^ Agree. Just looking at the first one:
Quote:
In yet another example of Making a Murderer minimizing or ignoring anything that would make Avery or his family look at all unsympathetic, the series does not explain that Avery’s brothers, Charles and Earl, were also well known to law enforcement, which would have had reason not to trust them.
Three years after Steven was convicted of the rape, Charles was charged with sexual assault but acquitted. In 1999, his former wife accused him of sexually assaulting her and wrapping a telephone cord around his neck. A deferred prosecution agreement saved him from serving prison time.
In 1992, Earl pleaded no contest to battery and fourth degree sexual assault after attacking his wife.
Do these sound like entirely credible witnesses? Or would it have been logical for investigators to believe that they were lying to protect their brother?
|
Even if that wasn't all conjecture, the writer seems to be using Charles and Earl's charges as a justification for authorities not believing them despite those incidents taking place years
after Steven's trial and conviction