Police Officers and Police

¶ … Murderer-Season 1, Episode

This episode focuses on the complexities of the investigation of Avery, given that he had a civil suit against the county that was investigating him for the murder of Halbach. As a result, as officers were gathering evidence, they were under the supervision of an outside police force. The outside officers testified that the investigation was carried out under acceptable protocols although when incriminating evidence was found it was when they were not present in the room. There is always a concern when fellow police officers are required to supervise one another's conduct, given the natural professional loyalty which exists between men and women in blue, regardless of the county in which they serve, so there are immediately concerns raised in the viewer's mind about the ethics of the investigation, despite testimony from the officers involved that they were not influenced by their awareness of the civil case. Yet not only was the investigating police force the same county the same one which was being sued by Avery; many of the officers were the same ones whose suspect conduct put him in prison.

Although Making a Murder is such a compelling narrative on an individual basis in terms of Avery's own story, this episode highlights the problems with policing the police. While the vast majority of police officers are ethical, when improprieties do occur, it can be difficult to gather evidence against police officers and to prove wrongdoing. The manner in which Halbach's keys were discovered seems extremely questionable. However, the episode also showcases the debate regarding the possibility that blood was planted as part of the investigation, which the prosecution's FBI experts deny is a possibility due to the absence of the chemicals needed to stabilize blood in test tubes as evidence, a major problem for the defense.

Making a Murderer-Season 1, Episode 8

Episode 8 highlights the difficulty of the jury's task in contrasting the defense and prosecution's evidence. The defense articulated a clear alternative chain of events, stressing the motivation of the police to plant evidence. The defense was not able to suggest a potential alternative chain of events to explain the murder. Even if the police may have acted inappropriately, it is not clear who else would have wanted the victim dead or how they might have killed her. In contrast, the prosecution had the weight of evidence behind it as well as expert witness testimony from the FBI defending the idea that one of the most incriminating parts of the evidence against Avery could not have been planted. The jury deliberated for a long period of time and one substitution was required after a family emergency. Initially, the majority of the jury was leaning towards Avery's innocence but ultimately the decision went against him.

This suggests that there was a very spirited debate within the jury room. Of course, the viewer cannot know what points turned the jury against Avery in the end or if the switch of jurors was significant. Perhaps the alternative juror was highly persuasive in turning the seven who were initially in favor of an acquittal against Avery. Trial by jury is an extremely subjective process and the Avery case was complex and ambiguous (otherwise it would not have attracted the attention of documentary filmmakers in the first place). The importance of the jury system is highlighted in this episode, and also how a few individuals can make a material difference in the outcome, depending on how deliberations evolve. The episode also refuses to take a definitive side on Avery's guilt or innocence, again highlighting the challenges of the jury's job.

Making a Murderer-Season 1, Episode 9

Episode 9 switches focus to profile the trial of Brendan Dassey, Avery's learning-impaired nephew. Unlike his uncle, there were far more strikes against Dassey even before the trial began. Firstly, Dassey could not afford the best defense attorneys and had to make do with court-appointed representation. Avery used the money he obtained through his settlement with the state to fund his defense. Dassey's attorneys in court did point out that despite his confession, Dassey seemed unable to understand what was going on as the police used highly coercive techniques and may have simply been saying what he thought they wanted him to say. His first court-appointed attorney did little to act as an advocate for his client. There was also no physical evidence linking Dassey to the murder. Further complicating the defense's case was the fact that Dassey's cousin said that he also confessed to her although she later said that she herself made up the stories and that Dassey never admitted anything to her.

The viewer is forced to entertain a variety of possibilities in this episode, just as in the case of the Avery trial. On one hand, it is possible that Dassey was guilty just like the prosecution had stated. On the other hand, it is possible that Dassey was innocent and because of his low IQ and emotional vulnerability was pressured to confess. Even if his uncle was guilty, however, given Dassey's intelligence, young age, and lack of motive, serious questions arise as to the extent to which Dassey understood what he was confessing to or his legal rights. Regardless of his guilt or innocence, the police may have exploited his innate vulnerabilities to build their case against Avery. Special care must always be taken to ensure that even vulnerable populations such as the mentally ill or mentally deficient receive fair trials.

Making a Murderer-Season 1, Episode 10

Ultimately, despite his efforts, Avery's appeal was turned down by the state's Supreme Court. According to Episode 10, he continues to proclaim his innocence and research his case, hoping to expose the unjust actions of the prosecutors and win his freedom. Because of the irregularities with Brendan Dassey's case and the fact that his confession was obtained when his original attorney Len Kachinsky was not present, his case generated more interest. Kachinsky's loyalty to his client seemed suspect in general, yet despite the advocacy of an attorney who specializes in defending victims of coerced confessions Dassey's appeal was still rejected.