I think Avery calling her phone several times that day and disguising his number...also him asking for her specifically, definitely make you question it more.
The documentary makes out that she just randomly came out once and took pics then disappeared but she'd been there a few times
I'm not sure it covered up that he had been there more than once to be fair- it may well have covered up him calling disguising his number though, I'm not sure whether I learned that before or after the documentary.
At Avery's request and was even creeped out by him.
Kratz says that but can you link me to who said that, friend of hers presumably?
The stuff about the shackles being found in Avery's home, similar to those described in Dassey's statement.
Leg braces weren't they? He had handcuffs as well. He explained them away as something he bought to try out with Lori, but clearly that is dodgy. Having said that, if you believe that part of Dassey's story then you must believe she was stabbed in the bedroom and there was a distinct lack of her DNA evidence anywhere in that bedroom.
But there is a lot of food for thought regarding this case, a lot more than the documentary shows or how it shows.
I would imagine that the lawyers and the creators have their own theories but they are unable to really come out and say publicly exactly what they think may have happened. Like I said earlier, I still am not sure whether Steven Avery did it or not, like his own lawyer, I certainly wouldn't rule it out, but the evidence that is physical completely refutes their statements.
I tend to agree with the lawyer in that the police force felt that Steven was guilty and then cut corners to ensure a conviction, including manipulation of evidence and tunnel vision in purely focusing on him. I believe the documentaries main aim was to highlight at the very least (as I can't remember it all)
*How in some cases the assumption of innocence has gone - the movement from proving the accused guilty, to the accused proving themselves innocent.
*The insanity of someone giving a televised press conference detailing the crime in gory and disgusting detail (which may not even have been correct) before a trial even came to pass.
*The fact that Dassey and Avery were essentially tried for two different versions of the crime via the criminal justice system and still both found guilty
*The seemingly underhand methods from the Sherrif's police force who seemingly had motivation to make sure that the crime was pinned on Avery when they should have vacated for another police force- yet continued to flagrantly keep themselves involved.
*The ways in which police can press the young or people with low IQ's into confessing to something they may not have done.
All of these are pertinent points that are perhaps more important than Avery himself. But despite the evidence that the documentary makers didn't show (which isn't that much more as far as I am concerned)
The blood vial was suspiciously accessed and had a hole in the top
The key was on the balance of probabilities planted in Steven Avery's house
The bones were moved nearer to Steven Avery's house - why would Steven himself do that?
Colborn called in the plates of the missing car two days before it was found on Avery's property
It is is more than likely that the bullet was planted in the garage
The garage was suspiciously void of her DNA despite the states case being that she was shot anything from 5 to 10 times in there
Scientists calling into question the validity of the ETBA test -
http://chadsteele.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/some-clarity-to-some-of-evidence-in.html?m=1If Avery/Dassey had managed to clean the entirety of the garage and the bedroom for DNA, it's crazy that they didn't think to clean blood from the van.
I'm sure there may have been other little things they didn't include from the defence as well.
For what it's worth I can't shake the fact that she must have met her end on that property which shortens the suspects to Steven, Brandon and all of the others who lived there- it would take collusion and corruption of a seriously incredible scale to move a body that been burned there just to frame Steven Avery when there is every chance it could go wrong - although having said that I doubt much was tested for Colborn and Jenk's DNA.
Unless something changes or new information develops, from the evidence I can see, circumstantial against Steven Avery is strong-ish, I couldn't of good conscience find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that this case has so many people talking is evidence of reasonable doubt alone and I can't help thinking that it is a shame that the police didn't cast their net wider at first in terms of all the potential suspects on the Avery site, before honing in on one.
