‘Making A Murderer’ Creators Say A Juror Who Voted Guilty Only Did So Because He Feared For His Safety
Anyone whose binge watched the wildly popular, 10 episode Netflix series Making a Murderer is likely to err on the side of Steven Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey–who filmmakers Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos make an overwhelming case that the two were framed by means of evidence planting and pathological warfare utilized against intellectually challenged individuals. This is indicative in the 300,000+ signatures on a petition that calls for Steven Avery to be pardoned. BroBible’s own JCamm is surely in that camp, laying out 11 comprehensive case points that suggest Steven Avery was framed for murder.
But there is some speculation as to whether the filmmakers conveniently omitted crucial parts of the prosecution’s case to fit their narrative. Ken Kratz, the former Calumet County district attorney who prosecuted Avery, claims that Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos left out damning evidence and denied his request for an interview back in 2013–allegations which Ricciardi and Demos denied, even going so far to question Kratz’s character after the sexting scandal brought forth in the series’ finale.
The argument on whether the case was presented fairly to the viewers or skewed to generate maximum outrage can only be answered by one without bias and whose heard the gamut of evidence presented by both sides. And while impartiality seems tough to come by in this case, a juror is likely the most reliable option.
Filmmakers Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos appeared on The Today Show to reveal a “big announcement” from a juror regarding the murder conviction of Steven Avery. Check it out below.
“We were contacted by one of the jurors who sat through Steven Avery’s trial, and shared with us their thoughts. They told us, they believe Steven Avery was not proven guilty. They believe that Steven was framed by law enforcement and that he deserves a new trial. And if he receives a new trial, in their opinion, it should take place far away from Wisconsin.”
If you deduced that this person voted ‘not guilty,’ you’d be so very wrong.
“Obviously we asked this person, ‘Explain what happened. Why did you cast your vote for guilty?’ What they told us was that they feared for their personal safety.”
The water keeps getting muddier.