Regardless of whether I think he is guilty or innocent, how in the world anyone could say that there isn't reasonable doubt in this case is beyond me. I think his defense did an excellent job.

 

Okay. I am always ready to be corrected. So what are some of the details that he gave, that he could not have known otherwise from news reports, that show his confession was true.

 

The videos are out there. Go look for yourself.

What makes you feel that he is guilty?

 

There is a ton of evidence pointing towards him. Just a matter of whether or not you believe it was all planted. It is certainly possible it was...

Regardless of whether I think he is guilty or innocent' date=' how in the world anyone could say that there isn't reasonable doubt in this case is beyond me. I think his defense did an excellent job.[/quote']

 

I can't say based on the documentary alone. The trial was several weeks long...a few hours doesn't cover it all.

There is a ton of evidence pointing towards him. Just a matter of whether or not you believe it was all planted. It is certainly possible it was...

What would you consider the top two or three strongest pieces of evidence?

The videos are out there. Go look for yourself.

 

Not going to do that, I think I have seen enough. I kinda thought you were just making stuff up, but I was willing to have you correct me. Now I am more convinced you were just saying something you could not back up. Again, if you can back it up, please do so. But unless and until that happens, I don't need to watch some videos just to confirm that you like to make stuff up.

 

Wanna play poker?

 

Not going to do that, I think I have seen enough. I kinda thought you were just making stuff up, but I was willing to have you correct me. Now I am more convinced you were just saying something you could not back up. Again, if you can back it up, please do so. But unless and until that happens, I don't need to watch some videos just to confirm that you like to make stuff up.

 

Wanna play poker?

 

I don't care what you think about me. Funny, you are willing to say I made it up, but you are apparently too lazy to look it up yourself.

 

I am not saying Dassey is guilty or not guilty. I am saying in the interviews I've seen (two separate ones) he wasn't fed everything by investigators.

 

Believe it, don't believe it, look it up or don't. I do not care.

What would you consider the top two or three strongest pieces of evidence?

 

I'm not sure really.

 

Blood in the car. Car on his property. Bullet with her DNA, came from a gun that was in his house. Her bones on his property in a burn pile where he had a bonfire shortly after she was likely murdered. Phone calls under a blocked number...

 

Again, I'm in no way certain that he's guilty. That is an awful lot of evidence to plant, but there is definitely a lot of questions surrounding most if not all of the evidence and the investigation.

I don't care what you think about me. Funny, you are willing to say I made it up, but you are apparently too lazy to look it up yourself.

 

I am not saying Dassey is guilty or not guilty. I am saying in the interviews I've seen (two separate ones) he wasn't fed everything by investigators.

 

Believe it, don't believe it, look it up or don't. I do not care.

 

What about that poker game?

 

What about that poker game?

 

 

I'm here to talk about this documentary and this case. You can play your games alone.

I can't say based on the documentary alone. The trial was several weeks long...a few hours doesn't cover it all.

 

That's very true. But in everything I've seen and read, I haven't seen anything that makes me think I could say he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

 

And I personally think that he probably is guilty. But if I were on a jury, everything I've seen or heard I would have to say "Not guilty."

I'm not sure really.

 

Blood in the car. Car on his property. Bullet with her DNA, came from a gun that was in his house. Her bones on his property in a burn pile where he had a bonfire shortly after she was likely murdered. Phone calls under a blocked number...

 

Again, I'm in no way certain that he's guilty. That is an awful lot of evidence to plant, but there is definitely a lot of questions surrounding most if not all of the evidence and the investigation.

 

I can't accept any blood evidence, as the police had access to a vial of his blood and the evidence seal on it was opened, breaking the chain of evidence. The car was on Avery property, which I believe is more than 40 acres, but does not belong to Steven Avery. I didn't see the forensics ballistic evidence testimony on the bullet, so that is one that might sway me. I've read that there was no true ballistics match, but I'd like to find out more on that.

 

The burn pit evidence is interesting. The very first thing that I thought of when I was watching the series was that there is no way to obliterate a human body to bones in a bonfire. The prosecution's theory of the crime is also odd, that she was raped in the house, killed in the garage, burned in the bonfire (to bone, mind you) and then some pieces of her pelvic bones ended up in a quarry pit over 10 miles away? How did her blood get in the back of her truck? Why is there no blood evidence at all in the messy house or even messier garage?

 

To me, the phone calls from a blocked number (made by Avery) are less questionable than the boyfriend deleting voicemails from her account during the time in which she was missing.

 

I'm watching the episodes again with the Forensics class that I teach and we are doing an analysis of each episode. We will do some additional research throughout the unit, too, so hopefully I will continue to get a better feel for all of the evidence.

 

At this point, I feel certain that the evidence should not have been enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered TH. Personally, I don't even think that I am 50% certain that he did it.

 

Thanks for allowing me to discuss the case. I'd love to continue, if you are okay with that. :thumb:

I'm fairly certain they were able to prove the bullet fragment they found was from a rifle that hung over Stevens bed. They charged him with felon in possession of a firearm because of that gun. The fragment also had her DNA on it.

 

There are still questions surrounding even that evidence though because there were some issues in the dna testing and they didn't find the bullet for several months.

 

I don't believe the prosecution's version of events really happened exactly the way they said it did.

 

Was it proven the boyfriend deleted voicemails?

 

That's very true. But in everything I've seen and read, I haven't seen anything that makes me think I could say he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

 

And I personally think that he probably is guilty. But if I were on a jury, everything I've seen or heard I would have to say "Not guilty."

 

I don't disagree.

I'm fairly certain they were able to prove the bullet fragment they found was from a rifle that hung over Stevens bed. They charged him with felon in possession of a firearm because of that gun. The fragment also had her DNA on it.

 

There are still questions surrounding even that evidence though because there were some issues in the dna testing and they didn't find the bullet for several months.

 

I don't believe the prosecution's version of events really happened exactly the way they said it did.

 

Was it proven the boyfriend deleted voicemails?

 

I know that the gun was his and that he was charged with felony possession. What I think was in question was whether there was a true ballistics match. Also, I think the bullet was found six months after the initial search, correct? Even if it is a ballistics match and it is indeed her blood, without any other blood or other DNA evidence, how are we supposed to believe that she was shot in the garage? That really makes the bullet seem compromised.

 

Maybe it wasn't proven that the boyfriend deleted the emails. Perhaps I read that as a theory. I believe, however, that it was shown that voicemails were deleted after she was assumed to be murdered.