http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/making-a-murderer-cold-case-investigator-believes-notorious-serial-killer-was-guilty-and-not-steven-a6824891.html have you seen this article today?
I hadn't but I have now. I don't know what to make of it all. After watching the final episode my thoughts on the series was that the lawyers made some massive errors in the defence. This is where I think they fucked up going by what was presented in the show.
1) They never properly focused on the first charge of murder. They spent too long focusing on a conspiracy when there wasn't enough/any evidence for it, there was only suspicion. This is why they lost, they failed to highlight that because the bones, car and bullet were on his land doesn't indicate that he committed the murder. Its just as likely could have been another member of the family as it could have been him.
2) They didn't create a credible alternative story, they managed to poke holes in the time line but not provide an alternative narrative. The one they alluded to placed the police as the perpetrators. Rather than it just being a bias that made him the sole suspect and was an unfair investigation that ignored any potential other evidence.
3) They didn't ask for basic experiment methods to ensure a lack of bias or determine the accuracy of the blood tests.
Ultimately neither case was strong enough for a verdict to be given and whilst there is only the option of guilty or not-guilty available a fair trail isn't possible as it as clear as day to me this was an inconclusive case from both arguments. The Police were bias, the evidence was suspicious with only location really giving it any weight and the trail had been spoilt before it even got to a court. The defence were overly emotional, played along with Stevens conspiracy theory, failed to proved alternative narratives, failed to present a string of other potential suspects it could have pointed towards, failed to ensure their evidence got the best chances possible (even if it was late that would be a cause for review), failed to highlight why Stevens DNA could have been in the car and under the bonnet without the need for murder to have happened without resorting to far fetched ideas as the core of the case.