It should be pointed out, though it rarely is in these comments, that the gun he "pulled" on his cousin was not loaded.

And Dennis Miller's old line about (paraphrasing) the only way to get on a jury is to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't know shit about the case.

I wonder if that constitutes jury tampering. Is it jury tampering when a juror tampers with the jury?

Thanks for coming forward ten years later. It's too bad you weren't in a position to do something about then. Like, say, decide Avery's fate in a jury room.

No.

Especially considering a *lot* of people lived on that property and virtually anyone had access to it. Why single out Steven?

If he can imprison right wingers in FEMA camps, take away all our guns, and conduct Jade Helm military exercises for the purposes of jailing Texans, as I keep hearing he's planning to do (though for the life of me, I can't imagine why it's taking him so long), then I guess he can!

How do we know the police found DNA from the hood of the car? Because the cops who planted the key in the bedroom and planted blood in the car *said* they found DNA on the hood?

The FBI test proves nothing. There's a reason why the FBI *never* does that particular test.

How do we know they found DNA under the hood? Because they said they did? The same people who obviously planted and manipulated other evidence?

There is zero evidence that any rape took place.

We don't know it was Avery who was calling and harassing her. I would guess that it wasn't, because why would she agree to go back out to the Avery property and photograph a vehicle if she were afraid of him? About the towel, I dunno…maybe he was taking a shower when she knocked on the door. DNA on the hood latch?…

"there is so much reasonable doubt I don't understand how he was convicted"

I think he was. Spending 18 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit seems like textbook "misunderstood" to me.

Attempted murder with an unloaded gun?

Are spoiler warnings necessary for an actual news event that occurred more than 10 years ago?

Also, I don't think the filmmakers were interested in making a documentary about whether Avery was guilty or innocent. They were making a documentary about an accused murderer who was getting screwed by the government and not receiving his Constitutionally mandated due process.

True. They knew — or at least had a REALLY good idea — that Avery was not a rapist in 1985. Remember the cop who drew a picture — not of the rapist's description — but specifically of Steven Avery…and framed it and hung it in his office! Those cops knew perfectly well they were letting a rapist go free. Why wouldn't…

Right. Whether Steven Avery committed this murder is irrelevant in terms of the points this documentary makes.

Why couldn't the cops have planted DNA on the hood lever? (BTW, I think the term "sweat" is erroneous. I think it's actually skin cell DNA that was found.)