The decade's most triggering comedy
Netflix was a popular streaming platform in 2015, but it never had a hit quite like “Making a Murderer.”
The limited series told the true story of Wisconsin resident Steven Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, being convicted of murdering photographer Teresa Halbach. “MAM” became a national obsession due to a variety of factors and somehow managed to rack up more than 19.3 million viewers in just over a month.
A lot of the hype was due to viewers being convinced that Avery was either innocent of the crime or, at the very least, deserving of a new trial. The true crime series was written and directed by Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos, who spent 10 years on the project before debuting it on Netflix.
The filmmakers insisted they were just seeking truth and weren’t pushing for audiences to doubt Avery’s conviction. Nevertheless, that’s exactly what happened to many after they binge-watched all ten episodes.
The hype has mostly died down now, eight years after the series premiere and season two follow-up in 2018. But the name “Steven Avery” is about to blow up all over again as Daily Wire host and firebrand influencer Candace Owens roots out the truth to some of the unanswered questions the series left behind, including exposing the footage that the original filmmakers intentionally left on the cutting room floor.
Owens brings the whole story to light by presenting evidence intentionally omitted in “MAM” and leaving viewers to form their own opinions on what the truth really is.
To achieve her goal, Owens teamed up with a whole host of people including experts and Avery case enthusiasts to figure out what really happened during the telling of one of the most controversial true crime stories of the 21st century. What Owens uncovered will shock Netflix viewers who trusted they were watching a fair and balanced retelling of the story.
“Convicting a Murderer” begins by delving into the popularity of the original series. “MAM” was introduced when America’s true crime obsession was at its peak, plus it helped that the premiere was on December 18, 2015. Many people had some time to kill before and after the holidays while home from work and most of them spent it obsessively watching the show everyone was talking about.
Social media helped spread the message, too. It was hard to log onto Facebook or Twitter without seeing posts by outraged fans who were convinced Manitowoc police planted evidence to frame poor Steven Avery for the crime of murder. Fans of the series started petitions, going as far as demanding then-President Barack Obama grant the “wrongly convicted” felon a presidential pardon, even though the president had no authority to grant a pardon since Avery wasn’t convicted of federal offenses.
Like so many others, Owens admitted she was initially outraged by what was so clearly advertised as a gross miscarriage of justice. She called Avery’s nephew Brendan Dassey “the most sympathetic character” in the series, echoing what many others were saying about the teen’s murder conviction.
But even then there were skeptics. These two factions divided amongst themselves, with Avery’s supporters dubbing themselves “truthers” and those who believed him guilty even with all the omitted evidence as “guilters.”
One case enthusiast interviewed for “CAM” said the narrative of the Netflix documentary was “too unbelievable to be true.” Ricciardi and Demos spent an inordinate amount of time focusing on the car key found in Avery’s home, the unsealed vial of blood which filmmakers strongly hinted could have been planted by law enforcement, and the involvement of Manitowoc police officers despite Avery’s pending civil suit which had the potential to deliver a multi-million dollar payday.
During Avery’s sentencing, the judge calls him, “the most dangerous individual ever to set foot in this courtroom.” His statement doesn’t match up with the picture painted by the creators of “MAM,” though. So how much of it was really true?
The key to casting doubt on Avery’s guilt, Owens finds, all stems from the omissions of the filmmakers. Multiple incidents from Avery’s life are either downplayed or left out entirely, making it a lot easier for “MAM” viewers to see Avery as a victim of his circumstances.
For example, Ricciardi and Demos mention Avery’s “colorful past” as if he’s a small-time criminal getting into innocent mischief on occasion. But the details of some of these cases, which Owens and crew painstakingly examine, are a lot more sinister than the Netflix filmmakers let on.
They gloss over the reality of Avery setting a cat on fire. Owens reveals that the cat was a family pet and that not only did Avery come up with the idea, but he actively chased the animal and refused to let it escape. This is just one example of many where Avery comes out looking like a sadistic person who could be capable of murdering another person.
And his criminal streak extended beyond animal cruelty. Avery also had a history of domestic abuse and exhibited hostile behavior toward family members, too. None of these items were explored in “MAM” and some critics see that move as intentional.
Ultimately, Owens wanted to make “Convicting a Murderer” so the public could finally get to the bottom of how Avery was convicted of murder.
Anyone who watches the news or consumes any kind of mainstream entertainment already knows there’s an agenda being pushed at all times. But a vocal minority has been standing up against the lies and seeking the truth behind the lies. Owens said of “Convicting a Murderer” that she’s “sick and tired of media deception.”
This new series exclusively available on DailyWire+ will finally get to the bottom of things, one bombshell revelation at a time.