Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery - #5

[MysticJynx]

Can you give an example of a cold case solved 20 or 30 years later with all the questions answered? Lots of fresh cases don't even have all the answers.

And in my opinion this case has to many questions then answers. So in my opinion he is FRAMED and I think Innocent.

 

[MysticJynx]

Can you give an example of a cold case solved 20 or 30 years later with all the questions answered? Lots of fresh cases don't even have all the answers.

If you do not like my thoughts questions and opinions then feel free to skip by them.

 

[MysticJynx]

Alrighty then. Good luck with your 'search for the truth.'

Good luck with???? your not really doing anything here but spouting his guilt. That everyone already knows was the outcome of the verditt. So good luck with not contributing anything insightful.

 

[MysticJynx]

he had a fair trial. He was found guilty. There is nothing in all of the series that says to me there needs to be a second trial for sa.. I think that b has a case because of the way he was interrogated at some point but not sa. I think he did what he did and he is where he should be.

and you are entitled to that opinion! I do not agree!

 

[MysticJynx]

that is absolutely true. People will make anything out of nothing to keep the case going. The whole of the evidence points to his guilt.

in your opinion!

 

[MysticJynx]

How I hope to GOD, PAMS GOD that lead her to that vehicle will also shine a light on new evidence that proves this case without doubt that he is either Innocent or Guilty. Cause at this point with the faulty way the investigation was done. The truth is still out there waiting to be found by non tainted biased cops.

 

[MysticJynx]

Friendly reminder....Iggy is your friend....
:ignore:

How do i do this ignore. would love to do that in this case. So sick of the NG mentality myself. I think Im more of a Nancy Drew.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You are right, there was quite a lot left out of the series. But what the anti-conspiracy people fail to expound on that subject (other than the totally debunked Kratz list) is that there is ACTUALLY more left out from the defense side of things. I have been reading transcripts and looking at the so called "evidence" for over a month now and I am 100% convinced that that investigation was the most tainted thing I have ever seen. It made the first frame job done in '85 look like a child's play compared to what they turned the investigation in to what happened to TH. To this day, NO ONE can say what actually happened to that young woman, because they were too busy making sure they put SA away for good this time. Too bad they didn't see what that documentary would bring to light, or that SA would someday have someone like KZ in his corner. Bet there are some nervous people in Manitowoc now, because they know what they did.

There are things that were not allowed in the trial but everything that this producers felt was relevant to proving their case for innocence is in there. All the points they are making are there.

The comments like.. " Putting SA away for good " Are just dramatic and not really helpful and finding the truth.
I think SA planned to look framed from day one. I think he felt he could get away with this. This guy was abusive and had an anger problem.. He lit a cat on fire for gosh sake. This is not a nice guy. It is someone who can hurt people and not care.

And I don't want to hear about it being a prank. To dip an animal in gas and throw it on a fire takes evil. Not just meanness. That is a callous hate act.

I think he is sly like a fox.

 

[MysticJynx]

There's nothing wrong with asking questions about things. I just find it hard to see how some of the conclusions are being made about things that probably have nothing to do with this case. JMO.

But you PROBABLY dont really know if they have anything to do with the case any more than we dont know if it does.

 

[MysticJynx]

How do i do this ignore. would love to do that in this case. So sick of the NG mentality myself. I think Im more of a Nancy Drew.

nevermind my nancy drew figured it out

 

[RANCH]

But you PROBABLY dont really know if they have anything to do with the case any more than we dont know if it does.

I'm not making any conclusions out of things that can't be proven.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about this case, people are free to think what they want.

I just don't agree with the conspiracy therories been presented. JMO

 

[MysticJynx]

Ng mentality?? So if people don't believe what you believe they must not have a mind of their own?
Maybe people are pulling the facts out of the drama and finding the truth and it looks nothing like that series.

You think I havent read the documents, saw the picture, read the testimony on my own. I DID. Did you? have you researched any of the facts that you believe made him guilty? It really dont matter about his guilt or innocence. the show was about the misconduct in the justice system. Allowing your enemies to investigate you is wrong. They knew it. they told everyone they took themselves off the case and the only ones out of 200 officers to find any signifigant evidence was a group of 4 that included two men who should never have been on that property. All the evidence is questionable since they did not back off. WHY was it EGO? or was it Planting? what do you think. Why didnt they back off when they told the public they did?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

so why exactly are you here in this thread. You believe hes guilty so move on! Some of us here do not!

Because I like to discuss the actual evidence. But this thread has turned more into a drama than a fact finding mission.

He was found guilty. So He is guilty in the eyes of the law. If the series is to put light on him being wrongly convicted show me where that evidence is?
No matter what evidence you look at it points to him. If there was something that pointed away from him, I would be all over it. But it is not there.

 

[MysticJynx]

Ng mentality?? So if people don't believe what you believe they must not have a mind of their own?
Maybe people are pulling the facts out of the drama and finding the truth and it looks nothing like that series.

Explain to me why it was ok to DEVIATE from so much to prove their case? Not one protocol was followed, Dont that bother you. Take steve avery out of the picture. Put your family member in any situation where they feel they are innocent, and ask yourself is it ok for LE to deviate on protocols to make it make sense that your family did something you are pretty sure they did not? would that be ok with you for someone to accuse you of something then allow the enemy to come on to the property to search it, Is that ok, then to omit they were even there on the initial warrant, why? Seems like a bunch of LIES. how can you expect me to believe what they say when they had 36 million dollars to lose and are proven to be liars by their own press conferences.

 

[Jaiddie]

And in my opinion this case has to many questions then answers. So in my opinion he is FRAMED and I think Innocent.

Starting to lean more towards innocent for me too Mystic, cause I do not know of any other reason that so much (i.e. almost every bit of it) of that "investigation" is so very questionable.

 

[diesel]

BBM

That's not my understanding of what "cadaver" or HRD dogs alert to. JMO

Human remains or decomposition? What do they alert to then?

 

[Jaiddie]

That is absolutely true. People will make anything out of nothing to keep the case going. The whole of the evidence points to his guilt.

WE actually don't have to do anything to keep the case going. Quite sure Kathleen Zellner knows EXACTLY what she's doing. She's done it 17 times before, after all.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You think I havent read the documents, saw the picture, read the testimony on my own. I DID. Did you? have you researched any of the facts that you believe made him guilty? It really dont matter about his guilt or innocence. the show was about the misconduct in the justice system. Allowing your enemies to investigate you is wrong. They knew it. they told everyone they took themselves off the case and the only ones out of 200 officers to find any signifigant evidence was a group of 4 that included two men who should never have been on that property. All the evidence is questionable since they did not back off. WHY was it EGO? or was it Planting? what do you think. Why didnt they back off when they told the public they did?

For me it is simpler than all of that. I have looked into this case beyond the series. I have looked at the methods and evidence presented. What I see is overwhelming evidence that points to one man.
SA.
If you told me that there was nothing to be had on him. Nothing.. But for one small smudge of blood in her car, I would then be concerned and look harder. But her bones are in his fire pit and all over his property. That is a tough thing to overcome, unless you believe the police murdered TH and then felt the need to scatter her bones and ashes..
The question is who killed TH. That is the question in this case and the evidence is stacked against SA. Otherwise the other side would be that either the police killed TH and then burned her and scattered her ashes to his property, Or they found the real killer but just wanted to get SA so they took all the evidence from where it was and then brought it to his house and tried to set him up with way more evidence than anyone would ever need to nail him.

This is not talking about a conspiracy but an effort on the part of every le officer there on the property to frame this man. You would have to have every LEO on board. Every one.

It does not stand up to reason. Had there been nothing but one thing, I could definitely look closer at the conspiracy issue. But this is overwhelming evidence.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Explain to me why it was ok to DEVIATE from so much to prove their case? Not one protocol was followed, Dont that bother you. Take steve avery out of the picture. Put your family member in any situation where they feel they are innocent, and ask yourself is it ok for LE to deviate on protocols to make it make sense that your family did something you are pretty sure they did not? would that be ok with you for someone to accuse you of something then allow the enemy to come on to the property to search it, Is that ok, then to omit they were even there on the initial warrant, why? Seems like a bunch of LIES. how can you expect me to believe what they say when they had 36 million dollars to lose and are proven to be liars by their own press conferences.

IF my brother had the bones of someone burned in his fire pit, Her car on his property, his blood and dna in and on her car, that would be enough for me to see the evidence was pretty conclusive.
The problem I have is that the evidence is there to convict. Not just one or two things but a mountain.

 

[SpriteGal]

Everything just seems so far fetched to me, I have a hard time wrapping my head around how this guy could have the worst luck possible. Most of go through are life without being found guilty of a crime we didn't commit (that is horrible don't get me wrong) but then to then have a murdered person remains be found on your property, as you are the last one to be known to see her? And then the theory that everything was planted there, but the people that planted the evidence weren't the actual ones that commited the murder? I can't get behind that. I am obviously the odd one out here, but its my opinion. IMO.