is that she'd told her bosses she was uncomfortable going to the Avery property because of how he acted on past occasions (like waiting for her outside in only a towel), and that he was *67-ing his (multiple) calls to her on the day she disappeared.

None of that is evidence of his guilt, of course, but it suggests he was pretty fixated on her. It's easier to believe he could abduct, rape and murder her if he was borderline obsessed and quasi-stalking her over the phone over the course of a long length of time than if she just randomly showed up on his doorstep one day.

At the end of the day, there was clear and obvious police misconduct, which in and of itself should have been enough to ensure he wasn't convicted. The evidence was clearly tainted. I absolutely believe they planted the key and blood. In getting a more complete painting of the facts, however, I'm more inclined to believe the police planted evidence to ensure a conviction, rather than outright framing him. (Which is very close to being just as bad...but not quite.)

And, like I said above, even if Avery actually did it, it doesn't undermine any of the larger points the documentary is making, all of which are extremely important. I'm just not surprised this "new" evidence is hurting their credibility in the eyes of many people who now think they were twisting the facts to be more pro-Avery.

----