Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey were convicted of the murder of a photographer, Teresa Halbach.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Avery
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Dassey
Steven Avery had been convicted, and then exonerated, in a rape some years prior.
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3003
Now there is news that another murderer has confessed to the murder, which would seem to exonerate Avery and Dassey.
But there are problems with the exoneration case.
The case got a lot of publicity because it was made into a major tv show.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_a_Murderer
The new 'confession' would seem to support the tv show, except that the confession was actually made years before the tv show, so in fact it is the tv show that supports the confession. A person would guess that the tv show was researched a bit, and it seems likely the producers of the show found out about the confession.
The confession was known to enough people that it probably would have had an impact on the post tv show legal process if it were valid, so it is more likely than not that the confession has been examined for the simple reason that the tv show got a lot of publicity and people unconnected to the case, the prosecution and the tv show would have studied it.
There would be a reason why the tv show would not mention it's strongest piece of potential evidence.
Next it would be wise to examine the evidence itself. It seems strong, but the premise of the tv show is that it was faked. There seems though, as far as what can be easily researched, to be some strength to the evidence against Avery, though the Dassey confession has obvious problems.
So it kind it kind of looks like the tv show is trying to fit an exoneration into a space where it does not fit, where legitimate evidence would have to be discounted. They seem to have started with the premise that he was not guilty, perhaps motivated by his previous exoneration, then tried to build a second exoneration on top of that.
If they had simply started with a case where the actual evidence supports the convicted person being 'not guilty', for example the Esar Met case and literally thousands of other cases, the tv show would have been on more solid ground going forward.
It's possible Avery is not guilty, but it seems unlikely.
It's also possible Esar Met is guilty, but it is extraordinarily unlikely.
If the exoneration case the tv show is trying to present becomes discredited, and it seems possible that will happen, it will make it more difficult for any future exoneration cases that are supported by evidence, such as Esar Met's.