Ken Kratz, the slime puddle of vomit and pubic hairs who prosecuted Steven Avery in the Teresa Halbach murder case at the center of Making a Murderer is crying in baseball about how the Netflix series JUST ISN’T FAIR because it doesn’t depict him in a favorable light and how dare the series remind everyone that he used to sext a domestic-violence victim, which is just about the shadiest goddamn thing a prosecutor can do, so bad that he should’ve been forced to hire Brendan Dassey’s original defense attorney to defend him to the Wisconsin bar because then he’d be serving life in prison instead of just being suspended for a lousy four goddamn months.
Specifically, Kratz is arguing that the Netflix series should include a disclaimer saying that it is one-side and that it leaves out evidence. But Netflix and the filmmakers are like, fuck that noise, because who cares if they left out evidence because the documentary was not about whether Steven Avery is guilty or innocent, even though that’s what we all want to know deep down in our hearts. The documentary was about a judicial system that is unfair to poor people. The documentary makes a clear case that the legal system is unfair to those without the proper resources to defend themselves. People like Steven Avery lose the presumption of innocence because of who they are, while people like Robert Durst gain a stronger presumption of innocence based on their socioeconomic status.
Avery lost his presumption of innocence in large part because of the shady tactics of Ken Kratz, who was more interested in securing a conviction than fairly seeking justice.
As to that disclaimer? Forget it, Kratz. “I don’t think documentaries are unbiased, they do take a position,” Sarandos told the Wrap. “This is the filmmakers’ position, and they did a great job laying out the facts.”
They certainly did do a good job of laying out the facts, even if they were only the facts that supported their contention that the legal system in Wisconsin is borked.