In regards to the "sweat DNA", an investigator also testified that he lifted the hood to check the odometer while using the same gloves that had handled Avery's personal items. Contamination could have easily happened through secondary contamination. The state's investigation and prosecution were grossly mishandled in this case. Combine that with plenty of reasonable doubt, Steven Avery is deserving of a second trial. Reddit has a lot more current information if you're interested.
Of course he was coached..but someone who is said to not be very bright likely will still have a hiccup or two under that kind of stress. They were questioning him in a way that would confuse him, but it didnt. He had to think before answering a few times and was able to do it succesfully. Night and day, compared to pre-trial, even with coaching.
I started out with high expectations and it started out too redneckish that I stopped. must lower my standards.
It is just funny how Kratz claims it's from sweat, when it's easily just been spelled out by someone not even involved with the case (a few posts up) how it could have easily been cross contamination. This man, whether guilty or not, has been failed by our justice system - twice. It's, so far, cost him the vast majority of his adult life. A huge shame. In our country, you must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In two cases, there's been ample reasonable doubt. Somehow, twice, he's been convicted. What this whole situation has done for me is made me doubt our legal system. I thought it was great once. Now, I realize that with the common outlier of stupid, it can't be great ever.
good writeup in The New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/25/dead-certainty?intcid=mod-most-popular
Im not going to sit on my ass for an hour for 10 episodes to find out about a guy that jerks it while on top of the hood of a car.
It was a good show. Granted, I stopped after I watched 8 episodes. But only because it was so ****ing infuriating and disgusting.
Dr Phil featured the story yesterday and last Friday. As a warning, if you can't stand Nancy Grace, such as I, steer clear of Friday's episode. Overall, he took the same general stance that I have: maybe he did it, but there seems to be a lot of reasonable doubt. Because of that, I think the guy deserves a new trial. Unfortunately, because of the press, including Dr Phil, he may never get a fair trial, even if it is re-tried.
http://www.htrnews.com/story/news/l...ew-colborn-rips-report-steven-avery/79013356/ Colborn's first statement about the publicity since the series aired. This was an e-mail he sent a Wisconsin reporter about an article. The irony is thick.
The first episode had a small part about someone who claims Avery did this and was partly a reason they thought he might be guilty of the sexual assault. Also, let's stop calling it sweat -- it was DNA. Could've been scraped from his arm, no definitive proof that it came from sweat.
I believe it was the prosecution trying to pass it off as sweat DNA, so that's why I think some of us are going with that. His momma named him Clay, I'ma call him Clay
I just find it interesting that the side that is rushing to call the documentary bias is running wild with an inaccurate claim from the prosecutor. The public pendulum swings both ways.
I couldn't believe even people such as Dr. Phil are still reporting it was sweat. That makes is sound more damning than the evidence actually is. Knowing that it's epithelial cells of unknown origin largely leaves open the simple explanation that it was cross-contamination. Makes me wonder how inaccurate other "facts" are that were purported by the prosecutor. Just such a waste of our judicial system...
I have not had the chance to see this yet. Will probably binge this weekend. Does anyone ever interview the jurors to get their thoughts and to see if they can talk about what may or may not have been left out of the show that they saw in the courtroom?
One juror who was excused for medical reasons during deliberations is interviewed several times near the end of the series, he said that early in the deliberations, 7 were siding with Avery as innocent, 3 as guilty, and two as undecided. http://www.ew.com/article/2016/01/08/making-murderer-juror-verdict-steven-avery
