Making a Murderer lawyers fire back at Ken Kratz's criticism of documentary
Netflix's docuseries Making a Murderer spent 10 episodes unveiling the flaws in the United States judiciary system by examining the case and trial of murder suspect Steven Avery.
It quickly became a huge obsession as viewers binge-watched the documentary over the holidays and caused enough outrage that the White House was forced to respond to a petition signed by more than 100,000 citizens requesting the pardon of Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey.
Of course, not everyone is Team Avery. Ken Kratz — along with some Internet sleuths — have spoken out against Making a Murderer, saying it's blatantly biased. Kratz, who prosecuted Avery for the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach, claims important evidence that proves Avery's guilt was left out of the Netflix series.
But now Dean Strang and Jerry Buting, Avery's defense lawyers in the Halbach trial, are firing back at critics and saying the evidence left out of the docuseries still doesn't make Avery guilty. According to Strang and Buting, the supposedly incriminating evidence — specifically DNA found under the hood of Halbach's car and the fact that Avery called Halbach three times on the day she went missing — isn't really all that damning.
"The state is now trying to make a lot of these pieces that weren't in the movie more sinister than they really were," Buting said in an interview with CBS This Morning on Friday.
"With regard to this for instance, also left out was the fact that he called and made an appointment to the office," Buting said of Avery calling Halbach's phone. "If he had her cellphone number and was trying to lure her, why would you call the office and create a paper trail? You would just call her directly, and no one would ever know that he'd come here. Instead, he goes to the office."
And as for the DNA under the hood of Halbach's car?
"First of all, the prosecutor has said that 'sweat DNA' is found on the hood, and there's no such thing as 'sweat DNA' or 'perspiration DNA.' It's just DNA. Where it comes from, they can't tell," Buting said.
"It's transferred from something that may or may not have been him," Strang added.
Strang also hinted that the prosecution's claims of Making a Murderer's bias are a sign they aren't so confident in the conviction of Avery after all.
"The movie gives a very lavish, three hours-plus to one trial (that) went over 200 hours," Strang said. "If the prosecutor and the police are really secure in the convictions they obtained, I'd wonder why they sounded so insecure about a movie that necessarily couldn't run 200 hours."