Last weekend, comedian Louis C.K. secretly released a new TV show called "Horace and Pete." It's a drama that looks like a sitcom.
The first episode of "Horace and Pete" is available on C.K.'s website. All future episodes will go up there as well.
Story by Ian Phillips and editing by Carl Mueller
Follow INSIDERon Facebook
Follow INSIDERon YouTube
Join the conversation about this story »
Stars really are just like us — which includes sitting on their couches and endlessly consuming new TV shows they heard were great.
Celebrities haven't escaped this new national pastime. And who would expect them to? According to a 2015 TiVo survey, about 9 out of 10 people are regularly binge-viewing at least three episodes of a program in one sitting.
TV and film stars often count themselves among the biggest entertainment fans out there. Not only that, but watching a lot of programming in spurts could be considered homework for them — at the very least it's helping to sharpen their craft.
Business Insider asked several stars — from Jane Fonda to Donald Glover and Rami Malek ("Mr. Robot") — what they're binge-watching these days.
Here's what they said they're obsessively keeping up with:
SEE ALSO: What happens behind the scenes of a hit NBC show as it airs live
Steven Avery's sons are all grown up and speaking out about their father's murder conviction.
In their first television interview, the "Making a Murderer" convict's twin sons opened up and showed different takes on the crime that sent their father to prison for a life sentence.
"No, I don’t think he did," Bill Avery answered when the show "Crime Watch Daily" asked if he thinks his father killed Teresa Halbach, a photographer who was allegedly last seen alive on Steven's property in 2005.
Bill Avery's brother isn't so certain. "I have no idea," Steven Avery, Jr. said of his father's potential innocence. "I mean, only one person can answer that and that is Teresa. But she can’t answer it no more."
Steven divorced the boys' mother, Lori Mathiesen, while serving prison time for the rape of a female jogger, before being exonerated in 2003. His ex-wife and children became estranged from him after that.
And as for being thrust back into the spotlight with the popularity of Netflix's "Making a Murderer," which documents Steven's murder trial, one twin has mixed feelings.
"It sucks having everything out in the open like that," Steven Jr. said. "At the same point, it’s good because a lot of people see a little bit of a bigger picture."
Watch a preview of the interviews with Steven Avery's sons below:
SEE ALSO: Steven Avery's new lawyer is using this forensic test to show he's innocent
SEE ALSO: A bomb threat seeking 'justice' for Steven Avery of 'Making a Murderer' turned up no bombs
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Steven Avery's defense attorney admits doubts about his innocence
One of the biggest questions in the wildly popular Netflix docuseries "Making a Murderer" is whether Brendan Dassey — a Wisconsin teen who, along with his uncle Steven Avery, was convicted in the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach — was pressured into giving a false confession.
Dassey, who was then 16, was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide, mutilation of a corpse, and second-degree sexual assault after he made a detailed confession that includes grisly details of how he and Avery raped, tortured, and murdered Halbach. But Dassey's lawyers argued that investigators coerced him into confessing to a crime he did not actually commit.
False confessions happen more often than you'd think, and they have a disturbing history.
More than one out of four people who later turn out to have been wrongfully convicted made false confessions or incriminating statements at some point during the trial or questioning process, according to the Innocence Project, a nonprofit dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people using DNA evidence.
Forensic psychologist Julia Shaw writes in Scientific American that there are three main reasons people confess to crimes they are not guilty of committing:
Dassey and his lawyers basically claimed Dassey confessed for the second reason, arguing that he was especially vulnerable because he had a low IQ.
False confessions like this can and do occur — more often than we'd like to admit.
A New Yorker story from 2013 describes the case of Darrel Parker, a forester in Lincoln, Nebraska, who was convicted of murdering his wife and sentenced to life in prison after confessing to the crime. He was later paroled on the grounds that his confession had been coerced. Some years later, another death row inmate later provided a detailed confession of the crime, and Parker was ultimately pardoned and successfully sued the state.
Parker had been interrogated by a man named John Reid, who developed an interview method called the Reid Technique. His company, John E. Reid & Associates, Inc., now trains more interrogators than any other company in the world, and claims it gets suspects to confess 80% of the time, The New Yorker reported.
The Reid Technique has three parts:
Studies have shown that these methods can be very persuasive — regardless of whether the person being interrogated actually committed the crime or not.
In the 1990s, psychologist Saul Kassin and his colleagues did an experiment involving a total of 75 students. In each experiment, two students would sit at a computer, and one (who was working for the researchers) would dictate as the other typed. The typing volunteer was told not to hit the "Alt" key or it would crash the computer.
Unbeknownst to them, the computer was programmed to crash automatically. When this happened, the dictator would always accuse the typist of hitting Alt, which all the typists initially denied. In some cases, the dictator would go so far as to say they had seen the typist hit the Alt key.
After all of this, the typists were asked to sign a statement confessing to the "crime." Surprisingly, a whopping 69% of the 75 students confessed to something they didn't do. Strikingly, those who were told they had been seen hitting the key confessed at almost twice the rate as those who weren't told they'd been seen.
Not only that, but about a third of the students also internalized their feelings of guilt, saying things like, "I hit the wrong button and ruined the program." And nearly 10% were able to reconstruct fake details about hitting Alt the key, such as "Yes, here, I hit it with the side of my hand right after you called out the 'A.''"
Other research reinforces what Kassin's team found. Melissa Russano, an associate professor of criminal justice at Roger Williams University, published a study in 2005 where her team successfully used Reid-like interrogation techniques to get people to confess (sometimes falsely) to cheating on an exam.
This all leads us to an uncomfortable truth:
As Shaw writes, "Making people confess to things they didn’t do is easier than we might be happy to accept."
READ NEXT: There’s a big problem with Brendan Dassey's low IQ defense on 'Making a Murderer'
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Steven Avery's defense attorney admits doubts about his innocence
While promoting his new film "Hail, Caesar!" on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show," George Clooney talked about the night he proposed to his wife, Amal Clooney. He said that she left him hanging for a good 25 minutes before saying "yes."
Story by Ian Phillips and editing by Stephen Parkhurst
Follow INSIDER on Facebook
Follow INSIDER on YouTube
Join the conversation about this story »
Samantha Bee didn't want Jon Stewart's job.
In the rush to replace Stewart, Comedy Central reportedly gave offers to many people. Amy Schumer, Amy Poehler, and even Louis CK were allegedly asked to take over "The Daily Show," but none was interested. Many thought longtime correspondent Bee should've had a crack at the job. But she had other plans.
According to the host of her own new late-night show on TBS, she and her husband, Jason Jones (who was also floated as a potential Stewart replacement), hadn't known Stewart was leaving. And they had another iron in the fire: They were waiting to hear if their pilot, "The Detour," was being picked up to series by TBS.
"When [Jon Stewart] announced [he was leaving], that was the week that they greenlit ['The Detour']," Bee said in a new interview with the Los Angeles Times.
"It all kind of happened at the same time. We knew we'd leave just because it was time for us to leave anyway," she continued. "We'd been there for a long time. There was a week where we probably felt forlorn and scared, where we went, 'What's the next step? What are we going to do? Hopefully this will get picked up, but there's no guarantee.' Then, within a very small space of time, everything changed and then the direction was clear."
Even if the timing had been different, Bee says she wouldn't have been interested in replacing Stewart. She and Jones have three children and family would've had to take a backseat if that had happened.
"As I'm sensing the difficulty of putting a show on once a week, I'm really not envious of having to do it four days a week," Bee said. "There's no mistaking the fact that Jon did it incredibly, but by the end he was exhausted. There's no part of me that wants to do it four days a week and never was. My family life is the most important thing to me. I think it would've destroyed that, so it was not a big consideration."
"I'm not really thinking too much about what other people are doing because I think that we inherently have a unique voice," she said. "The people I have around me have unique voices. We have stories we want to tell in our own way. I don't think we're going to cross streams with the other shows too much."
SEE ALSO: The best shows to binge-watch right now according to TV stars
SEE ALSO: Jon Stewart just signed a big production deal with HBO
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: If there's one movie you should watch before the Oscars, this is it
O.J. Simpson, the former Heisman Trophy winner and NFL Hall of Famer, was infamously acquitted for the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman, in 1995.
Though Simpson was found not guilty, the sensational trial — one of the most gripping television events of the 20th century — publicized the critical issues of race and wealth in the American justice system.
The trial was also the defining media circus of 1990s. Characters like defense attorney Alan Dershowitz, Robert Kardashian, fast-talking Johnnie Cochran (who also defended Tupac Shakur and Snoop Dogg), as well as a revolving cast of detectives and witnesses provided a colorful backdrop for the major news networks' rabid coverage of the proceedings.
Now, more than 20 years after his acquittal, Simpson's trial is once again in the spotlight thanks to a new ESPN documentary as well as an FX series based on the trial.
So while you brace yourself for Simpson-mania in the coming weeks, let's take a look at some of the most defining moments from the trial that lasted more than eight months.
A police officer spotted Simpson in Al Cowlings' white Ford Bronco at approximately 6:45 p.m. What happened next shocked television viewers across the country: Rather than pull over, Cowlings and Simpson led the LAPD on a two-hour, slow-speed chase on Los Angeles' freeways, while other drivers pulled over and waved to the helicopters, reports CNN.
Watch the full chase here.
Robert Shapiro (behind Simpson), Simpson's lead defense attorney, petitioned Mills and Judge Lance Ito to dismiss the grand jury. He argued that pre-trial publicity had "contaminated" the grand jury and made it "virtually impossible for O.J. Simpson to receive either a fair trial or a fair grand jury review," reports The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Simpson's defense team sought to portray the LAPD as incompetent throughout the trial.
LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman's credibility was called into question after tapes surfaced of him using racial epithets. The defense also claimed Fuhrman had planted blood on the glove that was a key piece of evidence, reports Time.
It turns out Kurt Russell went a little too far in portraying a cagey bounty hunter in Quentin Tarantino’s latest movie "The Hateful Eight."
The actor is responsible for destroying a 145-year-old guitar during shooting.
The guitar, which Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character plays in one scene until it’s snatched by Russell, who then smashes it against a pillar, was a one-of-a-kind Martin from the 1870s that was on loan from the Martin Guitar Museum.
In all fairness, Russell didn't know he was handling an antique in the scene. And according to Dick Boak, the director of the museum, archives, and special projects for C.F. Martin & Co., the production didn't fess up to exactly how the guitar was destroyed.
“We assumed that a scaffolding or something fell on it,” Boak told Reverb. “We understand that things happen, but at the same time we can’t take this lightly. All this about the guitar being smashed being written into the script and that somebody just didn’t tell the actor, this is all new information to us. We didn’t know anything about the script or Kurt Russell not being told that it was a priceless, irreplaceable artifact from the Martin Museum.”
So what went wrong?
The film’s sound mixer, Mark Ulano, filled in SSN Insider:
"What was supposed to happen was we were supposed to go up to that point, cut, and trade guitars and smash the double,” according to Ulano, who said six doubles were made of the Martin guitar. “Well, somehow that didn’t get communicated to Kurt, so when you see that happen on the frame, Jennifer’s reaction is genuine.”
Here’s the destruction of the Martin in the movie (check out Leigh’s reaction at the end):
Boak told Reverb that the museum has been remunerated for the insurance value of the guitar.
But that wasn't enough to heal the matter.
"As a result of the incident, the company will no longer loan guitars to movies under any circumstances,” Boak told SSN.
Business Insider contacted Boak to try to get an idea of the value of the destroyed guitar. He said he wouldn't provide more comments about the matter, only stating, “It’s not replaceable.”
SEE ALSO: Here's a wonderful hidden "Indiana Jones" reference in "Star Wars: The Force Awakens"
Join the conversation about this story »
In a recent Scriptnotes podcast, "Game of Thrones" showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss gave some details about the show's notorious pilot — the one that was so bad it had to be almost completely re-shot.
"Thrones" is now one of the most successful shows HBO has ever produced, but to hear Benioff and Weiss tell it, it was almost derailed completely by Episode One.
Story by Tony Manfred and editing by Ben Nigh
Join the conversation about this story »
Business Insider is looking for a pop culture reporter for INSIDER, a new publication that delivers stories to readers across digital platforms.
The ideal candidate is a multimedia journalist who is obsessed with entertainment, viral stories, and all things related to the internet. If you're addicted to Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat, and your friends are always asking you what's trending, you might be the perfect for this role.
The pop culture reporter writes stories, creates photo features, and writes video scripts for INSIDER's website and social media channels. He or she covers everything from Kanye and Wiz Khalifa's Twitter fight to the black and blue (gold and white?) dress to the latest celebrity diet fad.
The ideal candidate is a fastidious reporter and writer with a passion for telling great stories, and thrives in a fast-paced work environment. Candidates should have 1 to 3 years of experience working in a digital newsroom. While this position has regular office hours, the ideal candidate lives and breathes social media and always has an eye out for the next story.
At INSIDER, our motto is "Life is an adventure." We tell stories for, about, and by people who seize life. That means they love to travel, try new foods, listen new music, and love people who do the same. INSIDER is distributed across social media, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube, as well as on the web.
The position is full-time in our New York City headquarters. Business Insider offers competitive compensation packages complete with benefits.
APPLY HERE with a resume and cover letter telling us why you're perfect for the job.
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Bill Nye has a great response to Trump's outrageous statements about climate change
When reality-show producer Mark Burnett called FUBU founder Daymond John in 2008 to ask him if he wanted to be an investor on his upcoming show "Shark Tank," John had previously only worked within the fashion business but saw the opportunity as the perfect way to promote his existing brands and diversify his portfolio.
John had invested in around 10 clothing brands before joining the show, but he was hardly a seasoned angel investor. As he reveals in his new book "The Power of Broke," the growing pains of the first season cost him "about $750,000 of my own money that I've yet to get back."
In retrospect, the experience taught him the following lessons that have allowed him to become a savvier investor and corporate adviser, whose small businesses now make millions of dollars in annual profit.
Because "Shark Tank" was new in 2009, the producers weren't able to book the generally high caliber of entrepreneurs that appear on the show now. This was the season where a urologist got $25,000 to build a business around his hollow golf club that lets you pee into it.
So that meant that not only were the offerings slim, but about half of the deals made in front of the cameras didn't close because the businesses didn't pass due diligence — about 80% of the deals closed last season, according to John.
But even if he was seeing something he normally wouldn't want to invest in, he found himself getting caught up in the excitement of a bidding war with his fellow investors. And even if he found himself in a dud deal, he would spend too much time thinking he could transform a hopeless business, since he had already made it that far.
John named his book "The Power of Broke" because, as he looked back on his career, he found that the common thread in all of his failures since becoming successful was the belief that an injection of capital could save a dying business or enhance a deal.
The scrappy attitude he had while building FUBU out of his mother's house in the 1990s helped him become the CEO of a hundred-million-dollar business because he made decisions as though every cent mattered — and it did.
Not only did he try keeping his handful of "Shark Tank" season-one businesses alive for longer than he should have, but he unnecessarily spent $200,000 on legal fees vetting and closing deals with them.
When he looked more closely at it, he realized that while he trusted his law firm, they weren't fit for that type of business. He began working with a venture-capital firm the next season, and cut his legal fees down to $30,000.
To help with his season-one investments, John hired consultants for licensing, marketing, and social media.
"All these different experts, when I was hiring them on an as-needed basis that first year, their fees were killing me," he writes.
It was unsustainable. It's why he built a new company, Shark Branding, with a full-time staff that handled licensing, business development, legal issues, contracts, marketing, and internal management.
"I was able to pursue similar deals away from the show, growing my business in ways I hadn't even anticipated and helping to spread those overhead costs across a number of different properties," he writes.
It turned out that a reality show, of all things, forced John to become a better investor, manager, and entrepreneur.
John writes:
I lost a bunch of money because I found myself making decisions in ways I'd never made them before. I was spread thin, with all these new demands on my time, so a lot of times I would just throw money at a problem and hope that would take care of it. But of course, that's not how it works, right?
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: 'Shark Tank' star Daymond John on the advantages of being broke
The Super Bowl is the most-watched television event in the US, which means whoever performs during the halftime show is playing the biggest stage in the country.
Which makes the stakes of that short burst of entertainment relatively colossal.
The modern Super Bowl halftime show as we know it started in 1991 with New Kids on the Block (previous shows featured a theme with marching bands and various performance groups), and it's stayed relatively consistent since: A pop star (or stars) takes over the field with props, backup dancers, probably pyrotechnics, and possibly even a live band, and goes through a rundown of their hits in a handful of minutes.
But the quality and tone of the shows have been all over the map, from the save-the-world vibe of early years with NKOTB and Michael Jackson, to Janet Jackson's Nipplegate and Katy Perry's campy Left Shark.
We revisited all the halftime shows since 1991 and ranked the very best:
SEE ALSO: The best shows to binge-watch right now according to TV stars
http://www.youtube.com/embed/LfZoeBM4hqg
Width: 800px
Height: 600px
http://www.youtube.com/embed/F2i0Bc3f7jk
Width: 800px
Height: 450px
http://www.youtube.com/embed/idg8TNknvDU
Width: 800px
Height: 600px
Now please enjoy this GIF of "Michael Jackson" "popping out" of a Jumbotron:
You may have never heard the name Max Martin before, but you definitely know loads of his work, as the 44 year old is the writer and producer behind some of the best pop songs ever made.
Produced by Adam Banicki
Follow INSIDERon Facebook
Follow INSIDERon YouTube
Join the conversation about this story »
The wealthiest 50 people in the world control a staggering portion of the world economy: $1.46 trillion — more than the annual GDP of Australia, Spain, or Mexico.
That's according to new data provided to Business Insider by Wealth-X, which conducts research on the super-wealthy. Wealth-X maintains a database of dossiers on more than 110,000 ultra-high-net-worth people, using a proprietary valuation model that takes into account each person's assets, then adjusts estimated net worth to account for currency-exchange rates, local taxes, savings rates, investment performance, and other factors.
Its latest ranking of the world's billionaires found that 29 of the top 50 hail from the US and nearly a quarter made their fortunes in tech. To crack this list, you'd need to have a net worth of at least $14.3 billion. And for the most part these people weren't born with a silver spoon. More than two-thirds are completely self-made, having built some of the most powerful companies, including Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, Google, Nike, and Oracle.
From tech moguls and retail giants to heirs and heiresses, here are the billionaires with the deepest pockets around the globe.
SEE ALSO: The 20 most generous people in the world
DON'T MISS: The wealthiest people in the world under 35
Net worth:$14.3 billion
Age: 58
Country: Nigeria
Industry: Diversified investments
Source of wealth: Self-made; Dangote Group
At 20, Nigerian businessman Aliko Dangote borrowed money from his uncle to start a business that dealt in commodities trading, cement, and building materials. He quickly expanded to import cars during the country's economic boom. Four years later, in 1981, he formed Dangote Group, an international conglomerate that now holds diversified interests that include food and beverages, plastics manufacturing, real estate, logistics, telecommunications, steel, oil, and gas. At $14.3 billion, Dangote's fortune is the largest in Africa and equal to 2.5% of Nigeria's GDP.
The majority of Dangote's wealth stems from his stake in Dangote Cement, which is publicly traded on the Nigerian Stock Exchange. He owns cement plants in Zambia, Senegal, Tanzania, and South Africa, and in 2011 invested $4 billion to build a facility on the Ivory Coast. Dangote bought back a majority stake in Dangote Flour Mills — which had grown unprofitable after he sold a large stake to South African food company Tiger Brands three years ago for $190 million — in December for just $1. He is also chairman of The Dangote Foundation, which focuses on education and health initiatives, including a $12,000-per-day feeding program.
Net worth:$14.3 billion
Age: 77
Country: US
Industry: Hedge funds
Source of wealth: Self-made; Renaissance Technologies
Before revolutionizing the hedge fund industry with his mathematics-based approach, "Quant King" James Simons worked as a code breaker for the US Department of Defense during the Vietnam War, but was fired after criticizing the war in the press. He chaired the math department at Stony Brook University for a decade until leaving in 1978 to start a quantitative-trading firm. That firm, now called Renaissance Technologies, has more than $65 billion in assets under management among its many funds.
Simons has always dreamed big. About 10 years ago, he announced that he was starting a fund that he claimed would be able to handle $100 billion, about 10% of all assets managed by hedge funds at the time. That fund, Renaissance Institutional Equities Fund, never quite reached his aspirations — it currently handles about $10.5 billion— but his flagship Medallion fund is among the best-performing ever: It has generated a nearly 80% annualized return before fees since its inception in 1988.
In October, Renaissance shut down a $1 billion fund — one of its smaller ones — "due to a lack of investor interest." The firm's other funds, however, have been up and climbing. Simons retired in 2009, but remains chairman of the company.
Net worth:$14.4 billion
Age: 52
Country: US
Industry: Media
Source of wealth: Inheritance; Disney
The widow of Apple cofounder Steve Jobs, Laurene Powell Jobs inherited his wealth and assets, which included 5.5 million shares of Apple stock and a 7.3% stake in The Walt Disney Co., upon his death. Jobs' stake in Disney — which has nearly tripled in value since her husband's death in 2011 and comprises more than $12 billion of her net worth — makes her the company's largest individual shareholder.
Though she's best recognized through her iconic husband, Jobs has had a career of her own. She worked on Wall Street for Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs before earning her MBA at Stanford in 1991, after which she married her late husband and started organic-foods company Terravera. But she's been primarily preoccupied with philanthropic ventures, with a particular focus on education. In 1997, she founded College Track, an after-school program that helps low-income students prepare for and enroll in college, and in September she committed $50 million to a new project called XQ: The Super School Project, which aims to revamp the high-school curriculum and experience.
Last October, Jobs spoke out against "Steve Jobs," Aaron Sorkin's movie about her late husband that portrays him in a harsh light, calling it "fiction." Jobs had been against the project from the get-go, reportedly calling Leonardo DiCaprio and Christian Bale to ask them to decline roles in the film.
The moment viewers think the tide could change in the trial of Steven Avery comes with the discovery of a hole in a tube.
Avery, the subject of the Netflix docuseries "Making a Murderer," is currently serving a life sentence without parole for the murder of Teresa Halbach. But at one point during the series, there's hope that a tube of blood — one that helped exonerate him from an earlier crime — might be the evidence needed to clear his name again.
When the blood sample is recovered during Avery's second trial, it appears as if it has been penetrated by a syringe.
Avery's defense attorneys use that evidence to argue that it had clearly been tampered with — meaning that the blood found in Halbach's car, which was later used to incriminate Avery, could have been planted there.
All the defense needed to prove was that the blood from the tube was the same blood that was found in Halbach's car. And that hinged on one critical chemical: EDTA.
EDTA, short for ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, is a fairly standard part of blood collection. It is used not only as a way to keep blood from clumping together, but also to treat extreme cases of lead poisoning in a process called "chelation therapy."
Business Insider chatted with FRND CEO Coley Parry, whose company does routine blood draws, so they could demonstrate a standard blood collection procedure. EDTA is on the lining of the tube where it mixes in the blood to keep it from coagulating.
What's not disputed in the Avery trial that the tube was indeed punctured — in fact, the nurse responsible for the blood draw was scheduled to testify about how the hole got there.
What is disputed is why the puncture left such a big mark.
.jpg)
To collect blood, FRND uses vacuum-sealed, "vacutainer" tubes — the same kind used to collect Avery's blood. To get the blood into the tube, a health care professional inserts one needle into a vein and another into the vacuum tube. The vacuum in the tube pulls in the blood from needle to needle until it's full. The needle in the tube is then removed and a seal is created in the rubber that was punctured microscopically.
I had my blood drawn by a FRND phlebotomist in December. After my blood was drawn (pictured above), I didn't see any marks on the tube. I called Parry over Skype to have him re-demonstrate the process using water instead of blood. After the draw, he shows me the top of the tube: No marks whatsoever.
According to Parry, there should never be a mark on the top of a tube. And Parry, who's been following Avery's case after watching "Making a Murderer," has his own theory as to how the mark got there. He thinks it's from dried blood which collected outside the stopper. He says dried blood wouldn't have gotten there while the blood was being collected.
"I've never seen blood on the outside of stoppers," said Parry. That's not to say it's not possible, he said, just "very unlikely." Plus, as revealed on "Making a Murderer," the box containing the tube had also been opened, something that Parry said raised his suspicions further.
So how would dried blood have gotten on the outside of the stopper?
Parry says it's feasible that if someone had opened the blood, used a syringe to make a secondary draw, and then transported that syringe to whatever location he or she wanted (say, a car, to fit the theory), the blood could have collected on the stopper then.
Because the blood had been treated with EDTA, it seems like a simple solution to just test for the chemical in the blood at the scene of the crime to determine if it was planted. But, as viewers saw, this wasn't the case.
Rarely do scientists test blood for the presence of EDTA. Usually, it's only used to collect blood. In the Avery trial, a test is designed to look for EDTA which is based on a 1997 study that was then updated for "technology advancements." What exactly those modifications were is not yet public.
The test shows no evidence of EDTA in the blood found in Halbach's car, which looks bad for Avery.
Still, there are some unresolved problems with the test itself. A scientific investigator whom the defense later calls to testify speaks to one of these, saying that a finding of no EDTA can mean one of two things: either there was indeed no EDTA, or the test wasn't very good.
Parry also said he's skeptical of the speed with which the test was assembled. He's probably among many viewers when he says he hopes for a "legitimate test" in the future.
RELATED: All of the FBI's EDTA blood evidence from Steven Avery's murder trial is now online
SEE ALSO: The moment when everything turned against Steven Avery in the 'Making a Murderer' trial
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: The doctor who inspired the movie 'Concussion' is convinced OJ Simpson has a brain disease
Last year, Google launched a new subscription service called YouTube Red.
The $9.99-a-month service offers a bunch of features, like offline video viewing and free access to Google's music streaming service, but the two biggest draws are that it's ad free and that subscribers get access to exclusive content.
Now, the company is finally giving us more details about what that exclusive content will be.
On February 10, YouTube Red will premiere its first four "Originals": two shows and two feature-length movies.
Critically, each one will feature people who are already YouTube famous.
YouTube's younger audience is obsessed with the platform's home-grown stars, and appealing to their desire to see everything the creators' produce has seemed to be one of Red's biggest strategies for getting people to cough up the $10 a month.
Right now, we have no idea how well that plan is working though.
In Alphabet's blockbuster earnings earlier this week, Google CEO Sundar Pichai called the roll-out of Red "successful" but declined to be any more specific.
Here's what we know about the first four original programs and movies:
SEE ALSO: YouTube exec explains what makes a video go viral
YouTube description: "From the team at Astronauts Wanted, this feature-length movie gives fans an extraordinary look inside the life and journey of Lilly Singh as she embarks on a challenging 26-city global tour where she has to remember to practice what she preaches: happiness is the only thing worth fighting for."
YouTube description: "This feature film from AwesomenessTVweaves an amazing story of unlikely friendships, unleashing passions and discovering yourself all through the power of dance."
YouTube description: "In this feature-length action-comedy from Rooster Teeth and Fullscreen Films, four small-town losers stumble upon an alien ship carrying a mysterious cargo, leading to a battle to save Earth from an all-powerful enemy."
In 2006, the announcement of a book by OJ Simpson in which he would give an allegedly hypothetical account of the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown, and Ronald Goldman made waves.
Originally titled "O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here's How It Happened," the book was to be published by ReganBooks, a division of HarperCollins. Shortly after the announcement, the book was canceled following outrage over Simpson profiting from the deaths.
He was acquitted of the murders in 1995, but was found liable for the wrongful deaths of Brown and Goldman in a 1997 civil suit.
In 2007, the Goldman family was awarded rights to the book by a Florida bankruptcy court and went through with the publication, changing the title to "If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer."
The book includes commentary from the Goldman family on why they went through with the publication, as well as a prologue written by the book's ghostwriter, Pablo Fenjves, in which he describes his meetings and conversations with Simpson. An afterword written by journalist Dominick Dunne and an epilogue by Goldman-family attorney Peter Haven are also included.
FX's dramatization of the murder trial, "The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story," premiered on Tuesday.
Here's an overview of the book's chapters, in which Simpson accounts his life with Nicole Brown before the murders that night:
Simpson and Brown dated for a number of years before his divorce with his first wife was finalized. He mentions a fight in 1984 that resulted in Brown calling the cops after he "accidentally" hit one of the rims on her car with a baseball bat. He proceeded to whack the hood of the car, too, but no charges were filed and the two got married in 1985. He also goes into the 1989 altercation between them that resulted in him pleading no contest to spousal abuse. Simpson was convicted and put on probation, completed community service hours, and paid a fine.
This chapter also introduces Paula Barbieri, his on-again/off-again girlfriend at the time of the murders.
Simpson talks about how he hates his ex-wife's group of friends, whom he describes as "hookers and drug dealers and unsavory characters." The chapter also includes transcripts of two 911 calls made by Brown about Simpson in 1993.
Winning the best picture Oscar at the Academy Awards doesn't just say that a movie is regarded by Hollywood as the top achievement in the medium for the year; it cements a movie with past winners that have gone on to become classics such as "The Godfather," "Lawrence of Arabia," and "On the Waterfront."
But the Academy voters don't always get it right. Tucked away in the 89 years of Oscar ceremonies are best picture winners that quickly vanish from the zeitgeist, never to be heard from again. That's often because they weren't as good as originally thought.
Here we look back on the 10 most disappointing best picture winners and choose the nominees that should have won:
SEE ALSO: RANKED: The 12 greatest movies to win the best picture Oscar
Based on the Jules Verne novel, this film used all of Hollywood's resources (a $6 million budget in the 1950s was far from cheap) to create a sprawling look at the world, but the story of a super-rich English gentleman Phileas Fogg (David Niven) who attempts to win his wager to navigate the globe is silly and far from memorable.
Cecil B. DeMille's final directing effort still holds strong today. With its all-star cast, particularly the incredible performance by Charlton Heston as Moses (he didn't even get an Oscar nomination for the role), and its remarkable effects for that era, it's a movie that should have been recognized with the top prize.
The late 1970s and early 1980s were when the melodrama was at its zenith in movie theaters, and "Ordinary People" came around at the perfect time. The film didn't just win best picture — it also achieved best director for Robert Redford and best actor for Timothy Hutton. Granted, the film has explosive performances in it, but there needs to be more than great acting to win best picture.
Ahead of performing alongside Coldplay at Sunday's Super Bowl, Beyoncé has just released her newest single, "Formation," with a music video. Watch below:
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Rihanna's new album is like nothing we've heard from her
