Making a murder

[keefe]

Wait just a minute.  I just listened to Dan O'Donnell's rebuttal #7.  Is that correct?  Does the purple blood vial normally have a needle hole in the top so the blood sample can be placed INTO it from the syringe?  Is the supposed evidence that the needle hole exists only because the vial had been tampered with a complete crock of sh*t?  Assuming that's the case then I call into question the entire documentary because failing to indicate that the needle hole was 'entirely normal and proper' is a major omission by the filmmakers aimed only at misleading the audience.

I'm still of the mindset that Avery likely committed the crime.  I'm also still of the mindset that Manitowoc Co. 'helped' support the evidence.

Glow

Let me first say I am not an MD or a blood test technician. But 3-4 times a year AF Flight Surgeons poke and prod us poor pilots in a process that includes drawing about 5 or 6 vials of blood.

There is a needle on one end that goes into the crook of your arm and a rubber stopper at the other end that attaches to each empty vial. As the technician fills a vial they remove the punctured stopper, seal that vial with another unpunctured stopper (which is color coded for the various tests they will run) which is immediately taped, and attach the punctured stopper to the next vial.

At the end of this, as I pull my flight suit back on, I watch the tech discard the sharp and the punctured stopper to ensure that my DNA does not contaminate the next guy's draw. I then sign my paperwork, initial each vial, and go back to the hangar.

From my experience every vial is sealed with a clean stopper that does not have a puncture hole. Frankly, that is mandatory to ensure the material integrity of the sample.

I don't know if this deviates from what Manitowoc County mandates but I have little faith in those sh1tbirds after viewing that series. And, in light of the packing seal having been broken without documentation, it would seem that someone did access that evidence improperly.

[Archies Bat]

Wait just a minute.  I just listened to Dan O'Donnell's rebuttal #7.  Is that correct?  Does the purple blood vial normally have a needle hole in the top so the blood sample can be placed INTO it from the syringe?  Is the supposed evidence that the needle hole exists only because the vial had been tampered with a complete crock of sh*t?  Assuming that's the case then I call into question the entire documentary because failing to indicate that the needle hole was 'entirely normal and proper' is a major omission by the filmmakers aimed only at misleading the audience.
 

I believe I remember that several episodes after the evidence pack was opened, there was a clip of the defense lawyers discussing the evidence and saying the potential tampering of the blood vial did not turn out to be the blockbuster they expected.  While it did not stand out like earlier scene, I believe it was addressed in the documentary.

[mikekinsellaMVP]

Glow

Let me first say I am not an MD or a blood test technician. But 3-4 times a year AF Flight Surgeons poke and prod us poor pilots in a process that includes drawing about 5 or 6 vials of blood.

There is a needle on one end that goes into the crook of your arm and a rubber stopper at the other end that attaches to each empty vial. As the technician fills a vial they remove the punctured stopper, seal that vial with another unpunctured stopper (which is color coded for the various tests they will run) which is immediately taped, and attach the punctured stopper to the next vial.

At the end of this, as I pull my flight suit back on, I watch the tech discard the sharp and the punctured stopper to ensure that my DNA does not contaminate the next guy's draw. I then sign my paperwork, initial each vial, and go back to the hangar.

From my experience every vial is sealed with a clean stopper that does not have a puncture hole. Frankly, that is mandatory to ensure the material integrity of the sample.

I don't know if this deviates from what Manitowoc County mandates but I have little faith in those sh1tbirds after viewing that series. And, in light of the packing seal having been broken without documentation, it would seem that someone did access that evidence improperly.

This was a point of contention for me.

From my understanding, the tubes are manufactured with rubber caps that are never removed.  The sample goes in via a plastic hub, the device that basically looks like a plastic syringe with its needle on the inside.  The needle pierces the cap, and the blood is drawn in due to a low pressure inert environment in the tube.  (The pressure is a specific value, which in turn yields a specific volume of blood.)  If the cap were removed or replaced in this process, it would contaminate the sample.  So yes, my understanding is the same as glow's - all blood tubes containing a sample have already had their caps punctured at least once.

[Benny B]

This was a point of contention for me.

From my understanding, the tubes are manufactured with rubber caps that are never removed.  The sample goes in via a plastic hub, the device that basically looks like a plastic syringe with its needle on the inside.  The needle pierces the cap, and the blood is drawn in due to a low pressure inert environment in the tube.  (The pressure is a specific value, which in turn yields a specific volume of blood.)  If the cap were removed or replaced in this process, it would contaminate the sample.  So yes, my understanding is the same as glow's - all blood tubes containing a sample have already had their caps punctured at least once.

Who's our resident phlebotomist here?

Being an amateur specialist in aseptic procedure, I would suppose the type of cap/seal on the vial depends on the purpose of the draw... if it's going to be tested right away, then replacing the punctured stopper with a new stopper might be fine.  But if the vial is being shipped or archived, you need to avoid all contamination - including exposure to oxygen - which means that not only do you have to prevent exposing the sample to non-sterile air (i.e. likely keeping the same stopper in place) but you also have to eliminate the vacuum in the vial so it doesn't draw any air in over time.

I think the issue wasn't so much the punctured stopper, it was the broken evidence seal.  Anytime a piece of evidence is opened from archive, there should be a log noting the time/date/purpose/etc. and it should then be re-sealed with another tamper-proof tag.  I'm not sure we ever got an explanation for that.

[keefe]

This was a point of contention for me.

From my understanding, the tubes are manufactured with rubber caps that are never removed.  The sample goes in via a plastic hub, the device that basically looks like a plastic syringe with its needle on the inside.  The needle pierces the cap, and the blood is drawn in due to a low pressure inert environment in the tube.  (The pressure is a specific value, which in turn yields a specific volume of blood.)  If the cap were removed or replaced in this process, it would contaminate the sample.  So yes, my understanding is the same as glow's - all blood tubes containing a sample have already had their caps punctured at least once.

The AF Flight Clinic protocols might be different than those used for criminal procedures. And in our cases they are filling multiple tubes for a range of tests related to aviation physiology.

I am only saying what I have observed over the years. And I do know they test on-site because that same day the doc is telling us about issues with cholesterol, etc...

And for what it's worth when you have to provide a urine sample for Operation Golden Flow (based on the last number of your SSN) they immediately tape the warm cup and you initial the seal in the same way you do the blood seals. In this case, it is for drug screening (for pilots that includes OTC meds not prescribed by a flight doc) so it represents legal evidence.

I am not sure if USAF Flight Medicine protocols for blood draws differ from draws taken as evidence in criminal proceedings. But I can't see how they would be materially different.

[StillAWarrior]

The AF Flight Clinic protocols might be different than those used for criminal procedures. And in our cases they are filling multiple tubes for a range of tests related to aviation physiology.

I am only saying what I have observed over the years. And I do know they test on-site because that same day the doc is telling us about issues with cholesterol, etc...

And for what it's worth when you have to provide a urine sample for Operation Golden Flow (based on the last number of your SSN) they immediately tape the warm cup and you initial the seal in the same way you do the blood seals. In this case, it is for drug screening (for pilots that includes OTC meds not prescribed by a flight doc) so it represents legal evidence.

I am not sure if USAF Flight Medicine protocols for blood draws differ from draws taken as evidence in criminal proceedings. But I can't see how they would be materially different.

I can guess with some level of confidence that none of us -- including me -- have any particularly meaningful knowledge of blood collection/storage procedures in criminal cases in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin in the mid-1980s.

[mikekinsellaMVP]

I can guess with some level of confidence that none of us -- including me -- have any particularly meaningful knowledge of blood collection/storage procedures in criminal cases in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin in the mid-1980s.

Agreed.  To clarify: my contention was with a piece of defense evidence that may have been the product of a common procedure (the puncture mark, as I understand it.)  Put me in Benny's camp where the bigger issue is a broken evidence seal that has not been re-sealed and dated.  It may not demonstrate maliciousness, but at the very least it demonstrates laziness, incompetence, or both.  Neither is a desirable trait in law enforcement.

[🏀]

Agreed.  To clarify: my contention was with a piece of defense evidence that may have been the product of a common procedure (the puncture mark, as I understand it.)  Put me in Benny's camp where the bigger issue is a broken evidence seal that has not been re-sealed and dated.  It may not demonstrate maliciousness, but at the very least it demonstrates laziness, incompetence, or both.  Neither is a desirable trait in law enforcement.

Yep. Which will be a problem in the future.

[jsglow]

Yeah.  I need to ask my kid.  I paid a ton for that MUCN BSN degree.  I know she takes blood samples on the job occasionally.

I too was troubled by the broken tape on the storage container.

[StillAWarrior]

Agreed.  To clarify: my contention was with a piece of defense evidence that may have been the product of a common procedure (the puncture mark, as I understand it.)  Put me in Benny's camp where the bigger issue is a broken evidence seal that has not been re-sealed and dated.  It may not demonstrate maliciousness, but at the very least it demonstrates laziness, incompetence, or both.  Neither is a desirable trait in law enforcement.

I agree completely.  The chain of custody issues with the the blood evidence were troubling.

[Jay Bee]

A third of Avery's 18 years were served concurrent with another awful crime he committed, aina?

He's a murdering dirtbag.

[rocket surgeon]

i haven't finished part 6 yet, but doesn't it come down to the existence of the blood stabilizer/preservative?  if there was preservative detected in the samples avery supposedly left in the car, then it had to have come from the vial.  i remember the one defense atty. talking about the FBI doing the testing for the preservative and he DID NOT trust them at all unless of course they gave him the answer he was looking for

[NavinRJohnson]

He's a murdering dirtbag.

Correct, but don't forget the rape, torture, sexual abuse, domestic abuse, animal cruelty...yet there's a couple folks here who seem to be positively giddy at the prospect of him being freed one day (not gonna happen) as a result of this smoke and mirrors documentary. I don't get it.

[brewcity77]

I'll ask yet again, where is the evidence, exculpatory or otherwise, any evidence that proves that Avery either A) is not guilty, B) was framed by the authorities, or C) both. I've seen the theories and speculation, but nobody has can seem to provide anything the constitutes proof or evidence.

And yes, I do have my mind made up. Why? because the evidence...eye witness accounts, physical evidence, DNA, etc. says he's guilty. So say I, and so said 12 of Steven Avery's peers. Yet, so many here and elsewhere,  who were nowhere near the actual trial, after watching a TV show 10 years later, consider themselves qualified to say that at best there should be reasonable doubt, and at worst he is not guilty and was framed by law enforcement.

But hey, I'm on open minded guy. Point me to some actual evidence that supports the theories and speculation an obviously biased TV show presented, that seemingly intelligent and rational people have inexplicably chosen to buy into, and maybe I can be convinced.

Based on what you are saying, you are not an open-minded guy. Bear in mind, the job of the defense attorneys is not to provide evidence, but to present reasonable doubt. The burden of evidence does not lie on the defense. The burden of proving reasonable doubt does. As Dean Strang said in the trial, "All due respect to counsel, the state is supposed to start every criminal trial swimming upstream. And the strong current against which the state is supposed to be swimming is the presumption of innocence".

It is blatantly, painfully obvious that you are assuming guilt. You are not open-minded in this case, you are not allowing the defense to do their job of proving reasonable doubt. But if you want the case for reasonable doubt, here goes:
.

• Both Colborn and Lenk were deposed in Avery's lawsuit. Both men stood to lose their careers if Avery wins his suit. Remember, Colborn was the one who suppressed the outside jurisdictional call that would have exonerated Avery in 1995 and Lenk was the arresting officer in Avery's first case.
• Manitowoc very, very publicly declared that all investigations would be handled by Calumet County for the specific reason of . The comments from Manitowoc made it clear that they were effectively banning their own members from the Avery land.
• Lenk had access and knowledge of Avery's clearly tampered-with blood sample. The lab that ran tests on that blood clearly stated that the way the EDTA tube was accessed was not done by them. Someone else broke the seal on the evidence pack and took blood from the tube not for laboratory purposes. That much is clear, ask anyone who works in a lab (my wife is a medical laboratory tech). The only people with access were Manitowoc Sheriff's Department employees.
• Colborn had dispatch run Halbach's plates two days before it was located on the Avery property. The only reason he would do that was if he was looking at the as-yet-undiscovered vehicle.
• Lenk's initial visit to the Avery compound came in direct violation of Manitowoc's own edict. He lied about his arrival time (in one interview said around 6:00 or 7:00, later on the stand stated he arrived at 1:00 or 2:00). Based on the original arrival time he gave, he had to deliberately evade the Calumet check-in point. Why do that against his own department's wishes if his intent was honest?
• When Lenk and Colborn somehow got involved with the investigation, they neglected to mention their connection to the Avery lawsuit to the supervising officers from Calumet.
• Calumet spent 3 days searching Avery's bedroom before Lenk and Colborn, the two officers with the most to lose still on the job in Manitowoc had Avery won his case, miraculously found Halbach's key. Is Calumet that inept that they couldn't find the key for 3 days and these guys walk in and miraculously find it? Oh...and somehow, Avery's DNA is on the key but Halbach's isn't?
• The investigators never looked at Halbach's ex-boyfriend (who couldn't remember when he last saw her, despite knowing the exact day he last saw her) or her roommate (who didn't report her missing for three days). Any sane, diligent investigator would at least take a look at ex-lovers and roommates.
• Much of the conviction was based on Dassey's testimony that was clearly fed directly to him by police. The key details, like Halbach being shot in the head, were never mentioned by Brendan until after he was told by police that's what happened.

.
Again, bear in mind the job of the defense is not to provide proof, but only to create reasonable doubt. Lenk and Colborn had both motive and opportunity to frame Avery. Both stood to lose their careers and possibly go to prison for their involvement in his wrongful imprisonment the first time. Lenk had access to Avery's blood, the only piece of evidence found in a car that was apparently meticulously wiped down for prints but not for 6 separate blood stains. Colborn seemed to locate Halbach's car two days before it turned up on the Avery property. Manitowoc declared publicly they would not be involved in the investigation, but Lenk snuck onto the Avery premises, then both Lenk and Colborn managed to get involved in the search for evidence and found the most pertinent pieces of evidence while simultaneously withholding information about their own connections to Avery from the Authority Having Jurisdiction (Calumet). Meanwhile, no investigation of other suspects and Dassey was clearly fed his confession.

This is all about reasonable doubt. I'm not saying Avery didn't do it, but there's more than enough circumstantial evidence to indicate he was framed for the crime, whether guilty or not.

[rocket surgeon]

Based on what you are saying, you are not an open-minded guy. Bear in mind, the job of the defense attorneys is not to provide evidence, but to present reasonable doubt. The burden of evidence does not lie on the defense. The burden of proving reasonable doubt does. As Dean Strang said in the trial, "All due respect to counsel, the state is supposed to start every criminal trial swimming upstream. And the strong current against which the state is supposed to be swimming is the presumption of innocence".

It is blatantly, painfully obvious that you are assuming guilt. You are not open-minded in this case, you are not allowing the defense to do their job of proving reasonable doubt. But if you want the case for reasonable doubt, here goes:
.

• Both Colborn and Lenk were deposed in Avery's lawsuit. Both men stood to lose their careers if Avery wins his suit. Remember, Colborn was the one who suppressed the outside jurisdictional call that would have exonerated Avery in 1995 and Lenk was the arresting officer in Avery's first case.
• Manitowoc very, very publicly declared that all investigations would be handled by Calumet County for the specific reason of . The comments from Manitowoc made it clear that they were effectively banning their own members from the Avery land.
• Lenk had access and knowledge of Avery's clearly tampered-with blood sample. The lab that ran tests on that blood clearly stated that the way the EDTA tube was accessed was not done by them. Someone else broke the seal on the evidence pack and took blood from the tube not for laboratory purposes. That much is clear, ask anyone who works in a lab (my wife is a medical laboratory tech). The only people with access were Manitowoc Sheriff's Department employees.
• Colborn had dispatch run Halbach's plates two days before it was located on the Avery property. The only reason he would do that was if he was looking at the as-yet-undiscovered vehicle.
• Lenk's initial visit to the Avery compound came in direct violation of Manitowoc's own edict. He lied about his arrival time (in one interview said around 6:00 or 7:00, later on the stand stated he arrived at 1:00 or 2:00). Based on the original arrival time he gave, he had to deliberately evade the Calumet check-in point. Why do that against his own department's wishes if his intent was honest?
• When Lenk and Colborn somehow got involved with the investigation, they neglected to mention their connection to the Avery lawsuit to the supervising officers from Calumet.
• Calumet spent 3 days searching Avery's bedroom before Lenk and Colborn, the two officers with the most to lose still on the job in Manitowoc had Avery won his case, miraculously found Halbach's key. Is Calumet that inept that they couldn't find the key for 3 days and these guys walk in and miraculously find it? Oh...and somehow, Avery's DNA is on the key but Halbach's isn't?
• The investigators never looked at Halbach's ex-boyfriend (who couldn't remember when he last saw her, despite knowing the exact day he last saw her) or her roommate (who didn't report her missing for three days). Any sane, diligent investigator would at least take a look at ex-lovers and roommates.
• Much of the conviction was based on Dassey's testimony that was clearly fed directly to him by police. The key details, like Halbach being shot in the head, were never mentioned by Brendan until after he was told by police that's what happened.

.
Again, bear in mind the job of the defense is not to provide proof, but only to create reasonable doubt. Lenk and Colborn had both motive and opportunity to frame Avery. Both stood to lose their careers and possibly go to prison for their involvement in his wrongful imprisonment the first time. Lenk had access to Avery's blood, the only piece of evidence found in a car that was apparently meticulously wiped down for prints but not for 6 separate blood stains. Colborn seemed to locate Halbach's car two days before it turned up on the Avery property. Manitowoc declared publicly they would not be involved in the investigation, but Lenk snuck onto the Avery premises, then both Lenk and Colborn managed to get involved in the search for evidence and found the most pertinent pieces of evidence while simultaneously withholding information about their own connections to Avery from the Authority Having Jurisdiction (Calumet). Meanwhile, no investigation of other suspects and Dassey was clearly fed his confession.

This is all about reasonable doubt. I'm not saying Avery didn't do it, but there's more than enough circumstantial evidence to indicate he was framed for the crime, whether guilty or not.

well done! 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Based on what you are saying, you are not an open-minded guy. Bear in mind, the job of the defense attorneys is not to provide evidence, but to present reasonable doubt. The burden of evidence does not lie on the defense. The burden of proving reasonable doubt does. As Dean Strang said in the trial, "All due respect to counsel, the state is supposed to start every criminal trial swimming upstream. And the strong current against which the state is supposed to be swimming is the presumption of innocence".

It is blatantly, painfully obvious that you are assuming guilt. You are not open-minded in this case, you are not allowing the defense to do their job of proving reasonable doubt. But if you want the case for reasonable doubt, here goes:
.

• Both Colborn and Lenk were deposed in Avery's lawsuit. Both men stood to lose their careers if Avery wins his suit. Remember, Colborn was the one who suppressed the outside jurisdictional call that would have exonerated Avery in 1995 and Lenk was the arresting officer in Avery's first case.
• Manitowoc very, very publicly declared that all investigations would be handled by Calumet County for the specific reason of . The comments from Manitowoc made it clear that they were effectively banning their own members from the Avery land.
• Lenk had access and knowledge of Avery's clearly tampered-with blood sample. The lab that ran tests on that blood clearly stated that the way the EDTA tube was accessed was not done by them. Someone else broke the seal on the evidence pack and took blood from the tube not for laboratory purposes. That much is clear, ask anyone who works in a lab (my wife is a medical laboratory tech). The only people with access were Manitowoc Sheriff's Department employees.
• Colborn had dispatch run Halbach's plates two days before it was located on the Avery property. The only reason he would do that was if he was looking at the as-yet-undiscovered vehicle.
• Lenk's initial visit to the Avery compound came in direct violation of Manitowoc's own edict. He lied about his arrival time (in one interview said around 6:00 or 7:00, later on the stand stated he arrived at 1:00 or 2:00). Based on the original arrival time he gave, he had to deliberately evade the Calumet check-in point. Why do that against his own department's wishes if his intent was honest?
• When Lenk and Colborn somehow got involved with the investigation, they neglected to mention their connection to the Avery lawsuit to the supervising officers from Calumet.
• Calumet spent 3 days searching Avery's bedroom before Lenk and Colborn, the two officers with the most to lose still on the job in Manitowoc had Avery won his case, miraculously found Halbach's key. Is Calumet that inept that they couldn't find the key for 3 days and these guys walk in and miraculously find it? Oh...and somehow, Avery's DNA is on the key but Halbach's isn't?
• The investigators never looked at Halbach's ex-boyfriend (who couldn't remember when he last saw her, despite knowing the exact day he last saw her) or her roommate (who didn't report her missing for three days). Any sane, diligent investigator would at least take a look at ex-lovers and roommates.
• Much of the conviction was based on Dassey's testimony that was clearly fed directly to him by police. The key details, like Halbach being shot in the head, were never mentioned by Brendan until after he was told by police that's what happened.

.
Again, bear in mind the job of the defense is not to provide proof, but only to create reasonable doubt. Lenk and Colborn had both motive and opportunity to frame Avery. Both stood to lose their careers and possibly go to prison for their involvement in his wrongful imprisonment the first time. Lenk had access to Avery's blood, the only piece of evidence found in a car that was apparently meticulously wiped down for prints but not for 6 separate blood stains. Colborn seemed to locate Halbach's car two days before it turned up on the Avery property. Manitowoc declared publicly they would not be involved in the investigation, but Lenk snuck onto the Avery premises, then both Lenk and Colborn managed to get involved in the search for evidence and found the most pertinent pieces of evidence while simultaneously withholding information about their own connections to Avery from the Authority Having Jurisdiction (Calumet). Meanwhile, no investigation of other suspects and Dassey was clearly fed his confession.

This is all about reasonable doubt. I'm not saying Avery didn't do it, but there's more than enough circumstantial evidence to indicate he was framed for the crime, whether guilty or not.

Thank you for taking the time to summarize all of these points as I was far too lazy to do so.

What Navin can't seem to or doesn't want to acknowledge is that even though some posters here, myself included, feel there is clearly reasonable doubt, that doesn't mean people are giddy at the thought of Avery being freed or that they even believe he is innocent.

[Jay Bee]

Avery killed her. Cops and gov't employees in general are stupid and corrupt. The legal system is upsetting. Shocking all around, right? 

Nonetheless, Avery killed this poor young woman and that's the reality.

[mikekinsellaMVP]

Avery killed her. Cops and gov't employees in general are stupid and corrupt. The legal system is upsetting. Shocking all around, right? 

Nonetheless, Avery killed this poor young woman and that's the reality.

Soooo...  We just need to accept that and not try to learn anything from this case?

http://wkrn.com/2016/01/12/making-a-murderer-documentary-series-inspires-proposed-bill-in-tennessee/

[Hards Alumni]

So I guess that means you don't have any evidence, huh?

Be honest, is your last name Kratz?

[mu03eng]

For those in the this documentary is crap and Avery is a rage monster camp (Navin, Lenny, JayBee, etc), do you think there were any issues with the way the case was handled? I'm not asking you to buy into a grand conspiracy or that Avery is innocent.

Simply, do you think there are no issues of either incompetence or malfeasance on the part of those investigating and/or prosecuting the Halbach murder?

[warriorchick]

For those in the this documentary is crap and Avery is a rage monster camp (Navin, Lenny, JayBee, etc), do you think there were any issues with the way the case was handled? I'm not asking you to buy into a grand conspiracy or that Avery is innocent.

Simply, do you think there are no issues of either incompetence or malfeasance on the part of those investigating and/or prosecuting the Halbach murder?

I would also like to know if those folks think that Brendan Dassey is guilty as well.  After all, there is nothing to suggest (as far as I have seen) that, unlike Avery, he had run-ins with the law before this all happened, and there is literally no evidence to support he was involved other than his own highly questionable confession and his cousin's report to the police that he was acting strangely after Theresa's disappearance (which she recanted at trial).

[Benny B]

I would also like to know if those folks think that Brendan Dassey is guilty as well.  After all, there is nothing to suggest (as far as I have seen) that, unlike Avery, he had run-ins with the law before this all happened, and there is literally no evidence to support he was involved other than his own highly questionable confession and his cousin's report to the police that he was acting strangely after Theresa's disappearance (which she recanted at trial).

Excellent point.

[🏀]

I would also like to know if those folks think that Brendan Dassey is guilty as well.  After all, there is nothing to suggest (as far as I have seen) that, unlike Avery, he had run-ins with the law before this all happened, and there is literally no evidence to support he was involved other than his own highly questionable confession and his cousin's report to the police that he was acting strangely after Theresa's disappearance (which she recanted at trial).

Don't forget the whole fact he's mentally challenged, per IQ.

[mikekinsellaMVP]

For those in the this documentary is crap and Avery is a rage monster camp (Navin, Lenny, JayBee, etc), do you think there were any issues with the way the case was handled? I'm not asking you to buy into a grand conspiracy or that Avery is innocent.

Simply, do you think there are no issues of either incompetence or malfeasance on the part of those investigating and/or prosecuting the Halbach murder?

+1.  There seems to be a prevailing notion that demanding accountability from law enforcement makes one a murder apologizst.  Too bad Avery's guilt and the Sheriff department's ineptitude aren't mutually exclusive.

[Skatastrophy]

Don't forget the whole fact he's mentally challenged, per IQ.

I can't think of a reason that we shouldn't feel very bad, as a society, for how that young man was treated.