Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

[Midge Montana]

Ugh. I'm having one heck of a time posting from my iPad. So, this is regarding the question about "Tammy." I have no idea who that is, and only saw it in the documentary.
However I did come across a reference to a "T" in the second section of these transcripts of calls between Brendan and his mom. Toward the bottom, Brendan mentions that he wished he'd have listened to this "T" person. Not sure at all who this may be. Maybe the same person? I just don't recall any "T" family members. Any guesses?
https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_d...xVsywmsU&ext=1451282468&hash=ASuTh98dYPX7Gu6P

 

[stephsb]

Regarding jurors....one of them was an "international recording artist" which made me very curious!

I'm not going to lie, originally being from the area I was having a hard time trying to figure out why an international recording artist was in calumet county, just saying lol.

I can see the defense wanting someone like him though, like I've said before, the Avery clan has a reputation amongst locals...maybe they thought this guy got out a little more and would be more open minded. I always love seeing juror occupations, they really do try to get them from all walks of life


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MaxManning]

The defense doesn't need to prove anything, is correct. But if they don't offer evidence that creates reasonable doubt, then the juror has no reason to have reasonable doubt. They will believe everything the prosecution says. Isn't that kind of the whole point of a trial ?

When the prosecution creates a narrative and submits that, the defense doesn't have to prove anything. A juror also doesn't make a decision (or shouldn't) based on only one piece of evidence.

Are you saying that cases are never decided based partially on circumstantial evidence that a jury weighs ? Seriously ?

I never said that it makes Avery guilty. But I did say that as a juror, if I heard that narrative it would raise suspicion in my mind as to whether Teresa was in his trailer. If you believe she was in his trailer that is step 1. You don't find that important ?

Her being in the trailer doesn't even mean Avery killed her. That's understood. But it's a narrative that explains why she likely was in the trailer and that is step 1 for the prosecution. If prosecution convinces a jury that she was there, step 1 is completed.

Every trial i've ever watched you have witnesses going up and saying things and a cross examination of defense questioning to make clear how that testimony might be interpreted another way ? Why do they do that ? Because they don't have anything to gain ? It's because they need to explain why something that a juror might think means one thing... might mean another thing.

I am pretty sure you are not saying the defense should just sit back and let them say whatever and not let it stand as the way it must have been. During deliberations the jury is most certainly discussing what they heard on cross examination.

Maybe it's the terminology and this is all semantics. When I say "evidence" i am not talking about a given object that is submitted as evidence. What is it that you would call the words that come out of a witnesses mouth ? testimony ? If that's the more specific word I should use, sure. They are paying attention to the testimony of the people called to talk about what they know that is relevant to the case.

Is that the misunderstanding we are having ? I am sorry, I might be using the word "evidence" where maybe testimony should be used ?

Or are you telling me that you don't believe that when someone at auto trader tells them how teresa goes about her work and how it completes with a bill of sale , they don't even take that into account and evaluate it as "evidence" to the prosecutions narrative ?

Is this terminology confusion here ? or are you saying that ?

 

[SophieRose]

I believe both Chuck and Earl had sexual assault convictions. Earl i believe was with teenagers.

I don't think what other inmates said could be taken too seriously without some kind of real connection to evidence. But I haven't even seen anything but a report saying that. No direct statements and a named person.


You can look at the Avery appeal docs to get a better idea of who the many sordid characters roaming the junkyard were :

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery documents 1-22.pdf
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery document page 23 +.pdf

I doubt I was the only one who read that who came away thinking any of them would be a possible prime suspect.

DA used what the inmates said to increase his bail.

http://archive.thenorthwestern.com/assets/pdf/U022187316.PDF

Steven Avery has demonstrated an intent, plan, and motive to abduct, rape, torture, kill and mutilate young women as evidenced by conversations with inmates, and showing diagrams within the Wisconsin Corrections System, of a “torture chamber” Avery intended to build upon his release from prison.

 

[MaxManning]

I think the confusion comes from the fact that the prosecution submits evidence and then the defense in a sense scrutinizes it.

Sorry if I in some places use the word "evidence". I also want to point out that I am not at all viewing this case as if I am limited to a legal structure to come to an opinion. I think a juror will be given instructions that differ from my use of all this information, but if it's evidence or testimony or a narrative given in a closing argument, It gets weighed by a juror. If not, what's the reason for it all ?

Not sure if this applies :

"In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact.Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury."


[FONT=arial, sans-serif]or is there some other point you are trying to make ?[/FONT]

 

[stephsb]

Ugh. I'm having one heck of a time posting from my iPad. So, this is regarding the question about "Tammy." I have no idea who that is, and only saw it in the documentary.
However I did come across a reference to a "T" in the second section of these transcripts of calls between Brendan and his mom. Toward the bottom, Brendan mentions that he wished he'd have listened to this "T" person. Not sure at all who this may be. Maybe the same person? I just don't recall any "T" family members. Any guesses?
https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_d...xVsywmsU&ext=1451282468&hash=ASuTh98dYPX7Gu6P

I always took the "T" family member to refer to Scott Tadych, Barb Janda's boyfriend. I'm open to other options though.

 

[MaxManning]

DA used what the inmates said to increase his bail.

http://archive.thenorthwestern.com/assets/pdf/U022187316.PDF

Steven Avery has demonstrated an intent, plan, and motive to abduct, rape, torture, kill and mutilate young women as evidenced by conversations with inmates, and showing diagrams within the Wisconsin Corrections System, of a “torture chamber” Avery intended to build upon his release from prison.

Yeah, that's pretty much all I have heard. Not any real details, just that it's been said. But unless these things were reported BEFORE the halbach murder, I'd question them being true. idk

 

[MaxManning]

I always took the "T" family member to refer to Scott Tadych, Barb Janda's boyfriend. I'm open to other options though.

In the documentary , episode 5 you can find her mentioned in the transcript here : http://transcripts.foreverdreaming....&t=24358&sid=ce31e06135b37a46a1499424de16279f

Avery :What about this cop?
Fassbender: Want to tell us about that?
Wiegert: Tell us about that.
Tammy told me that.
Tammy told you?
Yeah.
She a friend of yours or something or...?
Yeah, I know her.
What did she tell you?
That... she heard... She told me that she'd heard that a cop put it out there and planted evidence.
Put what out there?
That vehicle.
And that's Teresa's vehicle?
Yeah.
So Tammy told you that somebody told her...
Yeah.
...that a cop put that vehicle, Teresa's vehicle, out on your property.
Yeah.

Edit -- btw this is the interview that I was hoping to find a transcript or full video for. This was obviously after Avery was first arrested. It looks like the same interrogation room as brendan's interview on 2/27 at the two rivers police depth.

I'd imagine he might have said more than just this. I also think I recall at least one other clip from this interview in the documentary, but not sure where.

 

[MaxManning]

Ok I found this on reddit --> https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur...o_has_more_information_about_tammy_the_woman/

*this is not something I see as factual obviously.

"I did some digging last night, and concluded that she was a bus driver at the time. I noticed she is friends of the Dassey's and Avery's and drove a nearby bus route during that period of time. Perhaps this Tammy had mentioned something she had heard or seen to Steven.
And no, not the bus driver who gave testimony...her name was Lisa."

 

[LemonMousse]

The defense doesn't need to prove anything, is correct. But if they don't offer evidence that creates reasonable doubt, then the juror has no reason to have reasonable doubt. They will believe everything the prosecution says. Isn't that kind of the whole point of a trial ?

When the prosecution creates a narrative and submits that, the defense doesn't have to prove anything. A juror also doesn't make a decision (or shouldn't) based on only one piece of evidence.

Are you saying that cases are never decided based partially on circumstantial evidence that a jury weighs ? Seriously ?

I never said that it makes Avery guilty. But I did say that as a juror, if I heard that narrative it would raise suspicion in my mind as to whether Teresa was in his trailer. If you believe she was in his trailer that is step 1. You don't find that important ?

Her being in the trailer doesn't even mean Avery killed her. That's understood. But it's a narrative that explains why she likely was in the trailer and that is step 1 for the prosecution. If prosecution convinces a jury that she was there, step 1 is completed.

Every trial i've ever watched you have witnesses going up and saying things and a cross examination of defense questioning to make clear how that testimony might be interpreted another way ? Why do they do that ? Because they don't have anything to gain ? It's because they need to explain why something that a juror might think means one thing... might mean another thing.

I am pretty sure you are not saying the defense should just sit back and let them say whatever and not let it stand as the way it must have been. During deliberations the jury is most certainly discussing what they heard on cross examination.

Maybe it's the terminology and this is all semantics. When I say "evidence" i am not talking about a given object that is submitted as evidence. What is it that you would call the words that come out of a witnesses mouth ? testimony ? If that's the more specific word I should use, sure. They are paying attention to the testimony of the people called to talk about what they know that is relevant to the case.

Is that the misunderstanding we are having ? I am sorry, I might be using the word "evidence" where maybe testimony should be used ?

Or are you telling me that you don't believe that when someone at auto trader tells them how teresa goes about her work and how it completes with a bill of sale , they don't even take that into account and evaluate it as "evidence" to the prosecutions narrative ?

Is this terminology confusion here ? or are you saying that ?

If I was on that jury I would ask myself.....does that one piece of paper PROVE that Theresa physically went into that trailer?

Because if it does, and she did, then that is damning evidence because it would show that Steven is lying.

I am pretty sure that I would conclude that no, it does not prove that. It is perhaps suggestive, nothing more.

I would have to believe that the only reasonably possible way that that paper got there is if it was carried in by Theresa herself. And I don't know how anyone could make that determination.

 

[stephsb]

I think the confusion comes from the fact that the prosecution submits evidence and then the defense in a sense scrutinizes it.

Sorry if I in some places use the word "evidence". I also want to point out that I am not at all viewing this case as if I am limited to a legal structure to come to an opinion. I think a juror will be given instructions that differ from my use of all this information, but if it's evidence or testimony or a narrative given in a closing argument, It gets weighed by a juror. If not, what's the reason for it all ?

Not sure if this applies :

"In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact.Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury."


[FONT=arial, sans-serif]or is there some other point you are trying to make ?[/FONT]

I don't care how you weigh the evidence on here to make your own determinations, but you said you would want it addressed as a juror and they may have found it suspicious if it wasn't and that is what I took issue with. I'm not saying the defense is not going to cross-examine witnesses, I am aware of how a trial works, I have interned for both the State and a private defense firm, and the State internship was done in Wisconsin. I understand what you meant by testimony and evidence (just for future reference, they can be used somewhat interchangeably- testimony from witnesses is used as evidence, that was a really good definition) all of my issue is with the notion of the defense having to prove something. There are cases where the defense presents no witnesses, and they don't need to if they think the State's case is weak enough and they can't prove all their elements beyond a reasonable doubt. In most cases the defense does present their own case and theory, but they aren't obligated to, and if they don't, it doesn't mean that there can't be reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is the burden of proof that the STATE must prove. So, when deciding if the State proved the first element, the jury would state it as "Did the State show beyond a reasonable doubt that Steven Avery did cause the death of Teresa Halbach" and for the second element "Did the State show beyond a reasonable doubt that Steven Avery did intend to cause the death of Teresa Halbach", etc. through the elements and charges. You're right that reasonable doubt usually is introduced by the defense, because usually a case doesn't go to trial unless the State feels it can prove all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, but you can still have reasonable doubt w.o. the defense having to provide their own explanation for evidence. I wasn't trying to make any comment about circumstantial evidence, I actually find circumstantial evidence can be extremely compelling, depending on what it is. There have been cases involving ONLY circumstantial evidence that have returned guilty verdicts, and there's nothing wrong w. that. I was only talking about this case in particular, where I can't see why the auto bill of sale is necessary to prove the elements of Avery's charges.

The auto bill of sales was definitely not a large part of the State's case, at least what I have seen from skimming the day by day trial notes of the Avery case online, and it wasn't mentioned in the opening statement notes, which were pretty detailed. I don't see why it would need to be- the State is claiming that Teresa was killed in the garage, why would it matter if she was or wasn't in the trailer? The State can still prove it's elements w.o her being in the trailer. Now for Dassey's trial, it's different. Remember, Dassey's trial was based around his confession, so they need to prove that Teresa was in the trailer, because that's where the sexual assault allegedly took place. Avery wasn't tried for the sexual assault.

 

[MaxManning]

I don't care how you weigh the evidence on here to make your own determinations, but you said you would want it addressed as a juror and they may have found it suspicious if it wasn't and that is what I took issue with. I'm not saying the defense is not going to cross-examine witnesses, I am aware of how a trial works, I have interned for both the State and a private defense firm, and the State internship was done in Wisconsin. I understand what you meant by testimony and evidence (just for future reference, they can be used somewhat interchangeably- testimony from witnesses is used as evidence, that was a really good definition) all of my issue is with the notion of the defense having to prove something. There are cases where the defense presents no witnesses, and they don't need to if they think the State's case is weak enough and they can't prove all their elements beyond a reasonable doubt. In most cases the defense does present their own case and theory, but they aren't obligated to, and if they don't, it doesn't mean that there can't be reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is the burden of proof that the STATE must prove. So, when deciding if the State proved the first element, the jury would state it as "Did the State show beyond a reasonable doubt that Steven Avery did cause the death of Teresa Halbach" and for the second element "Did the State show beyond a reasonable doubt that Steven Avery did intend to cause the death of Teresa Halbach", etc. through the elements and charges. You're right that reasonable doubt usually is introduced by the defense, because usually a case doesn't go to trial unless the State feels it can prove all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, but you can still have reasonable doubt w.o. the defense having to provide their own explanation for evidence. I wasn't trying to make any comment about circumstantial evidence, I actually find circumstantial evidence can be extremely compelling, depending on what it is. There have been cases involving ONLY circumstantial evidence that have returned guilty verdicts, and there's nothing wrong w. that. I was only talking about this case in particular, where I can't see why the auto bill of sale is necessary to prove the elements of Avery's charges.

The auto bill of sales was definitely not a large part of the State's case, at least what I have seen from skimming the day by day trial notes of the Avery case online, and it wasn't mentioned in the opening statement notes, which were pretty detailed. I don't see why it would need to be- the State is claiming that Teresa was killed in the garage, why would it matter if she was or wasn't in the trailer? The State can still prove it's elements w.o her being in the trailer. Now for Dassey's trial, it's different. Remember, Dassey's trial was based around his confession, so they need to prove that Teresa was in the trailer, because that's where the sexual assault allegedly took place. Avery wasn't tried for the sexual assault.

We know that it was presented int the case, we see it in the documentary. We also see a pad of paper with her personal phone number on it.

You don't see Teresa Halbach actually going into the trailer as step 1 of their case ?

If they can't even get her in that trailer/garage, then the planting evidence becomes many times stronger imo.

Again, as a juror, I would listen to that and likely see it as decent circumstantial evidence that she likely was in the trailer, if they choose the narrative I suggested.

Maybe lets just shelve this until we see the avery trial transcripts and verify if indeed they pose this narrative. I think it's very strong in the dassey trial , and when I get to the end of that i'll know if they chose to use it there as well. They have already laid the foundation with the auto trader, clients interviews, phone message, bill of sale, notepad with phone #, and locations and times where appropriate.

Day by day trial notes are great, but as with these dassey trial transcripts, I am seeing TONS of details that were not in any report I saw online. So again, not saying I don't trust you or your knowledge or don't respect your opinions. I'm just saying that I respectfully disagree that there won't be a narrative involving that bill of sale and saying exactly what I said. I can be wrong obviously , but i see no relevance to the bill of sale unless there is a narrative that they seem to be suggesting already in this dassey trial.


So, lets wait till i finish this trial and then if we can find the avery trial transcripts somehow. Impact on jury, is not something definitive. My personal opinion is that if a jury hears it and no explanation as to how it didn't have to be so clear cut, then they just might entertain the idea that she did enter the residence. That's one step closer to what the prosecution wants them to believe and a step away from the idea that she just left.

For example if the protocol is to leave a bill auto trader magazine at the front door if no one is home and maybe a bill of sale for them to fill out ahead of time when she returns, then all is explained and actually goes to evidence she likely did just that.

But I'm cool with leaving it at we disagree and just see what the trial transcripts show.

I do respect your knowledge of the system and I do not see myself as educated beyond watching crime TV. But I am respectfully saying, I think it'll be shown to be a narrative they present. We might also disagree on the effect on a jury. But it's nothing based on a law degree, but rather what a common jury person will see as important. If I was on a jury, I'd seriously see teresa going in that residence being probable as 1 point for the prosecution. jmo

 

[MaxManning]

If I was on that jury I would ask myself.....does that one piece of paper PROVE that Theresa physically went into that trailer?

Because if it does, and she did, then that is damning evidence because it would show that Steven is lying.

I am pretty sure that I would conclude that no, it does not prove that. It is perhaps suggestive, nothing more.

I would have to believe that the only reasonably possible way that that paper got there is if it was carried in by Theresa herself. And I don't know how anyone could make that determination.

You are talking about a piece of paper. Not the narrative that the paper is a part of.

I brought up the bill of sale, the notepad with her phone number, the message at barb jandas stating she can't come to the house without contact, the process she goes through with her job, how the dispatching works, the interviews with the prior stops detailing the process.

It's not just a bill of sale, it's one piece of the narrative and an important one.

If you think that they have to have a picture of teresa in steven's trailer or something of that nature in order to believe she was there, again, I don't know what to say.

People get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time.

Circumstantial cases just pile things that fit a narrative and people get convicted on that kind of thing. So, if you have a convincing narrative built on all these things above that I listed, yes, I think a jury will weight that and even possibly conclude she must have been in that trailer to get her money. Simple as that.

But Im fine as I've said before if you don't agree. If you don't think circumstantial evidence of that nature is of worth. noted.

But you've now repeated the same "it doesn't prove anything" and I've repeated that it doesn't have to prove it just needs to convince and I believe this could do that. lets stop here

You disagree. noted.

 

[MaxManning]

I haven't seen this noted on this thread, but just read this in the dassey trial transcript. We theorized about why he might open the hood of the car as brendan mentioned -- but I think they fed that to him ?

It says that the battery cables were disconnected. So that would have been the reason they wanted him to repeat that detail. Hoping he'd say the battery. So maybe they gave him the first part and come to the same conclusion we did.

What is odd is they didn't ask him if it was tested for DNA or prints on the cables. Might not have found any, but worth noting they didn't check. Maybe defense brings that up in one of the trials.

 

[LemonMousse]

You are talking about a piece of paper. Not the narrative that the paper is a part of.

I brought up the bill of sale, the notepad with her phone number, the message at barb jandas stating she can't come to the house without contact, the process she goes through with her job, how the dispatching works, the interviews with the prior stops detailing the process.

It's not just a bill of sale, it's one piece of the narrative and an important one.

If you think that they have to have a picture of teresa in steven's trailer or something of that nature in order to believe she was there, again, I don't know what to say.

People get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time.

Circumstantial cases just pile things that fit a narrative and people get convicted on that kind of thing. So, if you have a convincing narrative built on all these things above that I listed, yes, I think a jury will weight that and even possibly conclude she must have been in that trailer to get her money. Simple as that.

But Im fine as I've said before if you don't agree. If you don't think circumstantial evidence of that nature is of worth. noted.

But you've now repeated the same "it doesn't prove anything" and I've repeated that it doesn't have to prove it just needs to convince and I believe this could do that. lets stop here

You disagree. noted.

Right. Enough.

If I think they need to have a picture of Theresa in Steve's trailer?????

I never said that or implied it and you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to infer that. I have little time, and zero respect, for anyone on any forum who uses the dishonest tactic of making up arguments that haven't been made in order to belittle and demean opposing points of view. This is the second time you've done this - make it the last.

By all means get carried away with your "narrative" - but the fact remains that it is just a piece of paper.

If Steve was asked about it, we don't know his reponse. It is therefore impossible for us to to decide whether the fact of this piece of paper is inline with his version of events or not. We can’t ask Theresa, can we?

You are speculating that everything must have happened normally (re: the handing over of the bill of sale) as far as Steve & Theresa was concerned if he didn't kill her - and you have no grounds to do so.

Maybe something spooked her and she just wanted to get the hell out of there and accidentally thrust the form at him without filling it in? I don't know. You don't know.

But if you sincerely think that a blank form left in full view on a desk is a good indication of MURDER then Dean Strang is right....the justice system is well and truly broken.

 

[Angelo]

Didn't someone at the lab though say they had never seen a hole in a blood sample that was in evidence before? Maybe I misinterpreted what they were saying because I was laughing too hard at the person who tried to use Scotch tape on an evidence file and thought that wouldn't be noticed lol.

If the hole in the tube was normal, what does that say about planting Avery's blood? That they didn't plant it? I really found the hole compelling, so I'm really glad this mentioned.

I am a nurse and take blood often. After a blood draw it is very hard to see where the needle entered the tube. The rubber on the stopper closes when the tube is withdrawn. The hole in SA's tube was enlarged showing there was multiple entries with a needle into the tube after the draw.

 

[Skully]

I just finished the series yesterday, watched in a couple of days. Wow, where do you begin? Whether or not I believe they did it or not, the whole process of how they got convicted is wrong. There are so many red flags surrounding the evidence or lack of it, that I have to believe Steve was setup and his cousin. I have seen crime scenes and they are bad, and that bedroom and garage don't show any of what you would find if any of these things were done to her. Just on that alone, I don't think this is your crime scene. You have to follow the evidence in any case, even if you think the person did it, you have to look at what the crime scene tells you. factor in the phone calls, time line and how stupid you have to be to leave the car on your property, leave the bones behind, the blood in the car and well too much to list. I saw the people on the stand that railroaded him before and I saw the same faces again, and the same looks. Just too much is all I can say.

 

[stephsb]

Max- the lifting the hood was fed to Brendan, like everything else they used to convict him. In the 3/1 statement:

"Do you recall him taking the plates off" -Yeah
"Ok, what else did he do, he did something else, you need to tell us what he did, after that car is parked there. It's extremely important"
(pause)
"Before you guys leave that car" -That he left the gun in the car
"That's not what I'm thinking about. He did something to that car. He took the plates and he, I believe he did something else in that car."
(pause) - I don't know
"Did he, did he go and look at the engine, did he raise the hood at all or anything like that? To do something to the car? -Yeah
"What was that?"
(pause)
"What did he do Brendan?
"It's OK, what did he do?"
"What did he do under the hood if that's what he did?
(pause) -I don't know what he did but I know he went under
"He did raise the hood?"
(nod yes)
"You remember that?" -Yeah

This is a pretty good example of how most of the 3/1 "confession" Dassey gave went like. Virtually EVERYTHING in the criminal complaint had been fed to him. How anyone believes anything that came out of his mouth is beyond me.

 

[steveml]

The auto bill of sales was definitely not a large part of the State's case, at least what I have seen from skimming the day by day trial notes of the Avery case online, and it wasn't mentioned in the opening statement notes, which were pretty detailed. I don't see why it would need to be- the State is claiming that Teresa was killed in the garage, why would it matter if she was or wasn't in the trailer? The State can still prove it's elements w.o her being in the trailer. Now for Dassey's trial, it's different. Remember, Dassey's trial was based around his confession, so they need to prove that Teresa was in the trailer, because that's where the sexual assault allegedly took place. Avery wasn't tried for the sexual assault.

I agree with this. Without Dassey's confession I doubt the State would have suggested that Teresa was ever in the trailer. The incomplete bill of sale raises a question, however anything we surmise from this is certainly tainted with reasonable doubt.

 

[CoolJ]

You are talking about a piece of paper. Not the narrative that the paper is a part of.

I brought up the bill of sale, the notepad with her phone number, the message at barb jandas stating she can't come to the house without contact, the process she goes through with her job, how the dispatching works, the interviews with the prior stops detailing the process.

It's not just a bill of sale, it's one piece of the narrative and an important one.

If you think that they have to have a picture of teresa in steven's trailer or something of that nature in order to believe she was there, again, I don't know what to say.

People get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time.

Circumstantial cases just pile things that fit a narrative and people get convicted on that kind of thing. So, if you have a convincing narrative built on all these things above that I listed, yes, I think a jury will weight that and even possibly conclude she must have been in that trailer to get her money. Simple as that.

But Im fine as I've said before if you don't agree. If you don't think circumstantial evidence of that nature is of worth. noted.

But you've now repeated the same "it doesn't prove anything" and I've repeated that it doesn't have to prove it just needs to convince and I believe this could do that. lets stop here

You disagree. noted.

If you can't see that this is clearly a frame job right from the get-go, then... I don't know what to say.
You say you feel manipulated by the documentary, yet you don't feel manipulated by what the prosecution has done... again.. I don't know what to say.