I really don't know if he did it or not, my beef is with how they conducted the investigation and why all the hard evidence was either lacking or somehow dodgy.

And I'm not going to argue the merits of relying on reddit for the objective truth. I did read Kratz's email about why Avery is guilty.

http://www.thewrap.com/making-a-murd...easons-guilty/

His arguments seem pretty flawed to me.

1. Whether or not Avery tortured a cat, how does that prove he murdered a woman twenty years later?

2. Theresa said she wouldn't go back to Avery's address again, so he used a fake name and number. So why did she end up at his place? Did she not recognize the address?

3. Does the contents of her purse being in his burn barrel prove anything other than someone burned them (or placed them) there?

4. Would be interesting to know what these prisoners received in return for this information on Avery.

5 & 6. Some burned things show up in the same place, her bones and effects and some tire belts. Ergo they must have been burned together at the same time by the same person, who also must have killed her. Not at all.

7. Whether or not he was perving on this woman doesn't prove he murdered her.

8. The cops had him in custody before they found this damning evidence, or after? If the former, it's not hard to get a DNA sample without someone's permission, just wipe their sweat up or get some saliva off a cup.

9. The bullet found in the garage was never conclusively linked with the murder if I recall. The control sample was contaminated, meaning the DNA on the bullet should have been excluded as evidence.


I notice a few things he doesn't mention as well:

1. Why is Kratz sticking with the nephew's (iow detectives') story about the fire when the nephew's conviction has been overturned?

2. Avery is one hell of an expert at cleaning up the victim's blood, clothes fibers, etc., from the supposed murder scene. Not so good at hiding other incriminating evidence like her vehicle or her key or the bullet he shot her with, all of which turn up in different places. Seems fishy.

3. Some of her burned bones turning up in another location, any explanation?

4. Is it their belief that Avery was really stupid enough to think he wouldn't be a suspect when he knew the cops already hated him?

5. The jury's first vote was 7 to acquit, 3 to convict, 2 undecided. It would be interesting to see the dynamics of how that changed to 12 for convict. I'm not suggesting any misbehavior, I'm just saying it's interesting that 7 people were completely turned around during the deliberations.