Once Making A Murderer was unleashed upon the world, all it took was a Netflix subscription to immediately earn a law degree and be able to make accurate judgments in a court of law. To many viewers' surprise, there was much more going on in the trial of Steven Avery than a 10-hour documentary would lead you to believe, causing one of the prosecutor's involved in the trial to state that he has a better grasp on the situation that people who watched a TV show.
In 2005, Teresa Halbach was murdered and Steven Avery was charged for the crime, despite there being some doubts about hit guilt. Making a Murderer explored the possibility that Avery was not only innocent, but was framed for the crime by local law enforcement. One of the prosecutors of the case, Ken Kratz, was portrayed as a villain for his persistence in seeking to send Avery to prison, but in a new book, Kratz divulges details about the case that the TV series got wrong.
Following the broadcast of the series, Kratz received 4,000 death threats, lost his law firm, and received exploding packages, according to his new book "Avery: The Case Against Steven Avery and What 'Making a Murderer' Gets Wrong."
Kratz said it was time to "stand up" for the conviction, for the victim, and for the police officers blamed for framing Avery, when speaking to the Daily Mail.
He explained, "Making A Murderer is a very good piece of entertainment but it's not really what happened - it's simply not how the case happened in real life." He added, "The filmmakers have distorted and misrepresented the case - this isn't what the jury got to see or hear when they decided Mr. Avery was guilty."
Understandably, Kratz wasn't happy with his representation. "When the filmmakers came out with Making A Murderer it was so clearly not only biased but distorted in the sense that the public worldwide were being told certain facts existed or there wasn't evidence to convict him and evidence they did have was somehow shady or sketchy - that just simply wasn't true," he claimed.
One of his biggest issues with the series is that the filmmakers used editing techniques to misrepresent the way specific situations actually played out, combining reactions from one setting to questions from another.
Kratz noted, "The filmmakers did a lot of things like omit things, shuffle things around or only tell you things that support their narrative but when a filmmaker is willing to show trial testimony and tell viewers: 'This is what happened, this is what the jury got to see' and then afterwards you find out it's not - it's unforgivable."
Those familiar with these series might remember controversy surrounding a vial of Avery's blood that seemed to mysteriously have a hole in it, implying someone took the blood to plant somewhere, something Kratz took issue with, since key information was withheld from the series.
"The filmmakers," Kratz reveals, "knew at the time of the trial that this theory wasn't true because the defense team abandoned it - it turned out a nurse put that hole in the vial when she took the blood from Avery and she gave a sworn statement saying that."
These are but a few examples that Kratz objected to, with his book diving even deeper into the investigation in hopes of enlightening readers.
MORE NEWS: 'Making A Murderer' Fans Discover Evidence That May Prove Steven Avery's Innocence / New Vital Details Emerge With Brendan Dassey / 'Making A Murderer' Convict Steven Avery Breaks It Off With New Fiance
[H/T Daily Mail]