"Making A Murderer" review

A tragic collusion of presumptions

Documentaries are a snake pit of competing perspectives.  Regardless of any director’s claims to objectivity, the very nature of filming is subjective.  No matter how vociferously one may swear to have no agenda, the moment a camera is picked up and shooting begins, choices are made.  Since both the filmmakers and the audience take part in constructing their own personal narrative, the final frame rarely creates a complete consensus on the truth.  Netflix’s original documentary series “Making A Murderer” is compelling and also galling precisely because even after ten hour-long episodes, certitude is scanty.

I binge-watched the entire series one Saturday afternoon and finished at three the following morning.  I had never done this before, and it clearly demonstrates the alluring complexity of the extraordinary circumstances in the life of Stephen Allen Avery.  The story is mesmerizing, the twists are shocking and “Making A Murderer” had instant appeal to a wide audience because of the lingering questions about what Stephen Avery did or did not do.  The case is catnip for conspiracy theorists, who delight in having so much fodder from which to peddle their own theories.

From the very start and throughout the series, every single viewer becomes an armchair detective. When it’s over, they recast themselves as prosecutors or defense attorneys as they argue their particular viewpoints with their family, friends and co-workers.  Everyone has a hypothesis and is sure that theirs is correct.  This is an easy position to adopt since the incomplete evidence, the inconsistencies in testimony and the outright malicious actions on the part of local law enforcement create holes through which many alternate tales can be woven.  The case is a tantalizing puzzle and possibly the greatest gift to water cooler conversation since the JFK assassination.

However, I believe Stephen Avery is innocent for several reasons.  First of all, if Teresa Halbach had been murdered and disposed of as the prosecution claims, then those rooms on Stephen Avery’s property would literally be dripping with her DNA.  Yet the investigators found nothing.  Blood cannot be completely removed from most objects without leaving a chemical trail of some kind, and I don’t believe that Stephen Avery possesses the brains or ability to so utterly expunge all the forensic evidence from a crime scene that should have resembled an abattoir.

Secondly, the key fob from Teresa’s car is found by someone who should not have been allowed to participate in the investigation much less visit the actual crime scene due to a direct conflict of interest.  This person “discovered” the key lying in plain sight after six previous searches by other individuals failed to spot it.  Here’s the kicker: only Stephen Avery’s DNA is detected on the fob.  This is f*cking IMPOSSIBLE.  Teresa Halbach had that key fob in her possession for years, and it should have been soaked in her DNA in the same way as a wet sponge.  Such an obviously manipulated piece of evidence should never have been judged admissible.

Finally, though he is never interviewed on camera, Stephen Avery’s voice and face is present throughout the series via recordings of phone interviews and trial proceedings.  While he is clearly of average intelligence, I could not detect anything in Avery’s choice of words or manner of speaking that contained the slightest whiff of malevolence.  What little is known about Avery’s childhood is certainly not enough in my opinion to justify the despicable things of which he is repeatedly accused.  Furthermore, even after the majority of Avery’s adult life is destroyed by these unfounded accusations, he never displays any rage nor swears any oaths of vengeance.

Now, left alone to rot in prison for the second time, deemed an indefensible pariah even by pro bono legal organizations, Stephen Avery has taken up his case upon himself.  His assertion of innocence has never wavered, and the news and notoriety generated by the series has raised hope from the ashes again.  But even if Avery is granted a new trail, the process will already have been irrevocably stained by the previous assumptions of guilt.  The muckraking media knows a lurid story when they see one, and refuses to address the contradictions of the case.  The court of public opinion has largely condemned Stephen Avery, having also ignored problematic evidence.  I would wager that were he still alive, Lee Harvey Oswald would sympathize.