Find Out Why Nancy Grace Is So Convinced Making A Murderer‘s Steven Avery Is Guilty!

Find out why Nancy feels so strongly about this.

Nancy Grace is NOT a Steven Avery supporter.

The television personality is strongly convinced that the Making A Murderer subject is guilty of brutally raping and killing Teresa Halbach, even though Netflix‘s docu-series about the case appears to portray him as wrongfully convicted.

Related: Making A Murderer Might Get A Second Season!

The HLN host had been covering the case ever since it happened back in 2005, and says that her interview with the Wisconsin resident at the time is what first led her to believe he isn’t innocent, telling The Hollywood Reporter:

“The reason I am speaking out is that I have been on the Halbach case since the get-go, when it was just a missing person. And I remember talking to Steven Avery about where she was. And I can remember the moment. I knew right then that he was lying. And if he was lying, then he killed her.”

What specifically stood out to her about that conversation was that the 53-year-old’s story didn’t add up with his phone records, saying:

“He calls her from his phone and says, ‘Hey, how come you never came over? Where are ya?’ So he’s pretending she didn’t come to throw police off the track. But he tells me on the air that she came!”

The opinionated blonde recently aired an interview with his former fianc├â┬⌐e Jodi Stachowski — who was still with him at the time the popular program was being filmed — where she claims her ex is not innocent, despite supporting him on the show.

The 56-year-old believes her strong statements are credible, even though she completely changed her tune, explaining:

“On other occasions she said ├óΓé¼ΓÇ¥ and I found her to be believable having worked with so many domestic violence victims ├óΓé¼ΓÇ¥ that if she did not make him look good to the Netflix documentarians, well, it was basically ‘do it, or else.’ I’ve met women who would practically do anything than take another beating. It really struck me that she chose to eat rat poison just so she could get away from him and go to the hospital.”

And while Steven’s former lawyer doesn’t think his old flame is a reliable witness, Nancy disagrees, adding:

“She’s taking a lot of heat now and I understand that because it’s easily argued that, well, when is she lying: then or now? However, having dealt with so many domestic violence victims, I don’t find it unusual that she chose to lie for him. Not at all.”

She also doesn’t believe Brendan Dassey‘s confession was coerced, expressing:

“No one was yelling at him. They didn’t even raise their voices for Pete’s sake. No cursing, no beating, no slapping, no threatening, no tricking. Nothing. They keep asking him questions in a very calm manner, I might add. But where’s the coercion? I don’t buy the whole coercion thing… But even without Dassey, Avery can be convicted stand-alone. It’s overwhelming.”

Plus, she thinks the “overwhelming” physical evidence against him is pretty damning and wasn’t planted by police, saying:

“The DNA evidence is as such: His blood is found in six locations in her vehicle. Her DNA is on a bullet fragment in his garage. That bullet is without a doubt fired from his weapon which is hanging from a wall in his bedroom. Ballistics are like a fingerprint. Only one gun makes particular markings on a bullet as it hurtles down the barrel. It was from his gun and it had her DNA on it. It would be a very difficult thing for police to do to put her DNA on a bullet fragment that can only be identified under a microscope, in his garage.”

The prosecution also presented evidence of “sweat DNA” on Teresa’s car, which was actually omitted from the docu-series.

Nancy believes this is crucial in Steven’s conviction, confessing:

“Also very, very compelling is sweat DNA [found under the hood of his car that was not mentioned in the series]. Why is that compelling to me? Have you ever heard of a warrant for someone’s sweat? No. Because it doesn’t exist. You cannot extricate sweat from a human pursuant to a warrant. Blood, yes? I’ve done it a million times to get DNA. Hair? Yes? Pubic hair? Yes. Photographs of a naked body? Yes. Fingerprints? Yes. Walking sample? Yes! Writing sample? Yes! Speech? Yes! Sweat? No.”

The sweat DNA argument has caused people to question his innocence because you supposedly can’t plant sweat, but Steven’s ex-attorney has recently claimed that there’s “no such thing” as sweat DNA because analysts have no way of knowing where the DNA came from.

However, the crime show host dismissed his statement, saying:

“According to the trial lawyers, sweat was under the hood of Teresa Halbach’s car and it was her sweat.”

But, a crime lab analyst admitted during the trial that he didn’t change gloves before opening the hood of the car, so it’s possible that Steven’s DNA was transferred that way.

Regardless of the legitimacy of the DNA on Teresa’s car, the crime show host also thinks that her car couldn’t possibly have been planted on his property, because he surely would have seen it, admitting:

“Now to get to where her car was found on the edge of his property. It was hidden behind limbs and leaves and another car hood and plywood. To get to it, you had to pass by an office of sorts where he is. So how did somebody get her car after she left, plant his blood in it, plant his sweat under the hood and leave it in the back of the lot without him seeing them come in?”

And she feels the bones couldn’t have been transported to his fire pit, adding:

“Not only that, but her bones, there’s about 270 bones in the human body, just about every bone including the tiniest one in your pinky, every single one was found in his burn pit. All of them. So she was killed, murdered somewhere else, and all of her bones are burned and transported there? And they didn’t drop one? Also there’s her tooth and a rivet of her ‘Daisy Fuentes blue jeans’ that she was wearing the day she goes missing. All of this is found in his burn pit in his backyard.”

Nancy even provided some evidence to back up her opinion:

“And her bones are not just dumped in the fire pit as if she was killed elsewhere, burned and dumped there ├óΓé¼ΓÇ¥ and this is critical. Her remains are interwoven with the steel-belt radials of the tires in the fire. That proves that is where they were burned. They were not burned elsewhere and brought there.”

She also said that the time frame of the day’s events wouldn’t allow someone to frame Steven, explaining:

“So the logistics of her being there that afternoon, disappearing and never being seen alive again; her bones being found in his burn pit; her clothes; her tooth; her camera; her car; her DNA on a bullet fired from his gun in the garage. And she is never seen again. That evening, an Avery relative sees Avery sitting at his fire pit watching the fire. So how someone else could catch Teresa Halbach after she leaves sometime after 2:30 p.m., kill her, dismember her, bring her back to the fire pit, hide her car in time for him to be sitting there tending the fire that evening is ludicrous.”

Not only does Nancy refuse to believe the evidence against him was planted, she doesn’t even believe the cops were manipulating the 1985 case where he was wrongfully convicted of rape:

“She picked him out. It was not a plant by police ├óΓé¼ΓÇ¥ he was in the lineup with four or five other guys. This was in the late ├óΓé¼╦£80s, when you had to go on blood evidence, witness ID and corroboration.”

Now, when it comes to the lack of blood evidence — even in the cracks under his floor — Nancy claims it was probably just cleaned up, saying:

“Brendan Dassey’s family saw bleach on his pants that day and he said that there was a bleach cleanup. We know that Avery thought to burn all her clothes and everything to do with her person and hack her body up. The tool used to cut her body up was found in the burn pit along with her. Her camera, her phone, all that was found burned as well. If she were killed on the floor, on a sheet, because he was so thorough in burning everything, he would have burned that too.”

She believes that all of this indicates that Steven must be guilty, expressing:

“What innocent reason could excuse that nefarious behavior? Why would he be covering his tracks if he had not killed her? Why would Dassey give a statement like that? No one was beating him, threatening him, disallowing him to leave. Nothing like that. He even implicated himself. Steven Avery killed Teresa Halbach. It’s just that simple.”

So, there you have it, Perezcious readers. That’s why Nancy Grace is sure Steven is guilty. Do U agree with her? SOUND OFF in the comments!

[Image via Calumet County Jail, FayesVision/WENN.]

Jan 18, 2016 9:01pm PDT

More Like This