Okay, then they just waited for a woman whose last known contact was Steven Avery to be killed. That also seems like quite a stretch.

I didn’t say he deserved to go away for the time he did, but frankly I don’t find him to be a particularly sympathetic figure. There are decent people who get put away for shit they didn’t do. This guy happens to be a terrible person who was put away for shit he didn’t do.

Man, some people seem so emotionally invested in Avery’s innocence. Not just the fact that he should have been found not guilty (which I believe), but rather that he’s completely innocent. It’s a little baffling.

I assume it’s no different than the defense lawyers who will do whatever it takes to get a “not guilty.”

When he was 20, Avery and another man pleaded guilty to animal cruelty after pouring gasoline and oil on Avery’s cat and throwing it, alive, into a fire; Avery was sentenced to prison again for that crime .

Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I would have voted “Not Guilty” just because the defense threw enough up there to make it clear the cops definitely manipulated the evidence.

I think we’re going to have to employ good ol’ Occam’s Razor on this one. Which is more likely? That a person with an admitted, documented history of violence towards women who had just received publicity for being wrongfully convicted thought he could get away with murder by claiming to be wrongfully accused again,…

I think that one should think critically before trusting Manitowac county police with regard to Avery, but these allegations are coming from other counties. And the fact that someone was once wrongfully convicted (particularly when they were allegedly targeted because of their violent history) shouldn’t mean that they…

Except for the cat that he doused in an accelerant and threw in a bonfire.

There is a ton of evidence that he did it. I don’t know why people who watched the documentary think he’s innocent, other than that the defense lawyer seems very nice and the prosecutor is kind of a creep.

I don’t disagree with any of that. I was responding to a very specific comment that it was “clear he didn’t do it,” and pointing out that it’s silly to say he’s obviously innocent when you don’t know what the hell happened and there’s no alibi evidence or evidence someone else did it.

I’m not saying that there isn’t a lack of evidence in support (particularly in support of the state’s narrative), but none of that stuff is evidence that he’s innocent. And her blood was all over the car on his property.

Agree with everything you’ve said! I watched the doc and was 100% on the bandwagon until I did a little bit of research.

Yeah, you can't reason with stupid.

1. Avery frequently requested Teresa Halbach specifically when he called the photography agency.

I know, I really have to give up sooner on such things, but there is part of me that is utterly convinced that I just have to find the right turn of phrase and suddenly they’ll be like “ooooooh I get it!”

It’s like you are talking to a brick wall. I’m not even trying to be mean, but I don’t know how much clearer you can be. I’ve not seen or heard of this case and yet I still understand what you asked.

So many comments because I’m hoping you will eventually comprehend the difference between a lack of evidence and innocence.

I’m still bothered that there hasn’t been any justice for Teresa.

I don’t know anything about this case but it just seems that we shouldn’t make judgements from a ‘documentary’ show on Netflix that was funded and payed for by Netflix.