By now, chances are if you're a Netflix subscriber you have already streamed the original series Making a Murderer that was released on Dec. 18, 2015. And if you are a true crime addict and haven't done so yet, add it to your queue immediately. That's because it's one of the most perplexing murder mystery stories that will make you question the innocence and guilt of a man, while also raising doubts about the justice system.
Like any good story, there are twists, shocking revelations and murder.
The documentary series follows the story of Steven A. Avery, who was wrongfully accused of raping a woman named Penny Beernsten on a beach on Lake Michigan in 1985, and went on to serve 18 years in prison before DNA evidence exonerated him. And just when you think Avery has cleared his name, the plot thickens.
Created by Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos and filmed over a 10-year span, the series then follows Avery's story as he files a $36 million lawsuit against the Manitowoc County Police Department, only to later be arrested and convicted of murdering photographer Teresa Halbach.
However, Avery believes that the case is a witch hunt against him orchestrated by Manitowoc County after evidence surfaces in the days following a search on the Avery property — evidence found by the very same officers who were ordered not to work on the case due to a conflict of interest.
Avery's nephew Brendan Dassey, who was 16 at the time, was also arrested in the murder after the boy seemingly is coerced into making multiple false confessions that reveal his role in the rape and murder of Halbach, as well as further confirming his uncle's guilt.
While the doc-series goes to great lengths to provide all the facts of the case, including video tapes and recorded phone calls from Avery and Dassey from prison, once the season concludes, there are still unanswered questions.
Here are questions still remaining after streaming Making a Murderer.
1. Why was the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department allowed to play a vital role in proving Avery had committed a crime?
It's clear that Manitowoc County dropped the ball early on in terms of the investigation linking Avery to the 1985 assault. And the blame can be put on multiple members of law enforcement, including Deputy Judy Dvork, Deputy Sheriff Gene Kuche, Lieutenant James Lenk and Sergeant Andrew Colborn.
Because of their missteps, which all came to light during the lawsuit, the judge ordered that the county should not play a role in the murder case. In fact, this was the main point of the lawsuit. However, that didn't stop Lenk from volunteering to be one of the searchers on Avery's residence with Colborn without reporting that they were not supposed to be involved.
It was Lenk who found Halbach's car key three days after the search began, and interestingly enough, Colborn did not mention the key in his official report. Why was this evidence used when Manitowoc County wasn't allowed to search the house? Then in terms of the car, the main piece of evidence, a log, shows Lenk signing out, but never signing in. He then had conflicting testimonies under oath to what time he arrived on the scene.
The public was informed that the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department wasn't involved, but they were four months into investigation. While the defense could not prove allegations that Lenk or Colborn planted evidence, the viewer is left wondering if this could be true since they had plenty of opportunities to do so. Had they not been so involved, would these pieces of evidence have ever come to light?
2. Was Steven Avery really framed for murder?
This is up to the viewer to decide. While the docu-series alludes to this, Manitowoc County Sheriff Robert Hermann recently told The Wrap that he is "not pleased with" the series and believes there are parts where the filmmakers seem to have "cut the tape and manipulated things."
Avery's lawyers Dean Stang and Jerry Buting argue that the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department framed Avery, which would make sense if it were retaliation for the lawsuit. It didn't help that Avery had a criminal past besides the wrongful conviction, so putting him behind bars in such a high-profile case would make them look better after previously wrongfully accusing him of sexual assault.
3. Who killed Teresa Halbach, and how did it really happen?
While Avery's blood was found in Halbach's car, which was parked on his property, the key was found in his room, and her remains were found in the fire pit, all things that point to Avery, little is truly known about how exactly Halbach really died.
Interestingly enough, Avery's DNA was the only DNA found on the key. One would assume that Halbach's DNA would be present since it was hers. Then there's this whole argument over planting Avery's blood in the car since the seal on the evidence containing the blood vial from his previous conviction was opened, and it appeared to have a small hole on the top of the tube.
Avery recently filed legal documents that claim his brothers Earl and Charles may have committed the crime. Both have a history of sexually assaulting women, with three woman reporting that Charles allegedly harassed them within a month of Halbach's disappearance.
4. Was Brendan Dassey there during the murder, and did he really help?
Brendan's case is heartbreaking to watch, as the viewer clearly sees a young man with a low intellect break under pressure to make multiple confessions. But even if he was truly guilty, all his confessions offer conflicting statements of what really went down. Dassey's confessions seem to be a guessing game, with him telling investigators exactly what they want to hear. He was even told what to draw in his pictures describing the crime.
During his first confession, he tells his mom the investigators "got to [his] head," and ultimately there is no physical evidence of him ever being there during the murder. Even still, he is convicted based on his confession, and is currently serving life in prison with a possibility of early release in 2048.
5. Is Len Kachinsky still practicing?
Len Kachinsky was Dassey's first attorney, and appears to have not really had his client's best interest in mind. He spoke to reporters alluding to the teen's guilt, and failed to stand by him when the teen asserted his innocence. He also failed to be present during Dassey's interrogations, and urged him to accept a plea deal. He also hired investigator Michael O'Kelly to further get a solid confession. This type of cooperation between defense and prosecution that the series explores is not unheard of, as the two worked together to prove Avery was guilty while at the same time damaging Dassey's chances.
The Wisconsin Bar Association still has Kachinsky listed as a practicing lawyer. Dassey's current lawyers filed a federal habeas petition last year that claims Dassey should have a retrial since Kachinsky violated Dassey's rights.
6. Will Avery ever get a new trial?
Although it seems like a very small chance Avery will ever get a new trial, new evidence would grant the now 53-year-old this wish. That means anyone with information about the murder coming forward could also bring the case back in front of a judge. If a juror came forward to reveal that they had been compromised, this would also grant a new trial. And in another twist, this is exactly what the filmmakers said happened.
Those who watched the series may remember the comments made by the excused juror Richard Mahler, who said there were three jurors who where stubborn and weren't participating. He said he felt there were some biased jurors, which made him discouraged.
In a recent interview on NBC's Today show, Ricciardi and Demos said that one of the jurors who served on the trial came forward to say the verdicts were "a compromise."
"That was the actual word the juror used and went on to describe the jurors ultimately trading votes in the jury room and explicitly discussing, 'If you vote guilty on this count, I will vote not guilty on this count,' " Ricciardi said.
Even still, it looks as though Avery's conviction will stand and he will continue to serve his life sentence in jail without possibility of early release.
Whether or not you believe Avery's innocence, one major question from this docu-series still remains: can we really trust our justice system?
