"Making a Murderer" is a fairly new and famous Netflix documentary series that had stirred some serious controversy and a backlash against the USA justice system. The 10 hour documentary was shot over a 10-year period and tells a story of a man battling the system after being wrongfully convicted. But that's just the beginning of the story.
Steve Avery was wrongfully convicted of sexual assault in 1985 even though there were some serious inaccuracies in his case. The police sketch was supposedly based on his photo rather than the victim's description and he was convicted despite the fact he had an alibi. In 1997 some new evidence surfaced but was disregarded by the police. Finally in 2003, after 18 years in prison he was ultimately released and exonerated when the DNA presented in the case matched another man.
After his release, Avery filed a lawsuit against the county and soon after he was accused of murdering a young woman. The documentary strongly pushes the opinion that once again he is not guilty and that he was framed particularly because of his lawsuit and the fight with the justice system. However the truth isn't 100% clear, and till the very end the movie makers wonder if he committed the second crime or not. The series shows a lot of the hearings and court videos of his trial. The documentary implies that the county officials were partial to the case because they had participated in the first trial and so lacked objectivity, treating Avery viciously out of spite.
Here are just a few points for and against Steve Avery's case shown in the series:
For:
- There was no blood in the house or garage where the victim was supposedly killed and really complex methods were used to analyze the crime scene
- the interrogation tapes show that the police officers strongly manipulated Avery's mentally impaired nephew to confess and to accuse Avery of very specific actions
- Avery's blood which was evidence in his first case, was tampered with and somebody clearly had access to it (The lawyer stated that it was planted in the victim's car and there were no prints or other traces in the car)
- Some evidence was found after a few months in plain sight (supposedly planted)
Against:
- The woman's car and charred bone fragments were found on Avery’s salvage yard
- His nephew confessed to helping kill the woman and described the act
- Avery had an illegal gun in his possession
Some facts that the documentary overlooked (mostly for people who watched the series):
- Steve Avery’s girlfriend, who defended him in the documentary, recently came out and confessed that he was very violent and abused her
- The victim, who was a journalist (photographed old cars) didn't want to go to his property and reported prior incidents of indecent behaviour by Avery
- He abused animals as a child
- When first convicted, he confessed to his cellmate to having some weird fantasies about building a torture chamber after his release
- The bullet that killed the young woman matched his gun
- Avery never exhibited any feelings about his young, mentally impaired nephew going to jail
As I mentioned, the documentary caused a lot of controversy and even started a petition "Free Steven Avery" and at this point stands at 522,668 supporters. Avery is also in the middle of his appeal right now. So what is your opinion? If you are curious about any details and don't have 10 hours to spare I will gladly share more information in the comments. The series fantastically shows how the US legal system is built and how a single individual is vulnerable against it without well-paid lawyers.
Comments
As to the petition - to be honest, I believe that watching the documentary is not enough to judge whether Avery's guilty or not. I don't think that 'regular' people should have a deciding vote on that subject. I feel that the petition should call for a fair and objective investigation, not impose his innocence.
One of the things I find to be so interesting is that this documentary caused such a backlash and it actually started a new appeal in the case. Especially because the documentary didn't contain all the evidence and was a bit biased.
On the other hand there were some serious inaccuracies in police's work and I think they should be held accountable for their actions just like every other citizen or even have more strict regulations. After all they promise to uphold the law and there should be serious repercussions if they break it.
It actually took 12 years for the new evidence to surface but the police didn't file the report about new evidence for 6 years.
They is no mention of him getting any kind of therapy and I doubt it if he could afford it on his own. Further more I'm not sure if the state would provide it either. Even before the second crime took place (he was out of prison for about 2 years) the state treated him unfairly and fought very strongly against giving him any retribution money and denied any mistakes they had made to convict him in 1985.
It sounds like an interesting movie and case. But I don't really understand how him being "nice" and all exonerates him of the murder in any way. I'll surely give it a watch.
The Innocence Project acts on behalf of those wrongfully convicted and you can read more about similar cases on their website.
I also recommend a book about a man who spend 25 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit. "(...)before DNA evidence was brought to light that would ultimately set him free. The evidence had been collected only days after the murder—but was never investigated."
Getting Life: An Innocent Man’s 25-Year Journey from Prison to Peace
I think that I watch this documentary soon and form my opinion about this case. Your article make me very interesting of it :)
I'm glad you developed an interest in the show :)
http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-sext-scandal-ken-kratz-addiction-creepy-behavior/
After Making a murderer was aired Kratz recieved multiple bomb and death threats, I recommend watching this interview with Kratz as it shows how can person (change?) after such an event
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-jF2Q3wjFE
The police investigators were asked about that in the documentary and their answer was pretty creepy... They pretty much said "Why would we frame him if we could simply kill him?" However some of the evidence was probably really planted and it was proven in court that the blood vile in police custody was opened illegally and someone put the needle through the plug which obviously isn't the proper way.
It is pretty difficult to build your own opinion on this particular case as there is no chance we will be able to know all the details and our opinion was not manipulated by the lack of information or information that was given under another angle.
For me the case of Avery interesting not in terms of crime-punishment and things like that, but more in terms of the way how information could change public opinion.
The story seems to be very interesting, and i am going to start watching the documentary on NETFLIX.
But overall about the points that You mentioned that is for and against him
it really seems to me that You cant trust someone that have an illegal gun.
Also from what I read here, his time in jail could easily contribute to worsening his mental state, which could trigger him to murder someone.
We become judges, for instant voting in various talent shows and other tv programmes, and we're gaining more and more power. In this case, the documentary in question started a petition to free Steve Avery and a new appeal. Who knows what the future will bring? Maybe we'll be able to vote during trials as we do during tv programmes... There's a fantastic tv series called Black Mirror, in which such themes are explored and it's actually rather scary.
You can read more here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_of_David_Gale