Netflix’s controversial documentary series Making A Murderer continues to generate headlines and think pieces, most notably this excellent one from New Yorker magazine. At a panel discussing the series at the Television Critics Association’s winter press tour on Sunday, film creators Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos addressed criticism that they painted a picture of Steven Avery that avoided mention of his violent past, including recently reported incidents of abuse against his ex-wife and ex-fiancee Jodi Stachowski, who told producers of Nancy Grace’s HLN show that he was a “monster”.
Ricciardi responded to the critics by saying, “I think what we’re seeing now is actually history repeating itself. It’s now on a national scale that the media are demonizing this man in order to prove his guilt. What we did was we documented the Halbach case as it was unfolding. Whatever [allegations against Avery] you’re referencing now never came into that process at all. So it wasn’t relevant to our process. We looked at the history here.”
At the panel discussion, Ricciardi also revealed that Steven Avery has not yet seen the documentary, saying, “He asked the warden and his social worker whether he would be able to see it and his request was denied. When we spoke to him recently, his focus was mainly on his case.” When asked if a sequel was on the horizon, Demos said, “This story is ongoing. These cases are open. But it’s real life. You don’t know what’s going to happen. So we are ready to follow these if there are significant developments. We will be there.”
In other Making A Murderer news, Dean Strang, one of Avery’s defense lawyers, admitted during an appearance on CBS This Morning this past Friday that he has some doubts about the convict’s innocence. When asked if he felt his client could possibly be guilty he responded, “Sure, absolutely.” He then added, “And if it was OK to convict people on maybes, I wouldn’t be worried about this, but it’s not.” On the flip side, Strang said he was still not convinced of Avery’s guilt, stating, “I’m not at all convinced of his guilt, never have been.”
It would be interesting to see how a sequel would handle all of the recent evidence, especially the details coming in about the vial of Avery’s blood that seemed to be the defense’s “smoking gun.”
Photo credit: Getty Images, Netflix
I don’t know that he’s being demonized by the media. It seems like most are either on one side or the other.
I dont know what they are talking about either. From what I see everybody, but Avery, even remotely connected to Theresa Halbach is being demonized. Anybody who has ever read an Agatha Christie or watched CSI has taken it upon themselves to “crack” this case and now her siblings, her roommates and her exes have become fair game. Imagine if every time a prospective employer googled your name, what came up was hundreds of posts of people claiming you were gleeful over your sisters violent murder. I dont know how these wannabe detectives sleep at night.
^ I agree.
ITA completely.
Making a Murderer was really soft. Really, it’s fine because it doesn’t have any obligation to be objective but it was infuriatingly one-sided. Even the clips of telephone conversations: every single excerpt they used was of Avery talking softly or joking around-basically showing him as some harmless, sweet albeit not-terribly-bright, benevolent, powerless rube. I have NO doubt that someone who has the rap sheet that he has is not always sweet and benign, you know?
I don’t know how anyone can watch that series and think that they’re getting the full story.
It also reminds me that this is the flip side of the coin when it comes to people believing everything they see/read/hear. The trial was a tragedy and he unequivocally deserves another one, but people who believe this documentary as if it’s the gospel aren’t any better to me than those that blindly believe he is guilty based on largely circumstantial evidence.
I found those posts about her brother & ex boyfiriend being suspicious just sad. Clearly her brother was simply being the family spokesperson. Why should the former bf who actively, intensively ran a search group, urging no one to touch anything they found, but rather call police?
I used to work as a social worker in a prison. He deserves a second trial, for sure. But where there is smoke, I’ve found, there is usually some fire. If he didn’t have an extensive criminal past, there would have been nothing to “demonize” him with — but he did. Not saying he’s guilty for having a past, BUT. An established violent criminal rarely stops on their own. They continue to be violent and law-breaking until someone else stops them. Not saying he killed Theresa, of course, but in my professional experience, it’s wise to be cautious.
@ Kitten: Many convicted murderers I worked with were so damn nice, on the surface. Soft-spoken, even. Shy-seeming. All of them had a switch, though, that would FLIP FLIP FLIP if you pushed them. Like, gouge people’s eyes out type of flip. Showing the niceness without the RAGE that feeds these personalities is disingenuous, imo. And you can’t tell me the anger isn’t there. Looking at his documented past encounters with police, he clearly has issues with women and anger. Why wasn’t that explored in the doc??????
Thank you for this.
Oh I have absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of career criminals are very adept at hiding their crimes or masking their darker side in order to blend in with the rest of society. I just meant to say that I have NO doubt that the film makers saw glimpses of this in Avery but chose not to include that footage as it didn’t gel with the way they were trying to portray him.
I admit i was blinded by the angle Making a Murderer took, and considered the possibility that he was innocent, but then as i read more about the case and about HIM, i realized how stupid i was being. To go with the theory that the cops set him up is ludicrous. I think the cops could have planted some evidence to make sure they had their guy, but there is no way Steve had nothing to do with her death. He specifically requested her and she was creeped out by him. He had handcuffs and leg restraints. He told prisoners he was going to build a torture chamber. His ex-gf said he told her that ‘all bitches owed him’ , beat her and told her that he would burn her mother’s house down with her and her daughter in it. He burned a cat alive. Without a doubt he is a complete sociopath.
I wasn’t able to finish watching all of the episodes, it just felt too one-sided. A cat doused in gasoline and thrown into a fire is explained as him just falling into the wrong crowd. A jailhouse letter threatening murder is brushed off as frustration with parental alienation. I know there were many others, those are just off the top of my head.
They were just disregarding too many incidents. What is that quote? Something like “People show you who they are, believe them.”
@Lou- My thoughts are similar about both parties being somewhat correct. It seems unlikely that Theresa’s last location, car, and remains should be found at his property for any other reason that he was culpable in her death. That said, I think it is highly likely that the blood (without accompanying fingerprints) in her car, and the key found after -what, seven searches?- could have been planted to be certain they had a nearly open and shut case, saving the county and the few individuals named from being responsible for $36m.
“… ‘the [national] media are demonizing this man’”
Demonizing a murderer? Hmm…abhorent behavior!! /end sarcasm
WHATEVER! Ugh, I don’t get the fascination with this man. Ok, the police were corrupt and that is a horrible thing. But you know what, he’s a horrible person. He has admitted to torturing his cat by pouring gas and oil on it and throwing it in fire, and he has past convictions for burglary. He is NO angel. He’s very easy not to like.
“Ok, the police were corrupt and that is a horrible thing. But you know what, he’s a horrible person”
That doesn’t mean it’s ok to frame people for murder. Police corruption is a VERY big deal.
On what basis are you deciding that he was framed? By the netflix show, or have you done personal research into his case to fact find?
I am not “deciding” that he was framed, but it was the question raised by the documentary and it is a very real possibility. I am not saying he was framed, I am saying it is possible he was framed.
The fact that someone could so casually dismiss police corruption, corruption that falsely imprisoned someone for 18 years, is chilling.
However it’s important to remember that those are not the crimes under advisement at the moment. He’s not convicted of being a horrible man. Some may argue that being horrible would be a punishable crime in a perfect world, but we haven’t reached that point yet.
I’m not directing this to you in particular (sorry I just decided here was a good place to post) but just a general sentiment: when we see people who have done awful things in the past, it make sit easier for us to believe that that person could be capable of continuing to do terrible things. I’m not talking about in a court of law, where protocol must be followed, clear legal instructions are issued, and the stakes are far higher, but I’m speaking in terms of the court of public opinion.
This isn’t new, this is human nature.
“when we see people who have done awful things in the past, it make sit easier for us to believe that that person could be capable of continuing to do terrible things.”
I think that can also apply to the police and justice system that have handled these two cases. Because they went after an innocent man and imprisoned him for nearly two decades even though they knew he didn’t do it, makes it easier to believe it could happen again.
@Tiffany-That is exactly the point I was making in my previous comment though. Painting Avery as some sort of saintly guy who was wronged by the system isn’t any better than looking at Avery as human waste undeserving of a fair trial. In order to subscribe to the former scenario, you must willfully ignore his terrible crimes and misdeeds and in the latter, you assume that those crimes and misdeeds are the reason why he is guilty. Neither approach is rooted in reality, facts, or critical thinking IMO.
Sure, the crimes he committed in the past should not have any bearing on the Teresa Halbach case but his wrongful conviction and 18 years in jail doesn’t magically erase his past violent behavior either.
I agree with what you’ve written, and my thoughts fall somewhere in the middle. I don’t think a person needs to be a saint in order to be worthy of a fair trial. I think that each trial needs to be focused on the charges at hand, and not what may or may not have come before. However, because the evidence collection and interviews of witnesses regarding the murder were handled so poorly and by a corrupt police force, it really limits the ability of the facts to point to the truth. We are left with a wholly unsatisfying gray area, because the evidence can’t be trusted. IMO, that gray area means an “not guilty” verdict is necessary.
I think my experience with “small town justice” has colored my views on this case. I have seen far too many corrupt police officers run wild with their power. I see this story as more a heads up about abuse of power, than about this man specifically.
So kitten…you believe he was framed? You never say “allegedly”, you always use “was”. Does anyone have links to the case files, or know if the documentary will be shown again. Is it always available on Netflix for streaming? My interest in this has become piqued and I must now do some digging.
How quickly you prove the articles point. Dismissing so much because you don’t like him. At the cost of wide spread corruption, an unsolved murder, and real fears a murderer is still loose. But hey. He’s no good so it’s a fair trade off.
It’s Not About Him. It’s not about how likable you find him. It’s about a system. Avery is secondary to this whole thing.
God forbid anyone in a place of power decides they hate me. I could find a similar fate.
BTW. Gas And oil? Embellishing.
Yup. (See below)
Yup x2.
And now I’m going to bow out of reading the rest of the comments on this so I can end on a high note. It’s too discouraging learning that so many “normal” people are willing to throw out basic human rights just because a man is “very easy not to like.”
“It’s about a system.”
Exactly.
Exactly, FLorc, exactly. Whether you like/hate and/or think he’s innocent/guilty, the real point of this documentary is how damn CORRUPT the police force was (and likely still is).
Someone who does that to harmless animals is MORE than capable of doing other heinous crimes AND committing murder. This is how a lot of serial killers start out, abusing and torturing animals.
Call me cynical, but I don’t think they are really beating a drum for him. I think they are probably perfectly happy to drop a quote like this. It is in their best interest, after all.
They’re trying to be what other filmmakers have been. If you can claim to have helped exonerate an innocent person, you can make your career. The Thin Blue Line did that, as did Paradise Lost. But the difference between those and this case is that the former filmmakers never tried to manipulate the presentation. Paradise Lost went through great pains to get each and every possible side, and yes, they came out at the end favoring innocence, but at no point did that need to exclude evidence. Paradise Lost was also smart in that the filmmakers largely were hands off and just let the subjects talk and do their thing. This series is far more manipulated and edited to evoke a certain response. And that’s fine – if you have an agenda, I take no issue with that. But be up front about it.
I guess my subtext wasn’t as clear as I had hoped, in that my sentiment is very similar to yours. The two women have their own agenda/ulterior motives, going so far as to suggest they *may* make another series of episodes. Cha- ching.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner.
I don’t know whether he’s guilty but the prosecution definitely proved beyond reasonable doubt that they’re entirely unfit to be involved in any legal situation. What a bunch of clowns.
I really hate the way the nephew Brendan isn’t making headlines. That child (now, sadly, sitting in jail having become a grown man) is innocent.
I agree. In my opinion, Steven is guilty. Brendan is the biggest miscarriage of justice that people should care about.
Didn’t see that u already posted this. I agree %100.
I agree! ! Brandon is being missed here. What happened to that boy was horrible. It’s so maddening.
That’s what I thought, too, until I read the Dassey trial transcripts and transcripts from the confessions. There is more to it than was presented in the documentary.
I read those coming off my binge watching. There’s not much more presented that can sway opinion. Anything extra was repetition or had no point not covered by something else.
I disagree. It swayed my opinion, and I don’t even have access to all of the information heard and seen by the jury. I think Brendan’s original lawyer should be disbarred for what he did to assist with securing a conviction, but the confession and contradictory information were given before he got involved. Plus Brendan’s bleach-stained jeans – which he told family members he was wearing on Halloween 2005 and were bleached helping Steve Avery clean up the garage floor. And Teresa’s bones entwined with the steel belts from the tires burned that night, and there’s no question Brendan was at the bonfire with his uncle. And the burn pit was guarded by a German shepherd so vicious it bit an investigator. And the rivets from her Daisy Fuentes jeans were found in the burn pit. I don’t like feeling as if I was manipulated by the filmmakers.
I think that is the biggest travesty and tragedy of all. How do you take a statement from a kid who has a borderline IQ and no attorney present??
I don’t understand how it is acceptable to interview minors without a parent’s permission or their attorney. This happened in the Adnan Syed case as well and it boggles my mind. A minor can’t sign a contract to star in a Disney ad by themselves, but they can give up their right to an attorney all on their own when facing murder charges? How does our system allow that?
@ Tiffany-
Particularly with his borderline competence. Just horrible.
Yes. Hearing his police interviews was painful. You could tell that he couldn’t follow what was going on and his mental challenges were being used against him.
@AntiSocialButterfly
I completely agree with. I don’t understand how that can be allowed.
More over I don’t understand how minors (especially young teenagers) or people with low IQ can be judged by the same standards as responsible, fully aware of their acts adults.
For me, it demonstrates how flawed the US justice system is.
Yep, completely agree. That poor kid. It was heartbreaking to see how easily manipulated he was and how he didn’t comprehend the severity of the situation he was in.
My issue has and will always be the way the police department gathered their evidence. There’s a lawful way of doing police work and they didn’t do it correctly. He very well murder that woman. However, the case was grossly mishandled.
The use of the Nephew Brenden is what causes so many problems for me.
I thought Dean Strang came out of this documentary as a great lawyer but, more importantly, an inspirational advocate for a healthy justice system. I really, really, really liked him.
My husband and I said the same thing while watching the doc. Avery was very lucky to have had such an incredible lawyer on his side.
Loved both Dean and Jerry Buting.
Steven Avery is a petty criminal that once doused a cat in gas and lit it up just for jollies. He IS A bad person.
See comment #2 above. Unlikeable people deserve fair investigations and trials as well.
Yup. But that doesn’t change the OP’s point that he’s NOT a good dude, which the documentary never really shows. They paint him in a VERY positive light.
I have no respect for these two. They were asked in a early interview if they thought the guy was guilty and they said they hadn’t come to any conclusions because that wasn’t the point of making the documentary. The point was to depict the judicial system.
Now they’re just being hypocrites and loving all the attention.
He demonized himself by burning cats and pulling guns on people. He’s also been accused of multiple sexual offenses and domestic violence. You don’t see people demonizing Adnan Syed from Serial because he didn’t have a violent past and seems to be a model prisoner. The filmmakers should have chosen a different case to cover. It’s not like there’s a lack of miscarriages of justice to choose from. They were the ones who chose a very troubled guy from a very troubled family. They shouldn’t be shocked that’s what many people are focusing.
except they had NO IDEA this was going to unfold— they went to cover the wrongful conviction and imprisonment due to the rape case. then while they were covering that, this occurred and they followed it.
There were complaints against him and he had multiple arrests before he was convicted of the attempted rape he wasn’t responsible for. Part of those 18 years he served were for pulling a gun on his neighbor. Once they became aware of his troubled past they should have moved on to a different case.
Burning the cat was awful, but why are you making it plural? There’s a lot wrong with this comment, but it’s not claimed to be facts so opinions away!
I mistyped but he was suspected of another act of animal cruelty. The guy had a history of arrests and accusations. He’s a bad person. That’s a fact.
The only thing wrong with Emma’s statement is she used cats and people instead of cat and someone. He was indeed accused of molesting two family members.. Brendan Dassey himself said Avery molested him and he was also accused of molesting a female relative. He also did threaten his ex wife repeatedly from prison.. He was also arrested for allegedly choking his ex fiance. She recanted a few days later but it doesn’t mean it did not happen. She’s come out now and said she was threatened by Avery to say nice things about him or else.
Have these two answered at all as to why they opted to not include evidence favorable to the prosecution in the series? Like, has that come up at all?
Because there wasn’t much evidence presented that was…
1. Collected properly
2. Was shown to not be tampered with
3. Had a documented COC (Chain of Custody)
Even the video being recorded by the local police that had incredible nerve speaking to how they can’t wait to pin this on him while in his house. Same police that would lose so much if he was allowed to continue a lawsuit he was going to win against them that their insurance wouldn’t cover. You can’t deny those cops needed him behind bars at any cost and they made no secret of this in their own words recorded by them.
They’re about as dumb as the lead Prosecutors text messages fishing for an affair. Listing what he has to lose and that’s why it’s so exciting for him.
THIS. To everything you said.
Florc, you are on a roll today.
Except your examples only go to physical evidence. What about all the testimony that established that Theresa was “scared to death” of Avery, that he had traced her calls, stood in a towel in front of her, stalked her, etc. Plenty of people have attested to all those facts, but they left them out. That was primarily what I was referring to – and those people were not coached or coerced.
The Mirage of Justice …
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_mirage_of_justice_20160117#14532182254661&action=collapse_widget&id=0&data=
… and the banality of evil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtEORKx8V8M
He sounds like an awful person but he was entitled to a fair trial. I feel so sorry for Brendan, never stood a chance.
in glad shows bring injustices to light. I don’t know crap about the man and it sounds like my life is richer for that.
But this and Serial podcasts (in the first season-this one is boring) make me hope for the truly innocent folks who deserve a national stage like this (see:Crosley Green).
I don’t like him. I think he might be guilty. That aside…
The investigation, the preformed opinion on him of law enforcement, the way everything was done was not to get justice, but imo to save their own butts from bankruptcy from the last time they chose to pin a crime on Avery and chose to ignore justice for the victim who was raped.
That should have the attention. And once we get the truth on that we are 1 step closer to finding the truth for Theresa.
FLORC – Chris Hedges wrote a good article on Truthdig. It’s called The Mirage of Justice if you want to google it. I also wish this debate hadn’t become about Avery. All the while I was watching it, I just thought it was about the justice system. I’ve been quite taken aback that the conversation is dominated by guilty/innocent/past conduct, because I wasn’t thinking like that at all while I watched.
I think this is why I generally steer clear of true crime. Freedoms and liberties aren’t cherished: they’re the elephant in the room.
The debate is just as much about ourselves, if not more so. WE are the elephant in the room.
Not too many of us can even see that, let alone accept it or change it in any meaningful way.
We demand swift and unyielding justice, and then we put the execution of that justice into the hands of people who are elected, probably about 98% of the time, on a promise of being “tough on crime.”
It is beyond hypocritical for certain members of the public to be riding their moral high horses about this particular guy and this particular case when, given the choice between a nuanced approach to criminal justice with an eye to fairness, and guns-blazing-lock-em-up-and-hang-em-high, the American voting public picks HANG ‘EM HIGH every time.
The precept in American criminal justice that it is better for however many guilty people to go free than for one innocent to suffer is lofty and admirable. It comes in handy as consolation when justice and fairness refuse to meet up, as they so often do.
But we don’t really believe it, and any judge, D.A. or state prosecutor better not believe it either, or they haven’t a prayer of being elected.
If someone is trying to wrap their heads around why so many people in law enforcement tried to make sure this guy went to jail for a good long time, of course the more cynical among us are going to wonder if there was maybe something in his criminal past that compelled them to do so.
Ok but this documentary isn’t the first to address an extremely flawed system. Those of us who have been outraged about law enforcement cover-ups and legal shenanigans for years aren’t looking at this movie as some sort of *break-through* so maybe that’s why we aren’t as shocked as some may be.
Look, over the past 30 years or so, 130 people have been released from death rows throughout the US due to evidence of their wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, TEN wrongfully convicted defendants were released from death row so, you know, Avery’s case isn’t breaking news in that regard. Innocent people get convicted all too often and there’s no shortage of innocent people who were wrongly convicted who probably weren’t accused of molesting children and probably didn’t burn a cat alive.
Yet these film makers chose Steve Avery.
Ultimately, I think it’s naïve to think that the public won’t have an opinion about a polarizing and controversial figure like Avery. Like it or not, he’s the central figure in the docuseries and he’s the face of the extreme miscarriage of justice that occurred. Like any public figure, people will delve into his past, people will have an opinion about him.
RE: the link to the article about the blood vial. I draw blood all the time. Yes, a needle is used to puncture the top of the vial, but after you’re done there is NEVER EVER a visible gaping hole at the top. That hole looks like it was created from a wide gauge needle (like a horse needle bought from a farm supply store). The needles used to draw blood DO NOT leave gaping holes. Most of the time, even if you look VERY closely, you can’t even tell where the blood draw needle punctured the top. I call TOTAL BS on that.
I see vials like that all the time. It’s not a hole, it’s small spot of dried blood and the reason you have to treat filled vials as a biohazard.
I don’t know if he is guilty or not, but the message I received was the gross injustice in both cases. It should have absolutely nothing to do if he was an unsavory character. I think Dean Strang in response to the ethically challenged prosecuter Kratz’ opening comment complaining he was facing an uphill battle proving guilt nailed it when he said, yes that is the point. Regardless of any biases from the filmmakers, the defense team presented many reasons to question his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
That New Yorker article linked above really is quite good. It boils down why so many people find this documentary method so troubling. It’s bear-baiting disguised as judicial activism.
It’s disingenuous for Ricciardi and Demos to throw a “hey, we can’t put EVERYTHING in there” smokescreen to shut down critics who would question their methodology and conclusions.
They invited this reaction. They had to know their work would be colored by not just what they chose to include (and why), but also by what they chose to exclude (and why). To assume otherwise would be naive to the point of “yeah, right.”
As Kathryn Schultz so ably points out in her New Yorker piece, Ricciardi and Demos have presented as one-sided a case favoring Avery’s guilt as did the authorities who sent him to prison. If – in the name of “entertainment” – you’re going to cherry pick facts and figures to support (what looks more and more like) a foregone conclusion, admit that’s what you’re doing. Otherwise, you just become what you’re railing against.
@ND Excellent Comment! Fair play should roll both ways!
YES! So perfectly stated.
Exactly. It’s a 10 hour documentary with a lot of unnecessary phone tapes of pillow talk with his fiancee, and they couldn’t include actual evidence because it undercut their message?
After the brilliant Serial, they should have taken this back to the editing bay and tried to be a little more objective. Their obvious one-sidedness makes me question every point they made. Clearly, there was some major errors made during the investigation, and the police did have some tunnel vision where Avery was concerned, but that gets overshadowed by their own tunnel vision.
“Their obvious one-sidedness makes me question every point they made”
This was my problem as well. I’ll sit in Cynic’s Corner with you guys 😉
Move over, I need to hang out in the Cynic’s Corner with y’all.
I thought the article was great and made a lot of great points. This turns into entertainment for people who bounce around theories, but this is not a tv show, it’s real life and a real woman was murdered and had her body burned. Of course the author is getting some negative feedback because people have REALLY strong opinions about this case. Randomly, Alec Baldwin is all over this and thinks Avery is innocent. He personally called out the author of the article on Twitter and said she got this wrong. He also went after a woman who brought up Avery’s past crimes and asked who she was working for. So, even celebrities have some really strong opinions on this.
I think both sides are being really naive here. Avery may be many things, but he isn’t a choir boy. I don’t know why the filmmakers wouldn’t expect some probing questions from a guy with his record. Don’t act so offended if you make a film that is designed to stir up controversy when it actually becomes a controversy
The anti-Avery crowd are just as ridiculous. Don’t try to convince me that the half-truths that are being peddled all over cable news and the internet are even halfway accurate. Even The New Yorker article had a few errors, although I think it is a good piece that brings up a lot of excellent points about using a real life tragedy for entertainment. I really think it’s difficult to get to the real facts in the internet age. Misinformation just gets reported as fact ad nauseam, and nobody bothers to look a little deeper and think that maybe what they saw on TV or read on some random website is just a steaming pile of b.s. BTW, this also goes for the people who think they can find the real killer by internet sleuthing.
The New Yorker piece is shoddy – the writer makes assumptions and passes them off as facts – she writes, “But the vast majority of misconduct by law enforcement is motivated not by spite but by the belief that the end justifies the means—that it is fine to play fast and loose with the facts if doing so will put a dangerous criminal behind bars.” The use of vast majority connotes that she has numerical data about cases of misconduct by law enforcement. I doubt she has the data – unless anonymous – who would admit to “misconduct”? If she has the data, she should cite it. She also indicates that the filmmakers left evidence out about Dassey helping Avery with Halbach’s car – what reason does she have for believing that evidence (from Dassey) when she seems to acknowledge the possible manipulation of Dassey by the investigators with regard to his confession? She points out as a flaw that the documentary didn’t answer how Halbach died – how would they know that? Surprised at the weakness of the piece, but I do agree that the one confirmed victim in the entire enterprise is Halbach. I wish she had been more acknowledged, and I felt the same way about the victim in Serial.
I’d have a lot more respect for them if they’d tell people to call off the dogs on Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas. The things people are saying about those two guys are absolutely disgusting. If they’d reiterate that it really is about errors in judicial procedure and not about putting on your deerstalker cap and pretending you’re in a mystery show and the murderer is the Most Unlikely Person, that could help a lot. As it is, they showed these guys at their most awkward music, put spooky music on during their segments, and seem to think that “they chose not to participate” excuses all the garbage that’s being flung at them. They’re getting demonized all over, and on not even one-twentieth the evidence there was against Avery. I mean, come on — if Hillegas or Halbach turned out to have run a woman off the road in the past, or burned a cat, people would be calling for their heads, not trying to excuse it because they were only in their twenties.
For the record, I agree that there were abuses during the investigation and that no matter how much of a dirtbag Avery is, he deserves a fair trial. Dassey needs new representation and a new trial yesterday. But all of this can be accomplished without dragging innocent people, who did not choose to have their friend/relative murdered, into the mud.