Why haven't Netflix's feet been held to the fire over history of Steven and Avery family abuse?

Well first of all - I'll start by saying I mean no disrespect towards people with a lower IQ - these tests are research-based and specific to aspects that are to a degree quantifiable, such as memory retention etc and does not mean a person cannot hold a great conversation or do interesting and worthwhile things. A lot of things can affect the accuracy of IQ testing - like ADHD. The brain is obviously much more complicated than that and not every skill or ability the brain has can be measured. I like that Einstein quote about the fish believing it is stupid because it cannot climb a tree...

I have seen people with lower IQ's with incredible creativity, they can do things some people with the highest IQ's cannot. . And you can have meaningful conversations with them about things that interest you both. I guess I didn't phrase it correctly (English is my 2nd language so sometimes what I mean and what I say gets lost in translation because I think in a different language - but I'm gonna give it a good try - please forgive any linguistic shortcomings).

The significance of someone with a lower IQ has nothing to do with whether or not I will outperform them or they me, I did not say they are lost, inadequate or innocent at all. I feel like you are placing words in my mouth here that I don't love. I am also fully aware that lower IQ is not indicative of someone's ability to commit a murder - but it DOES affect the how, why, who etc. This is where I think you are misunderstanding me - I will try to explain further:

I work in the legal field - more specifically - in forensic criminology. This does not make me a know-it-all when it comes to crime AT ALL. But what I do know and understand - is that when someone uses language to explain something or describe someone (a statement, testimony or affidavit) - you HAVE TO look at those words in context. Context will be that persons mental capabilities, interests, history, world view, biases etc. You logically cannot expect someone like, for example, Brendan Dassey, to have the same world view that I do. First of all I am older, live in a different country, am highly educated, have different family structures, I am female, I have travelled much more and I work with a large variety of people from different countries often. Now this may sound to you like I think I'm better than him - it is not the case. These are just facts and if I want to understand on a deeper level the meaning behind a person's words and actions - I need to know how my world view differs from him and why. So this woman called the Avery's 'street smart' - all I meant to say was her definition of 'street smart' and someone else's may differ - which is why you have to be careful to add too much weight to it without context. This does not necessarily mean they are NOT street smart - I was just trying to explain why I distrust bold statements like that and why context is important.

To answer your question - I grew up in a very small farm town yes. I don't live there anymore. But I have seen how small those people's worlds can be. This is not necessarily a bad thing though. They live a simple life and they are happy - which is great.

Saying I have limited empathy and insight is a little rude. Saying I have limited experience is not necessarily rude, but IMO untrue.

I did not say the thread is subjective and biased - NO, NO NO! I mean the overall debate surrounding the Avery case which is something different entirely. You misunderstood/misread by comment there. I was getting off topic a little perhaps. What I refer to is, LE did not from a subjective standpoint look at everyone as suspects and ruled people out. A lot of suspicious characters never gave alibi's and had unlimited access to ASY. A lot of what Ken Kratz based his theory on was things that LE officials, BoD, ST and others told them. A lot of these people are proven liars. (I will get to physical evidence in a sec - referring to testimonies etc). Ken Kratz's theory of how the crime happened made no sense. How the key was found made no sense. A lot of things (to me and plenty of others at least) just do not add up. It seems subjective and very biased.

I had to google Ray Rice - I don't watch or care about NFL. (No offense). As I said in my original post - my concern is with the flaws in the justice system and the corruption of LE. Do you really believe Colborn when he says he wasn't looking at those plates when he called them in?

I will reiterate what I said in my first response. If SA is a rapist, wife beater and overall scumbag - then find him guilt of that. Great. I will be the last on to defend him and so no he is such a swell guy. But I have come in my line of works met rapists and abusers (not always fun - let me tell you) but they don't all turn into killers.

If SA is guilty - then nothing KZ finds will definitely prove his innocence. But the evidence she found, to me is very compelling, thus far. If the state has nothing to hide, then have an evidentiary hearing, listen to testimony and make a final determination.

Physical evidence does not lie in my opinion, yes. It may sound simplistic, and like something from a TV show, but it is true. Which is why the physical, scientific evidence that KZ brings will be able to prove if evidence was planted or not. The physical evidence itself, is not lying. Evidence is not biased. If blood is planted, it can be proven with tests. If DNA is planted, there will be a test that can determine this. The primary burn site vs secondary burn site can be determined. Saying the evidence is planted, and someone is framed is not the same as saying evidence is lying. If I said evidence is lying I would say, no - the tests are wrong - that is NOT SA's blood. Not saying that.

/r/MakingaMurderer Thread Parent