Both can be true...

It seems to me that a lot of people on here think that one of the two narratives is true and the other is completely false.

Let's not forget... it's (hypothetically) possible that Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey murdered Teresa AND the police subsequently planted evidence to bolster their case.

The two scenarios are not mutually exclusive.

Just because some evidence was planted wouldn't automatically mean that Steven is innocent (although this would certainly mean he deserves a new trial immediately). This case is a million shades of grey. I don't think people should be looking at it in such a black and white manner.

EDIT: a lot of people are saying “Why would they plant evidence if he actually did it? That would put their chances at convicting him in jeopardy.” Not necessarily. As soon as the police (who’ve lived in the community their whole lives and are very familiar with Steven Avery) heard that Teresa went missing after last being seen by SA.... I’m sure most of them were convinced he was the culprit. Keep in mind that practically no evidence was found immediately after searching Steven’s house. It took many days for the pieces to start to come together. Overly jealous/corrupt cops who were frustrated / thought he was going to get away with it could have preemptively planted evidence to ensure they catch him, only for the “real” evidence to be discovered later which implicates Steven. Most of the supposed pieces of planted evidence came prior to evidence such as bones/teeth in the burn barrel.

In this scenario, (presuming SA is guilty) some of the evidence is planted and some of it is legitimate. Steven is guilty, and the cops are guilty.

AGAIN, I’m not saying I personally believe this is what happened. I’m just using this hypothetical example to demonstrate that the truth could be some strange convoluted mix of various parties doing nefarious things. It doesn’t have to be clear cut where one team is purely good and the other is purely bad.