Shang Chi isn't from K'un-Lun, surely?

This is not true. There was enormous amounts of DNA evidence against Simpson, with only the one bloody glove ever really being called into question. Simpson also had a very clear motive, and no alibi whatever. He repeatedly contradicted himself in his statements to police.

Yeah, that seems most likely.

She was shot in the head. That suggests murder or suicide, surely?

That doesn't make any sense. If he burned her in the firepit, then tried to move the remains, why would most of the remains be in the firepit, and only very small amounts of remains at the other site? Surely she was burned at the other site, and the bones were then moved to the firepit?

Is betraying the spirit of the work of Terry Brooks actually an offense in any way? Brooks is a hack we enjoyed when we were ten because we had terrible taste. If the TV writers think they can do a better job, they should have at it.

Are you suggesting that Terry Brooks, of all people, has artistic integrity? The first book in the series was a lightly disguised rewrite of Lord of the Rings. Dude's going to take money when it's offered to him.

Just to go off on a tangential point, there's nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence. The other kind of evidence is eyewitness evidence, which is probably even more likely to be bullshit, as it turns out.

The original burn site was, iirc, quite close to the Avery salvage yard. Which makes sense, because otherwise the cops never would have found it. The car proves her body was moved, but doesn't show where it happened. At any rate, I agree that he probably didn't do it, and certainly that there wasn't sufficient…

Police are actually allowed to lie in interrogations. There's case law on that.

He ran a woman off the road and threatened her with a gun. That doesn't qualify as a history of violence against women? At any rate, the fact that her car was in the Avery lot, and her bones in Steven Avery's firepit, makes it reasonable to focus on people with knowledge of and access to that area, which would not…

Dassey's confession, to be fair, was not used in Avery's trial, though that press conference of course tainted the jury pool. It's weird that so many people are focusing on Avery, when Dassey is the much more obviously innocent one.

Well, not zero evidence - her bones and car were found on his property, and I don't think there's any real reason to believe that the police moved them there. That's evidence. Just not enough evidence to imprison someone for life.

It's seems fairly clear that she was not killed in Avery's trailer or garage. Where she was actually killed is unclear, because the cops decided to frame Steven Avery instead of trying to figure out how the crime was actually committed.

Yeah, and it likely would have been several years after 1981 before anyone would have just referred to a "401(k)" without any explanation.

I'll just say again that "thinking someone committed a crime because they don't act according to some ill-thought out rule you have for how they should be behaving" is exactly what leads to the police railroading innocent people. It's what happened to Amanda Knox, for instance, and Cameron Todd Willingham. Obviously…

He was the spokesman for the family, no? Was he really getting in front of the camera more than Fred Goldman did during the OJ trial, say?

"poorly executed police interviews" seems like the wrong description. Wiegert and Fassbender achieved exactly what they wanted to.

It does render it inconclusive, because that's the actual rule as to how you're allowed to use that stuff.

*actual* boxer.