I think the genius of this documentary lies in the director's narrative technique. There are several episodes in the middle where the story unfolds like this: at the beginning of the narrative, the evidence from the prosecution is shown, so that the audience thinks why Steven is so bloody and ruthless, he must be a murderer; Then, the defense came on stage, dismissed the evidence of the prosecution one by one, and the story was reversed; at the end of the film, throw out some strong materials from the defense to exaggerate conspiracy theories, or give an unhappy ending to make the audience feel emotional I want to keep watching. Don't comment too much on whether Steven Avery is really a murderer. Because the documentary does not show all the conviction evidence, it only highlights the suspicious points of the case discovered by the defense lawyers. I think so much of the public grievances are mostly because the doubts in these cases are so bizarre, and before these doubts were fully explained, Steven was sentenced to life in prison, and both appeals were dismissed. The matter of public opinion was actually discussed in the documentary. When Steven Avery was arrested twice, the public opinion was actually one-sided that Steven was inferior to a beast, a pig or a dog; when Steven was first vindicated, the public media turned to Steven again; defense lawyers believed that the jury One of the main reasons for finding steven guilty is that the jury members have accepted the public media's verdict of steven before the innocence plea, and the ingrained mainstream opinion has created their prejudice against steven. Therefore, the change of public opinion is not necessarily correct, but it is very scary. I still remember that steven's parents received an anonymous letter saying that the avery family should burn in hell. Therefore, it is hoped that the popularity of this documentary will play a role in retrial of the Steven case, release some doubts about the case that have not been fully explained by solid evidence explanations, and cause the people and the government to think and improve the judicial system and system, rather than Swinging public opinion to force the government to acquit Steven. After all, there are still doubts and undiscovered evidence. It is a bit rash and reckless to determine Steven's innocence now.
PS: I really admire Steven's defense lawyer when he was in prison for the second time. He was so good at opposing the state government, and he dug deep into the evidence and the arguments were brilliant. I really hope that more debates like this appear in China. In fact, in the trial of the Kuaishang case that was hotly hyped a while ago, many of the defenses that were considered wonderful, I felt a little messed up (just represent my personal opinion).
PPS: I heard that the prosecution's lawyer has been scolded as a dog, and has even been PS into various spoof memes. I actually have a little sympathy for him, we can morally condemn him for the sex texting incident after that, but in steven's case, maybe he's just done what he's supposed to do: be a good prosecution attorney. Maybe the police really framed this thing, then we should really strongly condemn the person who made the plan and the person who acted, instead of blaming a spokesperson too much. Of course, if the prosecution's lawyers knew that there was evidence to prove Steven's innocence and chose to conceal it, then I believe there must be a corresponding procedure to punish him.
PPPS: I heard that the defense has found some new evidence to prove Steven's innocence, and we are continuing to pay attention.
View more about
Making a Murderer reviews
