Background of the Show
One of the worst feelings is being accused of something you didn't do, but people still believing you did. Well, imagine if this accusation led you to be in prison for eighteen years, that's what happened in Steven Avery's life. The Netflix original "Making a Murderer is a documentary over a series of episodes about a man named Steven Harvey who was accused of attempted murder in 1985. After years in prison, it later came out that he was falsely convicted and he was let out. The man who should've been in prison for all those years is named Gregory Allen. Episode one does a great job of telling the story, they interview family members, lawyers, and people who worked for the court. Although they do a great job, most of the people interviewed are on the side of Steven Avery. This show is trying to persuade the audience that Steven Avery is innocent.
What's the point of the show?
Steven Avery was in prison for eighteen out of a thirty-two year sentence. This documentary is describing how poorly this case was handled. There was so much evidence that proves Steven was not in the area where Penny Beernsten was assaulted, but the legal system in this case did everything they could to get him locked up. It seems as if the whole legal system was out to get him, Ester Bloom writes ""Because the police, for reasons of their own, had decided he was guilty, however, they ignored any evidence to the contrary and declined to look at alternate suspects (including Gregory Allen, the man who, years later, was revealed to be guilty). Worst of all, they prompted Beerntsen, the victim, to believe that her assailant was, in fact, Steven Avery. Her certainty, as delivered to her by the police and the DA, became the wrecking ball that demolished Avery’s case." (Bloom). When Beernsteen was asked to pick out of a line of men who the man who assaulted her was she picked Steven. This first episode is all about the standpoint of the people who believe Steven is innocent and throughout the episode, things are revealed to help the audience believe that he is as well, and was wrongly accused.
The People Interviewed
The main reason I was led to believe that this show was centered around the people who supported Steven was the choice of people who were interviewed throughout the episode. They chose his parents, some of his lawyers, Keith Findley (co-founder of Wisconsin Innocence Project), and Kim Ducat (his cousin). These people made many statements through out that made it clear they knew Steven and that he would never do anything like this. His parents would get emotional when talking about the subject and his appointed lawyer, Reesa Evans says "Steven didn't admit his guilt because he wasn't guilty." The only person in the entire episode that talked poorly about Steven was Sandra Morris, another one of Steven's cousins. She talks about a story from before Steven was in prison, about he tried to run her off the road. This story is claimed to be false but people believed her because her husband was in the law enforcement. If the show wasn't leaning towards Steven's side they would've interviewed the people who were involved with setting Steven up. Instead, they just talked about them and what they did. Since this show is so one-sided, it has led many people to believe information is being held back. The producers of this show are biased in favor of only one side of the case.
"He portrayed the program as a tool of Mr. Avery’s defense and accused the filmmakers of intentionally withholding facts that would lead viewers to see his guilt." -Daniel Victor