If they did everything that was “claimed” in the “confession” they did one heck of clean up job in house.
So are you saying it was okay for his court appointed attorney and their paid investigator to work for the DA’s office to strengthen the case against his uncle? If so then why was he removed form the case and was the basis for the US Courts overturning the conviction?
If you think Steven Avery is innocent, you are, at best, a fool. Very nearly nothing presented in the series is anything more than propaganda put out by either The Innocence Project or his lawyers. Steven Avery was the last person known to have seen the victim alive. The timeline of her going to his garage agrees with the time of her death. He took active measures to hide his phone conversations with the deceased leading up to her murder. Her remains were discovered (contrary to completely false reporting by his lawyers) in a fire pit in front of his own home. His efforts to scrub the scene were attested to by his own relatives.
He completely controlled the crime scene. Of course he did his best to clean it up.
Who uses chlorine bleach to clean the floors of his garage?
No one.
So are you saying it was okay for his court appointed attorney and their paid investigator to work for the DA’s office to strengthen the case against his uncle?
If his attorney believed that was in the best interest of his client, there is nothing ethically questionable about that per se. And there is certainly nothing illegal or ethically questionable about a DA seeking that kind of assistance from one of the accessories to a crime. It happens, literally, every day.
If so then why was he removed form the case and was the basis for the US Courts overturning the conviction?
You are confusing overturning a case on the basis of a lack of competent counsel with innocence. They're not the same thing. I don't say his lawyer was a great lawyer. That doesn't make him a villain, or mean that he did anything improper; just not a terribly good attorney.
The scenes shown in the documentary, where the police seem to be "feeding" Dassey answers were a confirmatory part of the interrogation. They are reminding him of his own statements, previously made and freely offered (and not shown on the video.) There is nothing improper about that, either. Again, it happens in literally every police interrogation.
After a freeform interrogation in which the confession comes from the accused, it is usually followed up with statements like: "Then you went to location X and did Y." The interviewee is free to correct or clarify that statement.
The freeform interrogation was not shown by Netflix. Why not?
The jurors saw all of the videotape, and they concluded he was not led. You saw twenty minutes of interrogation which omits crucial parts, and has an editorial voice-over. I have more confidence in the jurors than I have in you.
Steven Avery is guilty, and Dassey was an accessory. Whether the crime was committed in the way described by Dassey is immaterial to the question of Avery's overwhelming guilt, because neither Dassey's testimony nor his confession were used in Steven Avery's trial.
You have been presented a film, produced with the intent of putting the kid’s guilt into question. The dice are loaded. Its propaganda, just like a pro-Hillary election ad. I once lived and taught in Manitowoc, am very familiar with the case, and, if the kid is released because of this film, then I hope he goes to live with the saps and families of those who freed him.