As new crimes are happening every day all over the U.S., there are a lot of people mentally focused on one that’s over a decade old, and it’s all thanks to Netflix’s absolutely engrossing docuseries Making a Murderer. Ever since its premiere last month, the series has made headlines all over the place, both in support of its harsh view of the criminal justice system, and in defense of that same system. Now, new claims have surfaced from one of the jurors in Steven Avery’s trial that enforce the doc’s general presumption that Avery was framed for everything.
The juror, whose identity is obviously being kept under wraps, got in touch with Making a Murderer’s creators Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos, and the duo made the announcement this morning on NBC’s Today.
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.
That’s about as damning as it gets, and seems to support a large part of the defense’s angling during Avery’s trial. A lot of attention was given to the officers involved with the case, particularly those from Avery’s own Manitowoc County that weren’t supposed to have anything to do with the investigation, and the possibility that evidence was planted and tampered with by those seeking revenge against Avery for making the cops look bad after his initial wrongful conviction and subsequent lawsuit.
The biggest question that spawns from this claim obviously centers on why that juror would have put in a guilty vote, and the filmmakers say it was an issue of personal safety for the juror. According to the Today segment, the juror was under duress during the deliberation, and the claim was also made that “trading votes” occurred, where jurors agreed to vote one way on a specific charge and another way for another charge. It makes my head hurt to think that this was supposed to be a jury of his “peers.”
It’s also not the only time a juror came forward to talk about what went on in there. Richard Mahler, who was excused from jury duties after a family emergency, spoke with the filmmakers on the series itself about how horrible he feels that Avery got a guilty verdict, saying that there were initially more jurors that believed he was innocent than the other way around. Not much can be done about that now, but many viewers are trying to get some other conclusion in motion, whether it be a pardon or a new trial in a different location, while the much maligned former prosecutor Ken Kratz is baffled that people are being so swayed by what he says is a biased documentary.
Back when Netflix first announced that Making a Murderer was coming, I assumed it would be as thrilling as any of the streaming service’s other series, but I never could have guessed that it would take the nation by storm in such a big way. How do you guys feel about this new information, if it is indeed legitimate?
