Some of you may remember the Netflix series, Making a Murderer. It was about a man named Steve Avery, who spent 18 years in prison for a rape he didn’t commit, and while suing for $36 million for the shoddy police work on the case, was charged & convicted of a separate murder, along with his mentally slow 16-year old nephew, Brendan Dassey. The series delved into the abhorrent actions of police and the justice system in both cases.
The series especially drew my attention because all of this occurred less than 45 minutes from where I live. Since we are in a low crime area with very few murder or rape cases, and given the incredible nature of the cases themselves, there was massive local attention at the time they occurred. For two years it seemed every time I turned on the local news there was some kind of Avery update. I don’t remember coming across a single person who believed Avery and Dassey were innocent. In fact, most people questioned whether Avery was truly innocent in the first case, despite DNA indisputably linking the rape to another man. So, why would Netflix need a whole series on the cases?
To say the series was eye opening was an understatement, not just because of the unbelievable actions of our justice system, but because I hadn’t heard 95 percent of the material presented. In two years of local news reports and resident discussions, I had heard hardly any of the information in the documentary. And it wasn’t dramatized fiction; it emphasized actual court & police interview footage, as well as interviews of parties involved. While I’m still not 100 percent convinced Avery is innocent of murder, there is ZERO chance the case unfolded according to the narrative presented by prosecutors and the media.
Was the series biased?…definitely! Did it leave out key pieces of information?…without a doubt. Does that mean if you want to learn about the case that you shouldn’t watch it?..abso-f*cking-lutely you should watch it! This is where I get a lot of disagreement. To this day, I know people who REFUSE to watch the series. “Avery is guilty, end of story!!!” Their rationale is that it’s a biased portrayal that only tells one side of the story. My response is OK, yes it is, but GET THAT SIDE OF THE STORY! How can you properly judge this or any other case if you only hear one side filterd through the media, which in and of itself, only provides biased information? The series showed many indisputable, easily-verifiable facts that, again, I’d never heard a single time. Imagine going into ANY court case and only hearing the defense side, or only the plantiff side. We’d inevitably reach whatever conclusion that side wanted us to.
It’s the main reason CNN/MSNBC watchers are mainly Democrats, while Fox News watchers are mainly Republicans. Plus, we have the human weakness of confirmation bias, drawing us to seek out information that agrees with our current beliefs. We become so fixed in our thinking that we close ourselves from other perspectives, especially when emotionally-charged issues are involved. As with the Avery case, years of drip-drip media programming can get you to discount even the possibility an official story is inaccurate. Think about all the stories where the “conspiracy theory” label has been tossed out so often that you never even look into why these theories take hold—think Covid bioweapon, CIA-linked JFK assassination, inside job Jan 6th, Israel-directed Charlie Kirk hit, inside job on 9/11. I’m not saying I believe all these conspiracy theories, but I’m betting you rolled your eyes at at least one of them. Many Americans would roll their eyes at the mention of any of them.
How many of these or other so-called conspiracy theories have you really looked into? Have you watched the movie JFK, the documentary Loose Change, or the profile Thank You, Dr. Fauci? Have you heard Candace Owen‘s discussion of the Charlie Kirk assassination? Or have you ridiculed these obviously-biased sources, and just concluded you know the real story and there’s nothing more to be learned? Or, alternatively, have you just sought out your favorite media sources to confirm your existing beliefs?
Hearing other perspectives doesn’t necessarily have to change your mind. Maybe you become more convinced the conspiracy theorists are crazy. Or maybe you take some middle position. For example, it’s well accepted that Covid originated from a biolab in Wuhan. Some believe that the research had good intentions but was a simple leak mishap. Some believe bioweapons were being developed. Some believe the virus was intentionally released to sell vaccines and get Trump out of office. Maybe you conclude certain parts are indeed too far-fetched to be realistic. Who knows until you do some research? And yes, we all know there’s a ton of fake info on the web, which is why sourcing & verification are important, as well as your own critical thinking skills.
We’ve all witnessed the egregious actions of governments around the world the past five years. So, the next time you roll your eyes to dismiss some seemingly far-fetched percpective, think, “Have I really looked into this and come to an intelligent, independent conclusion?” or are you simply going along with the official story you’ve been programmed to accept without question?
I sat on a jury for an attempted murder trial. When the prosecution had completed their arguments, I suspect that all of us were pretty convinced that the case was solid and the defendant was guilty (though nobody discussed it as instructed). Then the defense presented their side. Not only did they have proof that the “victim” had perjured himself on the stand as to his whereabouts in the hours just before the alleged stabbing, but the shirt that should have had the knife hole in it was “missing,”, and the relationship between the two was not only once good, but had been destroyed by two she-devil women in their lives who fostered the mutual hatred leading up to the accusations of attempted murder. In the end, we did not convict the defendant on ANY charges including all the “lesser implied” charges like battery, assault, etc. as it was obvious that the facts presented by the prosecution could not stand up to the defense’s evidence. Indeed, it is ALWAYS critical to hear both sides…keeping in mind of course potential bias, whether there is truth in the arguments, logic, etc.
Great post.
Interesting…thanks for sharing.
Every time I have been selected for a jury my answer to “ could you make a decision to convict “ I answered No when questioned I stated I do not believe I was getting the Truth and could not make a decision under such circumstances. I’ve never been picked for jury
Always important to get both sides! My daughter will call me about a disagreement between her husband and herself. One day she said I don’t know why I call you you always take his side. I said I don’t take his side I want you to look at it from his point of view that’s all. That’s a principal that goes beyond politics it’s something that should be a part of life and unfortunately doesn’t happen as often as it should in a “ME” society.
For a long time my wife was hooked on all the true crime shows. You’d hear testimony and first hand accounts from various people associated with the crime and think “holy shit that was bad” and “how was that allowed to go on so long?” And I’d always remind my wife that we were only hearing one side of the case, and even that was selectively edited. And those shows always ended with the little blurb “we attempted to contact the other party and they refused to talk to us”. So yeah, both sides.
That said, when 90% of the opposing argument is just them calling us racist and facist, I really don’t feel the need to listen to the remaining 10% of their argument. Or when the “elder protocols of zion” come up either. Pretty much stop reading whatever at that point.