Framing the Story

As a forensic-DNA professional, I enjoyed Kathryn Schulz’s article on “Making a Murderer,” the Netflix series, by Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos, about the police investigations of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey in the murder of Teresa Halbach (“Dead Certainty,” January 25th). However, Schulz repeats the prosecutor’s problematic statement that DNA from Avery’s perspiration was found in a vehicle belonging to the victim. Forensic identification of body fluids is limited to blood, saliva, semen, and urine; there is no test for sweat. The continued mention of this as a source of DNA calls into question other statements made by the prosecutor.

Karl Reich

Lombard, Ill.

Schulz writes that “the point of being scrupulous about your means is to help insure accurate ends, whether you are trying to convict a man or exonerate him.” In fact, preserving the process is itself the point, including, in some cases, allowing guilty parties to go free as assurance that no innocents are convicted. Grand conspiracies of the Steven Avery type—where police ignored evidence exonerating an imprisoned man and then allegedly falsified evidence that he committed an even more vicious crime—are rare. More often, police and prosecutors convince themselves that they’ve got the true perpetrator, and see any weaknesses in their case as natural aberrations and a way for criminals to get off the hook. So they ignore, omit, bury, tidy up, or even invent evidence, all for the sake of preserving an “accurate end.” Schulz decries the documentarians for presenting a one-sided view and ignoring certain facts; that is, for not preserving the process. But TV (not to mention real life) is full of shows that treat scofflaw cops and swaggering defense attorneys as heroes. I am glad programs like “Making a Murderer” and “Serial” are revealing just how damaging that behavior can be, whether the suspect is guilty or not.

Gary Chandler

Denver, Colo.

I agree with Schulz that “Making a Murderer” shows a bias in favor of the defense of Avery and Dassey, but I don’t think that this bias undermines the series. The show gives the public a closeup view of a criminal murder case. It shows how heavily the odds are stacked against a defendant who faces the full resources of the state—not to mention the media. The value of the documentary is not in proving or disproving Avery’s and Dassey’s guilt; rather, it reveals the complex machinery of criminal murder trials and makes the public aware of the level of doubt inherent in many convictions. It would be hard to find a better argument against the death penalty than that.

Sjeng Derkx

Nelson, B.C.

According to Schulz, we “make moral allowances for the behavior of lawyers based on the knowledge that the jury will also hear a strong contrary position. No such structural protection exists in our extra-judicial courts of last resort.” That may have been true before the Internet, but it isn’t true now. Just as jurors are presented with strong contrary positions by the two sides in court, viewers of true-crime documentaries can now get the oppositional arguments online. Similarly, jurors and viewers can choose to wrestle with the full body of available evidence, or they can cherry-pick. They can struggle with uncertainty and reasonable doubt, and deliberate for months, or they can quickly evaluate evidence, pass judgment, and get on with their lives. The structural protections of any system—judicial or extra-judicial—are only as strong and reliable as the people within it.

Alan Mairson

Bethesda, Md.