I, as most of you, was compelled by the Making a Murderer series on Netflix. The validity of the claims aside for a moment, it was certainly compelling TV, and Netflix deserves all credit for the entertainment value of it.
Also, like you, after watching it, I felt as though Avery and his nephew were wrongly convicted in both instances, not just the initial conviction of Avery we know was wrong.
But I’d ask you all to apply come critical thinking for a second.
Most of you who watched the documentary feel he’s innocent. I’d say a fair estimate is at least 11 out of 12 of you anyway.
Yet, in a court of law, where all the evidence was presented, 12 out of 12 people all came to the opposite conclusion and agreed Avery and his nephew were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not the majority of them, but every single one of them. Such a large disparity cannot be explained away by a simple anomaly.
Clearly, they heard a different story than us Netflix viewers did. This story would be one where the prosecution and the defense presented their cases with equal opportunity.
I’m not saying a jury never gets it wrong, surely they do, and did in fact for his initial conviction. But let’s understand that the jury is made of people just like you and I. So if the majority of us think he’s innocent, yet all of them found him guilty, clearly we’re missing some info that the jury heard.
Here’s a link to some evidence that was left out of the documentary, in my opinion, somewhat shamefully if they intended to be fair. It paints a very different picture of Avery.
Let’s also remember that the car was found on Avery’s property. If Avery is entirely innocent as he claims, and was framed by the police, when they found Halbach’s vehicle, instead of investigating her murder in earnest, they immediately opted instead to use the opportunity to plant the evidence at Avery’s place, hoping that someone would find it. It’s pretty far-fetched.
Either way, let’s explore another possibility that fits with all the evidence, not just the evidence supporting Avery’s innocence.
It is entirely possible that Avery is guilty, but prosecutors and police didn’t have enough evidence to convict him, and thus planted evidence to get that conviction they needed.
If this is true, this means both Avery and Manitowac county are villains.
By all means, it was an entertaining series which in my opinion shows that the Manitowac county government has some serious ethics issues. When libertarians like me try to convince the populace to stop growing government, it’s because government has corruption issues like this throughout. We understand that the only way to lessen government corruption is to lessen the size and scope of government itself.
But let’s not assume Avery is innocent based on a documentary with a clearly biased agenda. While I don’t argue they presented false information, it is obvious they ignored presenting information that paints Avery out in a bad light; specifically all the evidence that led to his ultimate conviction. As well as the evidence that shows he exhibited psychopathic and violent behavior.
Avery being guilty, and Manitowac County being corrupt are not mutually exclusive hypotheses. Keep in the back of your mind that it is entirely possible both are true. Watch the series, find it interesting. Look at other sources and find them interesting as well. But no one should be asserting that they know one or the other is true. Question everything, and enjoy the journey.