But that's just it, the testimony was shared with the public (and hence the eventual jurors) even prior to Avery's case without the defence ever getting a chance to argue its merits within the court.  This is just one example of many that my lawyer friends argue would dismiss the initial guilty findings.  Then there's the prosecutor's threatening the defence council itself during the trial.  There were multiple grounds for dismissal had the judge acted in good faith (or operated in a different country like Canada or the UK).  

The argument of the documentary isn't whether Avery is innocent or guilty, but whether the judicial system should operate on the basis of reasonable doubt. Is it reasonable that Avery's fingerprints were not found either within or on the outside of Teresa's car?  Is it reasonable that the corrupt cop found the key in Avery's bedroom after it had been searched six or seven times?  Is it reasonable to find Avery guilty of a brutal murder as argued by the prosecution but found no blood in Avery's bedroom or garage?  Is it reasonable to question the blood found within the car considering the blood vial from Avery's rape conviction had been tampered with?  Is it reasonable to find Avery guilty when the police failed to investigate anyone else (or the Court not allowing the defence to accuse anyone else)?  In my opinion the court and prosecution did not in good faith operate on the grounds of reasonable doubt.  The judicial process, if truly based on the grounds of reasonable doubt, doesn't find a man like Avery guilty based on the evidence presented regardless of whether he's guilty or not.  There's a high threshold for finding guilt; it goes back to my original point of whether finding an innocent man guilty a tolerable action.  

You mention you've read information elsewhere that proves Avery's guilt.  But I haven't read anything within this thread by those arguing his guilt that gets us beyond a reasonable doubt.  

As for "sweat DNA" on the latch, there's no such thing as sweat DNA.  DNA is found in nucleated cells, but there was never any test done to determine that a sample of DNA came specifically from perspiration.  As Avery's defense council argues:

“What Attorney Kratz also has not mentioned is that there are many studies that show ‘touch DNA’ can be innocently transferred from one object to another, or one person to another, without any connection to a crime.

“Whether the mechanism is via shed skin cells is as yet unknown. Because evidence can be transferred from one object to another evidence techs know they must change gloves after each area tested to avoid contamination.

Buting concludes: “The crime lab analyst admitted in the Avery trial that he opened the hood latch without changing gloves, so he may have been the source of that DNA Attorney Kratz keeps mentioning. Moreover, none of Avery’s fingerprints were found anywhere in or on the car, including the hood.”

Again, Avery might very well be guilty, but little of the evidence presented before the Court is on solid ground or upholds to basic logic.  

 

[Dan H.]

Downzy, have you listened to Serial? Making a Murderer is an entertainment piece, Serial is journalism, and a lot more interesting. You should check it out if you haven't 

[downzy]

On February 22, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Dan H. said:

Downzy, have you listened to Serial? Making a Murderer is an entertainment piece, Serial is journalism, and a lot more interesting. You should check it out if you haven't 

I'm familiar with the podcast but haven't had the chance to listen to it (short on time).  Thanks for the recommendation.  

[wasted]

I'm more interested in why he did it? I mean if you don't want to get caught at least try. It's hard to imagine anyone that stupid. 

[downzy]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/03/29/lawyer-claims-new-evidence-in-avery-case.html