Making a Murderer Controversy

Making a Murderer EPs on Omitting Evidence: It Wasn't 'Significant'

The team behind Netflix’s Making a Murderer is responding to criticism that they left out key information in an effort to preserve the narrative that Steven Avery was framed.

“We’re documentary filmmakers, we’re not prosecutors. We’re not defense attorneys,” executive producer/director Laura Ricciardi said Sunday at the Television Critics Association winter press tour in Pasadena. “We did not set out to convict or exonerate anyone. We set out to examine the justice system and how it’s functioning today.”

Ricciardi admitted that, “of course, we left out evidence” because “there would have been no other way” to complete the project.

“It just would have been impossible for us to include every piece of evidence that was submitted to the court or attempted to be submitted to the court,” Ricciardi explained. “So we took our cues from the prosecution, what they thought was the most compelling evidence, that’s what we included.”

“We were not putting on a trial, but a film,” she continued. “Of what was omitted, was that really significant? The answer is no.”

In the four weeks since the documentary’s debut, “we’ve had several telephone conversations with Stephen Avery,” Ricciardi revealed. “We did record those calls with an eye towards including them in future episodes should there be any future episodes.”

Added executive producer/director Moira Demos on a potential continuation: “This story is ongoing. These cases are open. But it’s real life. You don’t know what’s going to happen. If there are significant developments, we will be there.” (Netflix Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos hinted earlier on Sunday that Season 2 is a possibility.)

As for whether Avery has seen the program that has made him a national talking point, “Steven does not have access to the series,” Ricciardi said. “He asked the warden and his social worker if he would be able to see it, and his request was denied. When we spoke to him recently, his focus was mainly on his case,” which included representing himself on an appeal to a motion he lost.

Comments are monitored, so don’t go off topic, don’t frakkin’ curse and don’t bore us with how much your coworker’s sister-in-law makes per hour. Talk smart about TV!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. The stuff they omitted was all the stuff that got the guy convicted. So of course it’s important to this biased idiots.

    • Agreed. It was a very well-made documentary exhaustively made over a very long period of time, but it makes Avery seem like a patsy when the evidence that convicted him is damning. He once set a cat on fire. He called the victim three times the day she disappeared, dialing *67 to hide his identity. He bought handcuffs and leg irons that the defense claimed he used with his girlfriend consensually. The police and prosecution are still dirty and corrupt, but his innocence was presented as a foregone conclusion.

    • Gina says:

      I am one of the idiots who believes that he was convicted with flimsy and planted evidence. So please, enlighten me on what else the jury was told that we weren’t told in the doc.

      That said, I can’t say with 100% certainty that Avery didn’t do it, but there was SO MUCH reasonable doubt that I can’t wrap my head around him being found guilty.

      • He bought leg irons and handcuffs, but said he wanted to try something new with Jodie. He called the victim 3 times the day she disappeared. The first 2 times he used *67 to hide it was him, the third time he called was around 4:30 and he left a message to ask why she hadn’t shown up (eye witnesses put Teresa at the property an hour or 2 before the call and later Stephen told police he saw her and took a magazine and the bill of sale). He had called Auto Trader and specifically requested Teresa. Coworkers testified that Teresa did not want to work with Stephen because of other encounters that she found him creepy (he answered the door in nothing but a towel for one thing). All of the items form Teresa’s purse were found in the burn barrel. The bones at the gravel pit were never identified as Teresa’s. Stephen repeatedly told his former cellmates during his first incarceration that he planned to have a torture chamber to rape and torture women and even drew detailed plans of it. Also Brendan’s confession had a LOT more detailed information than we saw in the docuseries. These are just some of the things.

        • HQ says:

          I have looked into this so called significant omitted evidence and personally I don’t find it as convincing as what they included. Yes, he bought the leg irons, etc. but they found no dna evidence on them. Nor, was there any evidence on the bed indicating that she had been restrained to match Brendan’s story. If she had been restrained, you don’t think there would have been dna evidence from her resisting on them? There should have been scratches on the bed too. I just don’t buy this as that incriminating. Yes, he called her three times that day but they were doing business together so he had a legitimate reason. Who cares if he hid his number? That doesn’t automatically mean he was stalking her. Her coworkers testified that she reported the towel incident and she said she thought he was creepy but you have to remember he is a very low iq individual. Have you never been around someone like that? They like routines. They aren’t shy about thinking and saying someone is pretty and not behaving in a necessarily socially acceptable way about it. It doesn’t make them a murderer or a stalker. He liked her and probably thought she was pretty. He liked working with her. None of that makes him a killer. She also told her coworker that someone was harassing her but she wouldn’t say who. She told them about Steven so this makes it sound like it is different people. My money is on the ex boyfriend. Yes her personal items were found in the burn barrel but there is no concrete evidence to support that being significant. They could have been planted like other evidence. Finally, you realize the people who gave the statements about Steven talking in prison are convicted criminals that will say almost anything to try to get out of jail? I find their statements less trustworthy than the sheriffs department and that is saying something.

          The sad part is we will never really know what happened because of the police department’s complete incompetence, the whole thing is compromised. If they had fully investigated and followed the evidence instead of following Steven then we might know more. Steven may be guilty but as stated before, this isn’t about him being innocent. You are supposed to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and because of the police work, there is all kinds of doubt. Complete failure of our justice system and should be disturbing to every single American.

  2. Maureen Mccullagh says:

    I think Netflix have done a really good job in reporting this documentary. I truely think he is innocent and they have manipulated a young boy with learning disabilities to twist the evidence. They would rather destroy the whole family to save face before bringing the guilty to justice…All because they do not want to admit they were wrong and do not want to pay any compensation to the victims of injustice…. End of……

  3. TDXI says:

    “Ricciardi admitted that, “of course, we left out evidence” because “there would have been no other way” to complete the project.” < < So NOT a very accurate Documentary then.

  4. Hedy S. says:

    GINA, I am with you!