Convicting a Murderer

What sets this sequel apart is its commitment to presenting a balanced perspective. While "Making a Murderer" focused on the defense's perspective, "Convicting a Murderer" invites viewers to consider the opposing viewpoint, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the case. This balanced approach challenges preconceived notions and leaves viewers with a more nuanced perspective on the intricacies of the justice system.

In this sequel, the filmmakers maintain their meticulous attention to detail, offering a wealth of new information and insights that will keep true crime enthusiasts and legal aficionados alike on the edge of their seats. "Convicting a Murderer" is not just a sequel; it's a compelling continuation of the "Making a Murderer" saga that adds depth and complexity to an already riveting story.

The series is meticulously made, with great attention to detail, comprehensive interviews, and never-before-seen audio and video clips and court documents that belie the claims of Steven Avery and insinuations of the 'Making A Murderer' filmmakers, that Avery is innocent and that the police enforcement is corrupt. Candace Owens is a force in this film. They showed both sides of the argument and provided the facts that the Netflix film intentionally left out.

This film also shows the truth of the power of media to affect people's minds and lives, particularly for evil. It also shows how it's easy to fool people, and how difficult it is to convince them that they were fooled.

If you were one of the many millions who watched Making a Murderer (MaM) back in 2015 and became interested in the Avery case, then you owe it to yourself to take a look at Convicting a Murderer (CaM) and compare the two before reaching any conclusions.

For me, after watching CaM, it would seem that the producers of MaM have some serious questions to answer. The Manitowoc Police Department are right to be angry for their deliberate misrepresentations in the Avery case, simply to garner more viewers and pocket a few extra bucks at the expense of the reputation of local law enforcement. Their defense always seems to be, "We are storytellers, not journalists", and that is exactly what they do: they tell a story. The only problem is, it is not an entirely true one, and CaM does an excellent good job of filling in the blanks that its predecessor chose to ignore.

As CaM reveals over the course of 10 comprehensive episodes, rather than simply tell the whole story of the case, the makers of MaM instead chose to leave many important details out, and flat out manipulated many of the actual courtroom interactions to fit their own agenda. Sure, the police did make some mistakes, and none of them will be rivalling Sherlock Holmes for plaudits, but it really isn't a very complicated case - though MaM made it seem so.

As someone who made up their mind about Avery years ago, I didn't need any further revelations from CaM to support my original position. But what CaM does reveal is just how easy it is for the media to manipulate people. Of course, there have always been such people in society. Rest assured, those protesting on the streets outside the courtroom are exactly the same kind of people who stood in the crowd 2,000 years ago pleading for another murderer to be set free.

Nobody likes to see anybody wrongfully convicted of any crime that they did not do. But, in this case, I am sure that the family of Teresa Halbach regret every day that Avery's original 1985 conviction was overturned.

And that is the sad, sad truth of the real story.

As someone who found season one of Making a Murderer perfect (initially), this was a perfect down to earth alternative point of view. Was aware of some liberties the Netflix show took from news articles, but this so much more details that you would expect.

Maybe you have to start it with an open mind, as I definitely didn't have something against DailyWire or Candice (first encounter).

As the series progressed it got better and more interesting, episodes 5,6,7 were the point where I found myself enjoying it the same as the original show. It's really what I wanted from an objective MAM season 2.

I am convinced Steven Avery is right where he belongs.

After watching the Netflix series back in 2015 something didn't sit quite right, I couldn't point out why and I did my fair share of research. Over time I got more and more unsettled by his supposed innocence.

The edits and cuts of phone calls, altering the answers given in court, keeping evidence out ... Well, they're storytellers, but they choose to sit on the wrong side of it.

After watching Convicting a Murderer, I still think the police were flawed at times, some participants were shady, to say the least, but the evidence pilling up to the same person leaves no space for presuming Steven Avery could be innocent.

I admit I enjoyed Netflix's version but it is important to keep an open mind and not be blinded by what we're shown there. As thin as a pancake can be, it always has two sides. Here we get to see the family, the police, the media... a much wider perspective.