They were all in it...

Should be "yeah".

If he is guilty, he should be on that Dumbest criminals show.

Why didn't he burn and crush the Rav4.

Also, dig a hole, and burn her in the hole, then re-fill the hole.

There was so much bad science on the prosecutions part. They didn't even set out a grid to map out where the bones were found in the burn pit. That is basic archaeology that they failed at.

Makes it impossible to tell if the burnt remains were dumped or not. If they were dumped you would expect to find them all in a small area in a pile.

Could the defense have objected to the prosecutor's line during closing arguments "Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the innocent and Mr. Avery is not innocent." That line stuck out like a wet fart during closing arguments.

Evidently he is smart enough to clean blood off of 150 pieces of trash in the room without leaving a spec anywhere.

I don't know if Avery killed Halbach or not but if he did it certainly didn't happen the way that the prosecution said it did. Brendan Dassey didn't have anything to do with it.

And somehow forgot that he could burn her body in a smelter and leave no remains instead of burning her in his yard. Maybe he is a criminal idiot savant. He is incredible at wiping DNA evidence off the face of the earth but a bumbling fool at everything else.

Making a Murderer: The Creators Answer the 6 Burning Questions That Have Recently Come Up

Making a Murderer, the Netflix documentary series about Steven Avery that has invoked hours of binge-watching and theories about a 2005 case that's long been closed, has also seen its share of scrutiny. Filmmakers Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi came to Netflix's TCA day to address their pop culture hit and were inundated with questions about Avery's case and revelations in the news that have come up since the show debuted four weeks ago. Here are their answers to the most pressing questions.





Are they still following Avery's case?

Though there has been no formal announcement of a season two from Netflix, Ricciardi and Demos are still documenting Avery's case. Ricciardi told reporters that, in the past four weeks since the show aired, they have had "several telephone conversations with Steven Avery. We did record those calls with an eye toward including them in any episodes should there be any future episodes," but they have not been back to Wisconsin since the show premiered.

What about Jodi Stachowski's turn against Avery?

Avery's ex-fiancée Jodi Stachowski, who is portrayed as being wholly supportive of Avery in the documentary, recently told Nancy Grace that Avery is guilty and that he was abusive. Demos addressed the claims, saying, "I can't say why Jodi Stachowski is saying what she is in the media today. What I can say is what we filmed with her nine years ago, this is what she said to us, and what is in the series is an accurate portrayal of what she was feeling at the time."

Did they downplay Avery's history of violence?

Demos and Ricciardi have been accused of downplaying Avery's history to portray him in a certain way. The creators had a chance to defend themselves, with Ricciardi asserting that "what we are seeing now is actually history repeating itself now, on a national scale, is the media demonizing this man to prove his guilt. What we did was document the [Teresa] Halbach case as it was unfolding." Ricciardi asserted that they objectively portrayed Avery: "We showed Steven Avery, warts and all. We showed all of his priors. We included information to the extent [that] we could accurately fact-check it and had multiple sources for it."

Did they intentionally omit evidence?

Ricciardi was asked to address accusations that the filmmakers intentionally left out evidence, and Ricciardi asserted that they did — because there was no way to fit every single piece into the series. "Of course we left out evidence — there would have been no other way to do it. We were not putting on a trial, but a film. The question was, of what was omitted, was it really significant? And the answer is no. "

Were they trying to prove Avery's innocence?

Demos replied to a question that suggested Making a Murderer is "advocacy journalism": "We do not consider this advocacy journalism. We are not taking sides. . . . We chose Steven Avery because we thought his experiences offered a window to the system. We don't have stake in his character, in his innocence or guilt. That was not the question we were raising."

Has Avery seen the show?

Ricciardi answered that Avery has not seen the show, and there's a reason why.

Is the Reason Steven Avery Hasn't Seen Making a Murderer

Netflix documentary Making a Murderer follows the case of prisoner Steven Avery over the course of 30 years, and has inspired both challenges and theories about what really happened in the case that sent Avery to prison for life. It's so addicting and so many people have been watching that when the documentary filmmakers Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi came to Netflix's day at TCA, they were asked if their subject Avery had seen the show. Unsurprisingly, he hasn't, but it's not for lack of trying. Ricciardi told reporters that Avery "does not have access to the series. He asked the warden and his social worker whether he would be able to see it, and his request was denied."

'Making a Murderer' fans found a new piece of evidence that could change the whole case

When the podcast "Serial" went viral, fans on Reddit and elsewhere set about looking for clues themselves.

The same is now happening for the Steven Avery case at the center of Netflix's "Making a Murderer" docuseries, and viewers have discovered a fascinating new piece of evidence.

Jerry Buting, one of the original lawyers defending Avery in the trial for the murder of Teresa Halbach, recently spoke with Rolling Stone, and said that Internet sleuths had found something he and his partner had missed.

"We were only two minds," Buting said. "What I'm discovering is that a million minds are better than two. Some of these people online have found things with a screen shot of a picture that we missed."

One of the crucial pieces of evidence dug up by those sleuths is a detail found in a common photo of Halbach before she went missing and died: It shows the victim with a keychain that has a number of keys on it.



During the investigation of Halbach's murder, the police found a contested key to Halbach's car in Avery's home. But they only found the one key — not the rest of the keys seen on her keychain, which were never recovered.

Had this evidence been introduced in Avery's trial, it would've bolstered the argument that the sole car key, found weeks after an initial search of the Avery property, was planted. And if Avery does ever get another trial, it could help him still.

I was going to point that out because it seemed odd. Who has only one key on their main set of car keys? Not many people I would suspect. Makes it more obvious that the planted key could be a spare.

When I saw that, I had hoped he was going to use that to illustrate how easily Dassey could be persuaded into manufacturing a story. Needless to say I was stunned when it escalated back to the investigators. I still don't understand his intentions for doing that.

I have been trained in interviewing and interrogation tactics by Wicklander/Zulawski, and I can tell you that was some bush league shit. I press that hard when I have the investigation completely buttoned up, no doubt of guilt, and always supported with video evidence as my ace up the sleeve for when they don't believe me. They pressed while they were fishing for clues, which is a HUGE no-no.

False statements procured that way are detrimental to those of us who do them right. As it stands now, the confessions I extract are easily dismissed in court as a result.