By Brianna Ciniglio – Staff Writer
“Making a Murderer” hit Netflix last December and has been popping up all over the news ever since. A lot of controversy has developed as to whether or not the series fairly represents the court case of Steven Avery, who was found guilty of murder.
Admittedly, there are a number of articles that will explain that some facts were left out of the series. Despite these shortcomings, “Making a Murderer” still manages to be a highly enticing show.
The series examines the two trials that Avery was involved in: one where he was found guilty of rape and a second where he was found guilty of homicide. What’s most interesting about the first trial is that 18 years after his initial sentence, Avery is found not guilty as a result of new DNA evidence.
As you watch the episodes involving the first trial, you can’t help but wonder how they could possibly find this man guilty after so much evidence that indicates otherwise. We watch incidents similar to this all the time on TV shows and in movies, but seeing something so unjust happening to a real person and his family was not only shocking, but also frustrating.
Avery spent 18 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit; I can’t even fathom that. However, when everything in the Averys’ lives finally seems to be getting back to normal, Avery and his nephew, Brendon Dassey, are tried in a homicide case.
Although “Making a Murderer” is a documentary, some of the people who play a role in the trial are presented to appear as villain-like “characters,” including Ken Kratz, the prosecutor in the homicide case.
In the series, Kratz tries to knock down Avery any chance he gets, seeming to want him in prison more than he wanted the rightful murderer found. Whether that is true or not, is for each person to decide.
The series has resulted in an uproar from both the supporters of Avery and the ones who oppose him. According to The New York Times, “more than 350,000 people signed a petition on Change.org to have President Obama pardon Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey,” (which President Obama cannot do, as this is not a federal case). Meanwhile, those held under a microscope in the series have come forward to defend their own actions. Kratz told the New York Times that the series “really presents misinformation.”
Whether you think that “Making a Murderer” is true to life or unfairly biased, it’s still fair to appreciate the show as a gripping crime series. It presents a real court case that isn’t fluffed up, as it often is on fictional crime TV shows. You are given the opportunity to watch the trial each long, grueling step of the way and witness what happens beyond the courtroom.
The show presents families hurting because of the trial, lawyers going out of their way to look into new evidence and investigators whose questioning of a witness appears to be a bit unethical. For crime show lovers, and even others who just appreciate an interesting show that makes you think, this series is well worth the watch.