Conrad Baetz

Guest column for USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin

It’s been a little more than three months since the release of “Making a Murderer,” the Netflix documentary about the Steven Avery case.

While the public uproar has somewhat faded, there still appears to remain a significant difference of opinion as to Avery’s guilt or innocence. The film, however, was never intended to establish the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The film was an exploration of the practical application of the criminal justice system.

And, if public opinion is to be believed, the system apparently failed in its primary purpose — to give the accused a fair trial.

The county jury may have found him guilty, but the court of public opinion remains unconvinced. The biggest doubt stuck in the public’s craw? Was evidence planted? And the response by the prosecution? Why should it matter — he was guilty anyway.

Well, it does matter. The entire justice system in based on the assumption of integrity by the court officers. If we cannot trust the system to honor its own rules, then we cannot assume every defendant will be given a fair trial. And without fair trials, we can only hope a correct verdict will be reached.

In the criminal justice system, the end never justifies the means. We cannot — and must not — walk away from trials with the attitude “maybe it wasn’t all true, but he was guilty anyway.”

With the hours of TV interviews and the gallons of ink expended since the film, there has been little — if any — effort made to explain or even justify the sometimes incredulous evidence offered by the district attorney. Instead, the prosecutor, Ken Kratz, offered other evidence that implied Avery was guilty, as if to say that’s all that counts.

For example, the appearance of the victim’s car key, under circumstances that would make the most experienced investigator cringe, has never — to my knowledge — been satisfactorily addressed by Kratz.

If a trained and experienced prosecutor were sure of the authenticity of that evidence, then a reasonable person would expect him to defend his position — yet he did not.

And the officer who found that evidence would be expected to vigorously defend his actions, his professionalism and his honor — yet he did not.

And the three sheriffs who headed the department throughout its dealings with — Tom Kocourek, Kenneth Petersen and Robert Herman — would be expected to loudly and forcefully defend and protect the honor and integrity of their department and employee — yet they did not.

Instead, they all remained indifferent while the public image of the department and county fell into worldwide disrepute.

Though the question of whether evidence was planted will probably never be completely resolved, it can be answered to the satisfaction of a great many people with a simple, independent, professionally administered polygraph test. Put Kratz, Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Lt. James Lenk and the three sheriffs on a lie detector and publish the results.

Even though polygraphs cannot be used in court, I am sure all five of those individuals have used a polygraph as an investigative tool. If they were confident enough to use it, they should be confident enough to take it.

Let those officials come forward. I’m sure funding for such a test can be secured. Surely as former and current commanders of the men and women in the sheriff’s department they owe this much to those who are forced to take the current abuse.

Conrad Baetz was the defense investigator for Steven Avery’s lawyers after serving 26 years as a deputy sheriff, 10 years as a defense investigator and two years as a congressional investigator in the John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. assassinations.