I came here to find out what MaM is.

http://www.avclub.com/article/read-damning-evidence-against-steven-avery-making--230224

it's actually a link through this to the OG article. There may be many other articles, but this was enough for me to pause.

I don't want speculation outside of here thanks. I like to keep speculation under control. I'd like some concrete stuff.

Always wary since The Staircase got me good.

And always understanding how much is left out, no matter the length of a doco, a trial has so much more detail, and so little background music and slick editing.

Brendan's confession should have been thrown out just on his learning difficulties. With no lawyer or guardian present, an IQ in the 60s and being 17 it was too easy to manipulate him.

In court he didn't answer a single question straight. The dumb shit would get totally confused if you asked him what he had for breakfast.

The only issue with a lot of these 'evidence left out' articles is that a lot of it is still very circumspect. Sweat under the hood of the car can be explained. The eivdence in the barrel explained. In fact, all the evidence can be so easily manipulated to support either Avery murdered her or he was framed. The whole situation is a cluster fuck of insane magnitude due to horrendous police practice regardless of whether Avery did it or not.

My question is what would be his motive for killing her?

However how gay was everyone for Strang and Buting by the end? I would deffo french off with Strang if he was up for it.

The rape part of the case didn't add up. The fact they didn't do DNA tests on the bed/matress/room.
That whole scenario came from the confession and could have been something concocted by the police to make Avery look worse and secure the conviction/a longer sentence. The idea Brendan read it in a book is laughable either way, that kid wouldn't have read any book that has something as complex as that.
The rape also established a motive, something clearly missing without it.

Luckily for the state 400k is a lot less than the 36mil they were on the hook for after their insurers said they wouldn't pay out on their behalf.

Also that the key ONLY had Avery's DNA on it. Surely impossible unless Avery thoroughly cleaned it, handled it again, then just threw it on the floor.

Maybe not ridiculous from the prosecution perhaps, but surely ridiculous from the lead investigators then?

If they thought there had been a violent rape and murder then surely they would have tested that room far more thoroughly.

Its sickening to me that in the US and possibly other counties the state prosecutor's focus isn't that the right person is being prosecuted, its that they need to build the best case they canto fit the prime suspect to the crime to give them the best chance at securing a conviction, instead of actually proving they have the right person.

One of the lawyers (I think I was that smexy beast Strang) made a good point after the extra charges were added to the case that the state only needed to convict on one charge to 'win' as far as they were concerned, while the defence need to be found not guilty on all charges to 'win'.

It is pretty damning.

I loved Strang's final comments to the press where he told them to leave Brandon alone and not portray him as guilty from the outset.

In fact, everyone apart from the wonderful defending lawyers, seemed to forget about innocent until proven guilty.

I am sure corruption happens here but a big catalyst in the Avery case seems to be that local law enforcement offices are almost like franchises.
Avery's lawsuit would have bankrupted the local police force, I dont think we are setup like that, forces have budgets but a case like Avery's would have come out of the big pot of money.

There's a book like thing called the Hillsborough Report that says police tampered with not only witness statements but their own....on topic:

Anyway- not gone off on a made web search yet, nor read that article(s) above. On evidence to convict that's based on juries reaching a decision where it is beyond reasonable doubt. There's too much doubt in this which ultimately is why juries are fucking dumb ideas- I really think people called should have to have some kind of tutoring & assessment before being assigned.

On doubts:

There is Lenk's right hand man's call to dispatch to run a plate, that he can't explain how he could fill in the blanks- make and model.

Ultimately there is the clean-up operation which obviously never happened because you can't just remove DNA like that. There must be a scene where it did happen. The vic's body in the back of the car is testament to that but yet they still insisted that it was in the garage.

Even at the time, forensic archeology wasn't that shit so why treat the scene like you're a kid with a shovel at the beach, as the defence expert testified...similarly, and touching on the previous point, blood splatter analysis wasn't a new idea either, as the defence attorneys allude when they're deliberating together.

The ex-BF seemed to make good calls, here's a camera go over there, here's a map so I'm sure you're off the right place. Coincidence, perhaps.

The nuisance phone calls the vic. was said to have been receiving, did I miss it or was it not established in the series who they were from?

I deffo agree with great-hair-Strang, police will plant evidence if they're convinced someone is guilty and it means the end of investigations so that the state is happy to prosecute. I think that's what's happened here, as it did the first time so I am quite inquisitive about what everyone's relationships were like in the lead up to the '95 conviction.

Whether he did it or not, the evidence just isn't there. Justice, winning hearts and minds. The prosecution behave worse than Michael Moore.

Great show.

Apologies. Forgot about Hillsborough.