‘Making A Murderer’ Really Sugarcoated Steven Avery’s Animal Cruelty Case: Find Out The Awful Details

It seems like ever since the release of Making a Murderer in the middle of December, we’ve been looking for something to fill the true crime obsession-shaped hole in our hearts. Earlier this month, Investigation Discovery and Dateline promised to fill that hole by cranking out two follow-up documentaries that aired this weekend. So how was Investigation Discovery’s much-discussed Steven Avery: Innocent or Guilty? Let’s just say, if you’ve been closely following the case, you’re going to be disappointed.

Netflix’s Making a Murderer follows the trials and imprisonment of Steven Avery, a Wisconsin native. Avery was wrongfully convicted of sexual assault in 1985 and spent the next 18 years in prison. Shortly after DNA evidence exonerated him, Avery became the main suspect in the murder of photographer Teresa Halbach. Avery is currently serving life in prison for the crime, and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, is also incarcerated, though Dassey will be eligible for parole in 2048. The 10-part docu-series has taken the Internet by storm, generating elaborate fan theories, petitions that were addressed by the White House, and celebrity obsessions. Hosted by Keith Morrison, Investigation Discovery’s special promised to give viewers new evidence and to explore how the release of Making a Murderer has affected Avery’s case. Lofty goals, for sure.

If you’ve been obsessively keeping on top of all Making a Murderer news to the point where you’re tempted to set up Google Alerts, you’re not going to get much from the Investigation Discovery follow up. Nothing is really broken or uncovered, but the special does have former district attorney Ken Kratz and Avery’s former defense attorney (and Internet superstar) Jerry Buting directly address some of the more questionable parts of the case. However, if you’re a casual Making a Murderer viewer who is rightfully intimidated by the overwhelming number of articles on the series, this one-hour special serves as a good catch up guide. (P.S. If you don’t want to watch, we made a catch up guide too.)

So what did the follow up cover? We’re so glad you asked:

Avery’s animal cruelty charge

Early on in the series, it’s mentioned that Avery had previous run-ins with the law. One of those charges involved an incident with a cat that the docu-series seems to shrug off. Avery’s family even defends Avery by saying that he was young and stupid at the time. However, the actual 1982 charge was for pouring gasoline on a cat and throwing it into a fire, which you may notice is much more horrible than something all people do when they’re young. Here’s what you need to know: PETA is mad, and several people, including Kratz, have pointed to this as warning sign for Avery’s alleged future violent behavior.

Blood in Halbach’s car

Kratz argued that Avery’s blood was found in six different places inside Halbach’s RAV4. According to the prosecution’s argument, Halbach was murdered in Avery’s garage and transported to her RAV4, which Avery and Dassey used to take her body to the burn pit.

So where’s the source for this one? Brendan Dassey’s four-hour confession, which is questionable to say the least. Dassey’s confession to the police has been widely criticized as being coerced. You can watch the full interview on YouTube and decide for yourself, but be warned. It’s disturbing.

Avery’s communications with AutoTrader

While it’s true that Avery specifically requested Teresa Halbach to come to his property, Kratz claims that this is proof Avery was targeting Halbach. However, Halbach was the only photographer AutoTrader had at the time, and Buting claims that’s the reason Avery requested her. Then, the phone calls were addressed.

On the day of her murder, Halbach was called by Avery twice using the *67 feature. He then called her a third time without blocking his number. This was at 4:35 p.m., and based on the prosecution’s timeline, Halbach would have been dead by then. The prosecution argued that this call was alibi-establishing for Avery. Buting pointed to Avery’s appointment with the AutoTrader office as proof that Avery wouldn’t have Halbach’s cell phone number. Though Buting never directly addressed the *67 details, he does state that “Kratz has really misrepresented what that evidence was about.” So we’re back to square one.

The blood vial

In the series, when the defense finds a hole in a vial of Avery’s blood, it’s presented as a big “gotcha” moment. From the defense’s point of view, this vial was clear evidence that Avery’s DNA had been planted in Halbach’s car. However, it was later revealed that when nurses inject blood into the vials, that’s when the hole is produced. This argument was revisited by Kratz and Buting. Kratz held fast to his claims that nothing out of the ordinary was found, but Buting pointed to the broken seal on the vial’s container as possible proof that someone tampered with the vial. Again, it was interesting to see the two sides argue the specifics of the case, but the blood vial discovery is far from new. We covered it for you a couple weeks ago.

You can watch Investigation Discovery’s Steven Avery: Innocent or Guilty? on DiscoveryGO for the next 30 days.

Photos: DiscoveryGO, Netflix