Let's be honest: "Making a Murderer" just wasn't very good

Another beef I have with the series is how it was constructed. The interviews with Avery and his family members often weren’t dated, making the timeline of events somewhat muddled. Without a narrator to the story, it’s presented from a third-person omniscient point of view, meaning that it feels like you’re an outside observer who gets to look down upon everything and know all. This is a bit misleading, as the biases of the filmmakers Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi have definitely influenced the film’s production. The two have spent the past 10 years documenting the case, even relocating to Wisconsin for two years, during which they developed relationships with the Avery family.

Advertisement

Unlike the podcast “Serial,” which feels more genuine in its efforts to present an unbiased account of a convicted killer who may actually be innocent, “Making a Murderer” feels like it’s intentionally hiding information. The podcast’s narrator, Sarah Koenig, reveals her own biases in order to help listeners discern which parts of the story she may have more heavily influenced. Viewers don’t get this kind of honesty from the Netflix series.

The show also left out key pieces of damning evidence against Avery, like how he intentionally set fire to a cat by pouring gasoline on it and throwing it into a bonfire (a fact that the series does its best to portray as an accident). He was also reportedly obsessed with the victim, using *67 to block his number when he called her several times the day she went missing and specifically requesting for her at work in the months leading up to her disappearance. Her phone and organizer were also found on his property.

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement