The statements of the inmates, in the Kratz' motion to allow them as witnesses, while barring defenses motion to raise SA's wrongful conviction, was not put forth at trial. So, this is more of a speculation thread, than anything else. Importantly, this information was announced to the media. Though, as it turns out, the prosecution had three, not one, inmates who claimed SA planned to "abduct, rape, torture, and kill" women when he was released. Per the aforementioned document: 1. Jesse Werlein -- statements that the defendant had drawn up plans for a "torlure chamber", indicating his intent, upon being released from prison, to abduct, rape, torlure, and kili young women. Mr. Werlein provides details as to the defendant's drawings and statements. 2. Anthony Myers -- discussed r,vith Steven Avery "bondage" and tying women up, including the defendant produced diagrams of horv to bind women, demonstrating dominance and anger tor,vards women. 3. Danial Luedke -- who engaged in conversations with the defendant and received information from Avery including, "the way to get rid of a body was to burn them". [emphasis added, mine] That said, I admittedly have mixed feelings regarding inmate statements, simply bc they have motive to tell fibs (e.g, shorter sentence, parole, etc). Even if their statements were true, I cannot see how such wouldn't fall under hearsay. That I know, last utterances and/or excited utterances, are the only exclusions to the hearsay laws. Someone who is an attorney (I am not), is more than welcome to correct/clarify. Ignoring the hearsay, etcetera, if their statements were true, does such play a role wrt people's belief that SA innocent? Why or why not?