Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. At least once in your life, you have heard this phrase. Some may have learned this lesson the hard way during school when their teacher gave them a failing grade on a five-page paper based entirely on false information from a Wikipedia page. For others, it may have been the time they started a heated debate over Facebook on a matter they had Googled 10 seconds prior, only to be embarrassed in front of all 800 of their closest Internet friends once it's discovered they actually had no idea what they were talking about.
Regardless of when or how this lesson was learned, everyone knows that information gathered on the Internet tends to deviate from the truth at times. So for the life of me, I can not understand why people have not drawn the connection between information gathered on the Internet and information gathered on Netflix, after all, the Fortune 500 company is the self-proclaimed "world’s leading Internet television network."
Unless you have been living under a rock, it is likely that you have at least heard of the Netflix original documentary titled "Making a Murderer," telling the story of the Wisconsin man, Steven Avery. The original series has inarguably raised many questions within the Netflix-users community, a company that boasts over 69 million subscribers to their monthly service, as to the legality and the authenticity of the facts and arguments that were posed against Steven Avery in his 2007 murder trial. The trial is depicted as unfair throughout its duration, as many crucial pieces of evidence or timelines within the murder do not add up and all point to Steven not committing the crimes he is accused of.
This all leads up to the series' heart-wrenching conclusion – not only does the man get put away for the rest of his life, but it is the second time that the justice system has failed Avery in his life. The filmmakers were able to captivate this feeling extremely well and it's safe to say that I am not in the minority of people who felt that Avery was wronged after completing the series last week. I binge watched the entire 10-hour storyline in less than six days.
The documentary has done exactly what it was supposed to do, which was to educate and entertain the public on this controversial topic. However, rationale viewers must ask if the documentary supporters have taken the Netflix series too far. All around the Internet, highly opinionated articles and videos have been popping up, outraged about the injustices that the judicial system of Wisconsin has continued to impose on Steven Avery and his family. Viewers have gone as far as to creating a petition directed at the White House, gaining over 140,000 supporters on Change.org, asking President Obama himself to watch the documentary and pardon Avery of his falsified crimes. Inarguably, if you watch the series entirely you probably agree with those 140,000 people, the facts that were used to convict Avery just never seem to add up.
However, upon the series conclusion, I decided to take to the powerful Internet on a quest to decipher the documentary makers story and see if their version of the truth painted the entire picture of the case. Seeing that I, as many people do, enjoy reading and watching the news, I am aware that there is such thing as reporting bias or spinning an argument or piece of writing rhetorically in order to better support an opinion or view the writer may have.
When this happens, writers and reporters have the ability to sway the opinions of their audience one way or another, not by telling lies, but by deciding to admit or remove information from a story that is not in support of their claim. Some call this fraudulent or wrong. I call this reporting, and it is very heavily supported under the First Amendment to the Constitution. Following my research of the case after I concluded the series, I was disturbed but frankly not surprised when I discovered that the filmmakers decided to leave out some vital evidence that pointed for Avery's conviction of the murder. Such as the discovery of Avery’s sweat under the hood of Halbach’s car, the bullet in the garage had been fired from Avery’s rifle or the reported incidents of Avery stalking Halbach at her place of work.
While I myself cannot directly accuse Avery of committing such heinous crimes, as it is hard to imagine any human being able to do such wicked things to another human, viewers must ask themselves if this series on Netflix tells the whole story or if the filmmakers opted to leave out key information in order to create an interesting and controversial story. Based off of this knowledge, is it likely that all of what is shown in the documentary actually happened to Avery? Yes, as the documentary shows it on film and connects the dots for us as we watch the story unfold. However, if individuals begin to question an entire court of law based off of a documentary on the Internet, especially in an era where freedom of press and speech is so highly regarded and the press is protected, then I am unsure why we have a court of law at all.
We should just let a film team follow all court cases, allow the viewers to develop a deeper emotional connection with the characters depicted within the film and base all of our court decisions off of that. Instead of jumping to the conclusion that Avery is innocent, I urge viewers to take a different direction. Viewers must take away from this documentary as to how unorganized our criminal justice system really is. Not that the justice system framed Avery, but the justice system failed him.
Not only in his first trial where he was wrongly accused of rape, but also in his second trial, by the way, evidence was mishandled by the Manitowoc County Sherriff’s Department. This series should also go to show just how easy it would be for anyone to be convicted of a crime they really did not commit under our current criminal justice system.
