After conducting its own investigation into the story behind Making a Murderer, InTouch magazine revealed new evidence in Steven Avery's case, relayed by several of the jurors who presided over his murder trial. According to the publication, the jury might have considered highly charged evidence which they were not supposed to take into account, because it was never submitted during the trial. And after reportedly speaking in person with more than a dozen jurors, InTouch reported that some of them are still questioning Avery's case to this day.
InTouch conducted a weeks-long investigation in Wisconsin, where the publication met and spoke to 13 of the 16 jurors in Avery's trial. Although most of them remained quiet for the most part, four of them came forward with revelations on how they came up with Avery's guilty verdict. When InTouch asked one juror, who requested to remain anonymous, what he or she thought Avery did to photographer Teresa Halbach, they responded:
Torture and rape. Then he shot her in the head. He cut her up and put her in a burn barrel.
This assessment could be a gamechanger. This is because any evidence of alleged torture and rape comes from Brendan Dassey's pretrial confession, which sparked a lot of outrage over its credibility and was not allowed in Avery's actual trial.
Current Manitowoc County prosecutor Michael Griesbach confirmed to InTouch that the judge had "warned the jury to only consider details that they heard in court" — which he said referred to Dassey's confession, which was heavily reported on in the media.
Although it remains to be seen whether Avery's new legal team, which has said that they plan to present new evidence to exonerate him, will base their case on this specific revelation, some experts believe that they certainly could. New-York-based defense attorney Bruce Baron, whom InTouch asked for expert insight, told the publication that this kind of unauthorized evidence could open the door for a new trial:
If a jury made its decision on incomplete, improper, or withheld evidence then there are absolute grounds for a new trial. The jurors now may well be brought before an appellate review and ordered to describe whether they discussed certain inadmissible details they should not have brought into their deliberations.
Another juror who spoke to the magazine said that they had planned to vote not guilty, but they were let go right before deliberations. The juror, who also remained anonymous, told InTouch:
I questioned things all the time ... I’d send notes to the judge and he’d call me in to talk about it. A lot of questions weren’t answered.
Yet another juror reportedly had questions of their own, relaying to the magazine their confusion over Avery's charge of mutilating Halbach's body, for which he was found not guilty:
Why was that even a count? There was no proof. That’s why he was not guilty.
That juror went on to echo the sentiments of millions of viewers, saying, "There are a lot of things [about the case] that don’t make sense."