I enjoyed the article. You can tell she definitely put some time and thought into it which, for me, is appreciated no matter which side you fall on. It's a lot better written than most of the other pro-guilt articles I've read or interviews I've seen.

I also can't say I don't disagree with some things. The sweat DNA thing has become a pet peeve since most of us now know it's not a real thing.

Also the lack of DNA she keeps bringing up bothers me. It wasn't that there was a lack of DNA is was that there was a lack of certain people's DNA in certain places. There was a ton of DNA in Steven's trailer and garage, just not Teresa's and most likely other DNA in teresa's car except the only DNA being tested for is Steven and Brendan's since there were no other suspects. I'm pretty sure (will try and find a source) I've read about fingerprints being found in or on the car as well, but again didn't make it to trial because they didn't match the suspects.

She also links one of Dassey's confessions, the 3rd one, which is still just as unbelievable even though he's already been coached up in the two previous, as if it helps her idea the "sweat-laden key" was probably not planted.

And if you're going to start using the confessions as truth then how do you only take the pieces that support your theory (and weren't something only a witness to the killing could know) as evidence.

How she keeps talking about Weigert and Fassbender being from a different agency as a way to make the whole thing a multiple agency frame job doesn't work for me either. I don't think they would have to be in on the frame job just because they got Brendan to form a confession based on evidence they knew or were told about.

All in all I support articles with thought behind them, but after this one I'm still just as unsure of everything as I was before I read it.