Well, I guess I'm going off of Steven's account of it from the first episode. He basically said he was drunk with his friends at a bonfire, and tried to toss the cat over the fire, but it landed in it. It's obviously an awful thing to do to an innocent animal, but not exactly sadistic behavior either.

Well, no, it's certainly not "normal," but at the same time, depending on which holler I was in, I wouldn't exactly be shocked to see it either. The Averys strike me as a clan of folks who would have slightly less inhibitions about that sort of thing than a lot of us.

Yeah, and they also point out that there is a car crusher ON SITE, and Avery definitely knows how to use it, since he was using it the day before the murder. Even with an IQ of 70, I'd imagine he couldn't be dumb enough to do that

Agreed. There's nothing here that proves that he didn't do it; but there's a lot that proves that he didn't do it the way they say he did. But instead of declaring a mistrial and potentially preventing justice for Teresa, the judge allowed all the bullshit and probably prevented justice for Teresa and Steven.

I was going to say "Just not impossible" is all these prosecutors seem to need to prove their case. But then I remembered that they claimed Avery and the kid slit Teresa's throat in the bedroom… where they found no blood stains whatsoever. So I guess they don't even need possibility.

That's more than I've done this year. Well done!

The cat thing and the threatening his cousin thing still don't have much bearing on the case though. Those actions don't point to a murderer/rapist; they just seem like things a low-income, low-IQ redneck would do.

Well, I don't mean to claim to know the intentions of the filmmakers. Obviously there are different levels of subjectivity; I'm just saying nobody would go to the trouble to make a film if they didn't have a point of view to get across.

Yeah, the bullet was mentioned, fairly briefly. Like the car key, it was one of the pieces of evidence that wasn't found on the first or second or third search, but magically appeared later. Actually, the bullet was found like 4 months after the initial search, IIRC. So…clearly a pretty airtight discovery.

The way I see it, there really wasn't much opportunity (or need, even) to give much more attention to the murder victim. In the point of view of the documentary, Avery himself is a victim. The crime that was pinned on him is more or less irrelevant to the fact that he didn't do it (assuming, as the film does, that he…

Is it possible to acknowledge your sarcasm while thinking that activity doesn't actually sound half-bad?

I KNEW IT

I completely understand and agree with your sentiment.

Not to mention all those would-be-Thanksgiving turkeys who got a new lease on life!

While I agree that the internet is far too quick to jump to conclusions, it's hard to imagine what substantive evidence a 10-hour documentary about a single court case could have left out that would totally negate the rest. (Not saying it doesn't exist, just that it'd have to be pretty damn convincing)

Come to think of it, I've never seen him and another murderer in the same room…

I feel like a public dick-punching might be even more effective

Yeah, having been raised in the rural South, and knowing that rednecks/poor people are pretty much the same everywhere, I'd say his doing that was much less an indication of his character than an indication of his environment.

Yeah, I haven't watched the last couple of episodes yet, but so far the way the kid was treated has been the most egregious part I've taken away from it (which is really saying something, given all the other circumstances of the case). Kratz does seem prone to latching onto a small part of people's complaints that he…

Hell, I'm only 26 years old and have lived in Tennessee my whole life, and I knew that.