Injustice is Served

Infuriating. I can think of no better word to sum it up.

I finished watching Making a Murderer on Netflix last week, and my head was swimming in all of the thoughts that I had along the way as I was viewing the series. I decided to type up my initial thoughts/reactions and come back to them later after I was no longer so emotionally invested in what I would write. Even after revising what I wrote last week (and toning it down quite a bit), I am fully aware that much of what I am publishing in this post still comes across as emotionally charged. Here are my thoughts:

• This series really intrigued me for a number of reasons. For starters, I was interested because I enjoy a number of the crime dramas on TV (e.g., NCIS). Ironically enough, I watched an episode of NCIS last night that featured a conspiracy story and it reminded me of Making a Murderer while I was watching it. I would almost describe Making a Murderer as Forensic Files on steroids.
• Another reason I was fascinated with the show and wanted to watch it in its entirety was the realization I had quickly after I started viewing it, which was the importance of critical thinking outside of academia and in virtually all professions. Which leads me to my next point...
• Calling all critical thinkers! Honestly, I am still in awe that any rational person could convict Steve as guilty (at least guilty beyond a reasonable doubt). The defense attorneys did a magnificent job of exploiting the holes in the prosecution. As the series progressed I came back to the same thought over and over: "Guilty until proven innocent is the way it seems to go these days". In my opinion, there was more than enough questionable evidence to have reasonable doubt regarding Steven Avery's innocence. He was wrongfully imprisoned for 18 years the first time. Why should I assume anything less this time?
• Both of the judges were very lousy, in my opinion. Seriously, is there a way to impeach judges? Every decision they made during the course of the trial (and listening to them speak) gave me the impression that they considered Steve Avery & Brendan Dassey guilty from the get go and were never planning to let them off the hook. Judge Willis’ remark in the hearing for Steve's sentencing alone is a great example: "You're probably one of the most dangerous criminals to ever step foot in this courtroom." REALLY? If Steve was in fact guilty of murder (which I still doubt), then maybe that statement has some weight. However, I cannot help but think that Judge Willis went into Steve's trial with his own personal biases affecting his decisions the whole time. And what good is a judge that allows his prejudices to influence the way he oversees a trial? Neither Brendan nor Steve had any chance with Judge Fox and Judge Willis, respectively, in my opinion. Talk about an uphill battle...
• What in the world is wrong with the justice system in Wisconsin? This series leaves me thinking I never want to live there. Both of the investigations into Steve Avery's alleged crimes as highlighted in this series were really sloppy (as far as they were portrayed in the documentary at least). Whether the evidence used in the murder case was valid or not, the fact that the majority of it was discovered by the Manitowoc County Sheriff's department raises way too many red flags for me. They were supposed to remove themselves from the investigation, yet they were still involved the whole time...
• Brendan's original lawyer, Len Kachinsky, made me sick. He never seemed to even have the desire to defend Brendan's innocence. The final episode depicted how Len and the private investigator he had working with him conducted themselves during the case in a manner that almost made them appear to have been helping the prosecution strengthen its case! Mr. Kachinsky was caught in an obvious lie when he was questioned about it in court years later, and under oath to boot.
• In the end, as unfortunate as this is to say, I believe the jury was swayed to their guilty verdict almost entirely because of Mr. Kratz' appeals to emotion in his opening & closing arguments. He established a perception of Steve and Brendan in the minds of the respective jury members that I think would be hard for most people to overlook. The prosecution did a poor job of proving either Steve or Brendan guilty beyond a reasonable doubt so I seriously have to wonder what persuaded the jury in each of the cases to reach the verdicts that they did.

This is honestly just the tip of the iceberg. A number of other things come to mind that I would like to point out (maybe in a future post!). I have left out a number of questions that I considered critical to proving Steven Avery guilty or innocent that were addressed in the show and my thoughts on them. The show explores a number of things only briefly and left me with many additional questions.

I recognize that this series was released with the intention to tell a story. The filmmakers combed through a vast amount of footage and edited it down to share their perspective on the case. Dean Strang, one of Steve’s defense attorneys, said in an interview that the trial lasted about 6 weeks. At 5 days a week, he estimated that to be 200-240 hours. He stated, "If you made a movie that was 240 hours long, nobody would watch it, and it would be torture to make them." (Listen to the full interview here) With that being said, we must realize that the show evokes a significant emotional response even though viewers have a limited perspective on the case as a whole.

WARNING: I hesitate to recommend that everyone should watch this series. I found it very intriguing, but I realize a number of people may be offended by some of the content. On Netflix it shows up as a TV-14 rating, but based on the profanity used throughout the series I sincerely wonder why it did not receive a TV-MA rating. I may have avoided it altogether if that had been the case. The profanity level varies from episode to episode. Also, some of the details of the case that are mentioned (whether or not they are 100% true) paint a rather graphic image. Otherwise it is pretty consistent with other “true crime” series. Consider yourself warned.