My guess is that Avery killed Halbach and that Dassey went over to the bonfire and helped Avery clean up his garage. I'm doubtful that Dassey knew about the murder at the time.
Dassey never should have been convicted. He got screwed by his attorney, and by the judge who allowed the confession to stand.
Regarding Avery, I go back and forth regarding the fairness of his conviction. Even excluding the suspicious evidence, I still think there is a lot that points to his guilt. I equate it to the OJ Simpson case. In both cases, evidence pointed toward the suspect, but the detectives attempted to supplement their cases through shady tactics. Is that reasonable doubt? The OJ jury thought so, and they're widely ridiculed. The Avery jury disagreed, and they're similarly criticized.
Do you really think Avery was able to hide the evidence in the manner the prosecutors claimed? I have a hard time believing that Avery, with his low IQ, would be able to cover up the brutal crime the prosecution claimed happened. There's just no way Avery murdered that girl in the kind of sadistic fashion they said he did, and was able to cover up All the physical evidence that, by consequence, would have been left to find.
If Avery dos kill her, it certainly didn't happen the way the DA claimed it did, and for that, he deserves a new trial. I can't imagine any half-decent lawyer looking at this any other way.
The prosecution doesn't have to prove the exact details, just that a murder occurred.
Between his DNA being in her car and her remains being found inside his burning barrels, there's plenty of evidence for a reasonable jury to convict. Dassey's story and outline of events made no sense, but those statements weren't used against Avery. As for covering up evidence, the car was found on his property and the bone fragments were also. That's not the work of a criminal mastermind.
Avery did have a below average IQ. He also was a sadist with specialized tendencies. If you can throw a live cat into a bonfire, you have the capacity to throw a dead body on one.
Who do you think killed her?
I gotta point out that this is wrong. The prosecution can't just prove that a murder occured, they have to prove that the person they're accusing of the murder actually did it. If the prosecution's story of what happened is contradicted by physical evidence, I think a reasonable person could have doubts about the case and if that's so, the verdict should be not guilty.
It's pretty easy as a defense attorney to raise questions and to argue there should be doubt. If the standard truly was "could a reasonable man have doubt", and if that standard was routinely applied, there would be a lot more trials and a lot more not guilty verdicts.
Instead, juries realistically apply a "do I feel strongly he did it" standard. With that standard in mind, I'm not surprised he was convicted. I feel pretty strongly that he did it, too. I also feel strongly that the police planted the key. Feeling like Avery did it and that local police supplemented their evidence illegally aren't mutually exclusive.
I don't know who the bolded part is for, because nobody has said different.
Regarding what you say about juries, any juror who votes that way is going against explicit instructions he or she is given before, during, and after the trial. The prosecution has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant did it. The defense doesn't have to prove anything. That's how the system works.
I assume you're not a criminal attorney, or involved in the Justice system. Presumption of innocence? Beyond all reasonable doubt? Jurors abiding strictly to instructions? That might be how the system is supposed to work, but it rarely does (unless you're a celebrity or a law enforcement officer). Of course, if it did a lot more criminals would be acquitted, and nobody seems to want that. A jury applies reasonable doubt, like with OJ or Casey Anthony, and the public wants heads to roll.
The jury applied the same standard toward Avery as most juries apply: they felt he did it, so they convicted. Judges rubber-stamped that verdict not because of a conspiracy, but because "that's how the system works". I understand wanting a more perfect system, but this is the one we have. The Avery jury didn't do anything that most juries don't do (see, e.g., first Avery trial).
So, legal niceties aside, most people's opinion on Avery is going to come down to whether they think he did it. I think he did, so I don't feel all that bad for him, even while concurrently thinking that a lot of police should lose their jobs. Dassey, I have no idea. He was probably telling the truth when he said he saw some bone fragments and cleaned up Avery's garage, but I have no idea about the rest of it. Even in his case, the blame falls minimally on the jury, and almost solely on the judge for allowing that "confession" to be viewed.
Long story short: when viewing all credible evidence, there was enough to convict Avery but not Dassey. If that result stands, I'm fine with it.
