IDK, but I do know that I would want to be considered innocent until proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. It appears that did not happen in this case.
He was the last person to speak to her. So what? He admits that on camera. If you murdered someone, wouldn’t you say, hey, I haven’t seen (murdered person)? And so what that he called her. This was before smart phones, and he was trying to ascertain when she would come so he wouldn’t be waiting all day for her to arrive. Ever wait all day for a repairman to come? And so what that he *67 his number. Maybe he thought she was avoiding his calls while he waisted his time all day waiting for her to come. It’s all so easy to dismiss. It does not point to murder. And yes, her vehicle was discovered on his family property *by one of her relatives* **after her car was reported to have been seen by a LEO** There are just too many what the hecks in this case, and too many issues that don’t add up to reasonable doubt. The, “All b’s owe me!” statement? He’s not a Casinova , that’s for sure. But that doesn’t prove he committed murder.
The last person to see any dead person is automatically a suspect.
So what? He admits that on camera.
Speaking of "so what?" He had to admit it. The evidence that he was the last person known to have seen her was overwhelming. He could only hurt his case by denying it.
If you murdered someone, wouldn't you say, hey, I haven't seen (murdered person)?
Not if it was known that I had, in fact, seen her. And it was known. If it was known I had seen her, and denied it, it would be incriminating.
And so what that he called her. This was before smart phones, and he was trying to ascertain when she would come so he wouldn’t be waiting all day for her to arrive.
He was at his own home, which is adjacent to his business. The photo shoot was set up to sell a car. Between home or work on the day of an appointment where else did he have to be -- raping someone else?
Ever wait all day for a repairman to come?
Yeah, I have. And when I call them, I make damn good and sure they know who I am and why they had better keep their appointment with me.
And so what that he *67 his number. Maybe he thought she was avoiding his calls while he waisted his time all day waiting for her to come.
How would disguising his number keep her from avoiding his calls? I don't know about you, but most of us DON'T pick up the phone when the receiver says "name unavailable." Only an idiot -- or someone who knows they're actually more annoying than a robocaller -- would suppress his identity on a call.
It's all so easy to dismiss.
Nope, it's not. The circumstantial part of the case is built up from small things which taken singly may seem to be trivial but, when taken together assemble themselves into the circumstances of murder. As a juror you must weigh all of the evidence. You don't get to just say "so what?" to one thing at a time. There is a context and a chronology to these events.
And you haven't addressed any of the forensic evidence. With good reason: the defense's objection to the forensic evidence is cherry picked, and wrong. The supposedly sinister puncture in the blood vial is made all the time, means nothing, and has even been admitted to by a nurse who came forward to explain why. Or is she -- like almost everyone in the upper midwest except for Steven Avery's white trash relatives -- in on the conspiracy, too?
It does not point to murder.
A jury, who heard all of the evidence, and not just a handful of facts picked at by the defense for a film does not agree.
And yes, her vehicle was discovered on his family property *by one of her relatives* **after her car was reported to have been seen by a LEO**
Was the car on his property, or was it not?
Here are nine facts the documentary doesn't give about Steven Avery. There are many, many more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/evidence-s-missing-making-murderer-article-1.2485213