Warning: This article contains spoilers about 'Making A Murderer'
The Netflix original show "Making a Murderer" has become a national obsession—a riveting, visually stunning masterpiece of documentary film-making — since being released on December 18th, 2015. The documentary is about a man named Steven Avery who is from Manitowoc Country, Wisconsin and was convicted in 1985 for a rape and then pardoned in 2003 after a DNA test and testimony that local police ignored evidence that could have helped him prove his innocence much sooner. A few weeks later Steven sued the county for 36 million dollars for wrongful imprisonment he was arrested for the murder of a photographer named Teresa Halbach.
The Netflix series that covers this phenomenon has one of the more slanted, one-sided pieces of storytelling in recent memory, establishing its narrative that an innocent man was twice framed within the first two minutes of the series. There are many arguments presented in the show that help sway viewers toward the idea that Steven could be innocent. Arguments like a vial of Steven’s blood being tampered with that was in police evidence, law enforcement officials having possible grudge against Steven, and the lack of blood from the victim found on the premises.
"We knew he was innocent," his mother tells viewers. "We knew he was innocent."
"Law enforcement despised Steven Avery," adds one of Avery's attorneys. "Steven Avery was a shining example of their inadequacies, their misconduct."
WISN's Dan O'Donnell originally covered the Steven Avery trial as a news anchor and reporter and is releasing a 10-part podcast series rebutting many of the claims made by the Netflix show along with presenting other facts as to why he thinks Steven did it. You can hear Episode 1 for free below.
Dan O’Donnell is a non-practicing lawyer and radio journalist at WISN, iHeartMedia’s News/Talk station in Wisconsin, who has a unique perspective on the case. Dan was assigned to cover Avery from his release in 2003 through his (and his nephew's) conviction in 2007. While he doesn’t make much of an appearance in the documentary, “Making a Murderer” has had a profound impact on Dan - particularly, due to its bias. And so, Dan is doing what any lawyer would do in the courtroom - rebut the case presented in the Netflix documentary.