I look at it like this. Even if Avery or Avery & Dassey killed her, you cant convict them. Not because the police might have been trying to create a cover up (that doesn't even matter), but because they (along with several other people involved) did such a poor job handling the case. Bad police work = no conviction. Simple as that.
How big of deal is setting the cat on fire? In my group of friends that have watched most of the guilty voters bring up Steve setting the cat on fire.
His current girlfriend obviously has at least 3 cats. If she can forgive him, anyone should be able to.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Ex-fiancée of ‘Making a Murderer’ subject Steven Avery says ‘he beat me all the time’ <a href="https://t.co/6V5KbHYTYq">https://t.co/6V5KbHYTYq</a> <a href="https://t.co/XUmDctACWY">pic.twitter.com/XUmDctACWY</a></p>— Fusion (@ThisIsFusion) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisIsFusion/status/687973838488006658">January 15, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
You mean the documentary makers may have been presenting a biased view of the case? Shocking, I tell you.
Where are his kids? It's strange that they have no opinion on this and arent actively defending him? And how does Brendan go from having all his issues to Michael Jordan in the clutch, when he testified? The whole thing doesn't make sense.
The documentary presents that the blood in the Rav4 was the smoking gun, (which is why viewers are so outraged that this whole shame is clearly bogus) but in actuality I believe the prosecution banked wayyy more credence into the piece of evidence that was left out by the filmmakers, and that was the SWEAT DNA under the hood of the Rav4. We all agree the blood stains inside looked ridiculous, and was highly likely smeared by the sheriffs from the old vial of blood, and that is exactly why the filmmakers focused on that piece as the "smoking gun" But if you listen to Kratz in interviews now, he'll stand more strongly behind the sweat DNA under the hood as the state's most damning evidence against Avery. It's much, much harder for sheriffs to plant his sweat. The documentary makes no mention of this evidence...
To me, there's reasonable doubt with the sweat, too. With everything else leaving doubt, all Avery would have to do is say she was having car trouble and he agreed to look under the hood for her, and there goes your case. The sweat evidence isn't a big deal to me. Once again, if you want to bank on the sweat, you'd have to explain why he put her in the car.
According to the defense attorneys, there's no such thing as "sweat DNA." That's something Kratz made up to fit his theory. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/making-a-murderer-steven-avery-defense-attorneys-fire-back-critics/
"Sweat DNA" is the term Kratz likes to throw around for that piece of evidence.. But from my understanding, DNA evidence was found under the hood, and it wasn't a convenient blood smear like the fishy looking ones inside the vehicle. "DNA from Avery’s epithelial cells—not blood, but sweat, skin, or saliva—was found on the hood latch of Halbach’s RAV-4, the battery of which had been disconnected"
