watwattwo

Even the damn rain was in on it!

I think that she'd likely be able to get at least one juror to believe there's reasonable doubt (especially given the fervor MaM has created among some), maybe even the entire jury.

However, I'm specifically wondering how you believe you would vote as a juror.

At least one of you mention that you think Zellner does a great job poking holes and bringing up reasonable doubt. Of course, you are only hearing Zellner's side on a show intended to bolster those arguments, and I believe you've both agreed that her theories and conclusions are absurd.

IMO, given all of the evidence against him, no reasonable theory exists where Steven is innocent - they all require numerous bad actors working in tandem (despite no motive nor evidence) along with ridiculous coincidences on Steven's part. There may be reasonable doubt about how Steven did it, but IMO there's no doubt that he did do it.

With that said, if you were a juror on a hypothetical retrial (thus also hearing the state's rebuttal to Zellner), do you believe you'd find Steven guilty?

I've mentioned this to you before, but the state never claimed that specific bullet went through her skull.

It is nothing but a misrepresentation and straw man argument by Zellner.

Here's what Kratz actually says at trial:

She's shot twice, once in the left side of her head, once in the back of her head, or I guess I should more accurately say she's shot at least twice. Because two bullet's were found, two entrance wounds were found to her head. We do have the 11 shell casings on the 6th that were recovered. How many times Mr. Avery actually shot this poor girl, you probably aren't going to be able to determine, but it's at least twice, and it's at least twice to the head.