Even if you didn’t binge-watch the series over the holidays like the rest of your co-workers, you’re probably well aware of the controversy surrounding the Netflix docu-drama Making a Murderer.
If not, allow us to summarize:
After serving 18 years behind bars for a sexual assault that he didn’t commit, Steven Avery was released only to be imprisoned again two years later for allegedly murdering a 25-year-old photographer named Teresa Halbach.
As with his first trial, Avery’s second case was marred by controversy and allegations of police corruption, and the series makes a compelling argument that the 53-year-old has once again been wrongly convicted.
(Before you tear us apart in the comments, note that we said “the series makes a compelling argument,” not, “OMG YOU GUYS STEVEN AVERY IS TOTES INNOCENT!!!”)
Anyway, TMZ has obtained court documents filed several years after Avery’s 2005 murder conviction in which he reveals for the first time his theory on who killed Halbach.
In 2009, Avery told the court that he believes there’s a good chance that his brothers – Charles Avery and Earl Avery – may have committed the murder, and he makes a strong case for why they should at least be investigated.
For starters, both men have had troubling brushes with the law in recent years – Earl was arrested for sexually assaulting his daughters and eventually acquitted; Charles was accused of choking and raping his wife, but was also cleared.
The documents also note that Charles has a long and well-documented history of harassing women at the exact location on the Avery family’s property where Halbach was last seen.
Interestingly, Steven claims that his cash-strapped brothers would have ample motive to frame him, as they had recently expressed jealousy over the multi-million dollar settlement he was soon to receive for being wrongfully convicted of sexual assault two decades prior.
It’s unlikely that Steven’s accusations will lead authorities to take legal action against his brothers, but they do serve to further muddy the waters in what is already an impossibly murky case.
