[ad_1]
Make a murderer relaunch the real crime boom at Netflix. In 2015, the docuseries on Steven Avery, a man exempted through DNA testing, to be arrested for murder a few years later, were the subject of much debate. It also attracted the attention of amateur detectives, journalists and, possibly, lawyer Kathleen Zellner, who helped exonerate 19 convicted men.
But the story is not over yet. In Make a murdererFilmmakers Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi will follow Avery and his nephew, the alleged conspirator, Brendan Dassey, in the second season, which begins on Netflix Friday, throughout the appeals process. The duo explained to TIME how the second season tackled critics of the series when it first came out, how they handled the media frenzy surrounding the case and they thought that Avery was innocent.
How did you make the decision to make a second season?
Ricciardi: We knew at the end of part 1 that our viewers had questions. About a month after launching the first part, Kathleen Zellner took Steve's cause. And we knew Laura Nirider was already representing Brendan Dassey in federal court. So we had several key players for the new season.
demos: The first part documented the experience of the accused. We now document the convicted person's experience. We ask: & # 39;Will Steven and Brendan succeed in their efforts to return to court and have the opportunity to challenge their conviction? "
You have been criticized for not spending enough time on the murder victim, Teresa, in Part 1. The first episode of Part 2 is largely devoted to him. Was it a conscious decision?
Ricciardi: It was the result of an opportunity that presented itself. In both parts, we contacted all people with a direct connection to the case. In the second part, we were very grateful that one of the friends from Teresa University agreed to sit down with us. He explained with much eloquence how, with this post-conviction process, which by definition brings things up, the pain is still present.
In the new season, Steven Avery blames his former lawyers for not having defended it properly. Avery's new lawyer, Kathleen Zellner, is investigating the possibility of appealing on the basis of the ineffectiveness of the assistance of a lawyer. Did watching Zellner prepare his case led you to rethink the choices made by Avery's former lawyers?
Ricciardi: It is important to keep in mind that Kathleen reports to the case as a post-conviction lawyer; it therefore re-examines by definition what has happened before. Kathleen's strategy is also different from that used by trial lawyers. It uses non-traditional methods. She is very attentive. We see her doing things like going to the Avery Recovery Site and a neighboring property and working directly with a number of very established forensic experts.
Kathleen has had great success as a private lawyer after her conviction. She knows what works for her. It's really whether or not she can convince the court that if her predecessors did not perform well, things could have been different.
demos: In a broader context, I think that one of the most interesting aspects of the second part is that viewers are not offered this trip in a really less known phase of the process, the post-conviction phase.
Make a murderer the case of Steven Avery, and we see the fallout in the second part. Steven's new fiancée appears on Dr. Phil. The prosecutor last season is promoting his book on Dateline. Have you ever had the impression of losing control of the story?
demos: Honestly, it's all part of history. In part 1, we were very interested in this difference between public and private: what do we say at the press conference, and what does it mask what really happened in the interrogation room or what which is being debated in court? All this is just another opportunity to explore these themes of headlines and real life on the ground.
Ricciardi: Because Steven is our protagonist, what happens with the other characters is what matters most in this dramatic situation. Does this have an impact on the objective he pursues?
In many ways, Steven's case is an aberration. It is rare to be convicted of murder, but it is even more rare to start such a case in court than to plead his case. And it is extremely rare to be represented by a renowned lawyer. Do you think that says a lot about the American criminal justice system?
demos: We certainly do not consider this story an aberration. Part 2 proposes that this story leave Wisconsin and be referred to the federal court system. Brendan's case goes to Chicago and plans to travel to Washington, DC. This is not an anomaly.
I think the themes in history, the themes of accountability, transparency, go far beyond this issue, but also beyond the criminal justice system. That's what's happening in our institutions and our governments.
Do you think Steven Avery is innocent?
Ricciardi: It's not part of our process at all. That's not part of our story. This is not relevant to us.
Source link
