If Ken Kratz has a problem with the evidence presented in “Making a Murderer,” that’s his own fault, say directors Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos.

“We took our cues from the state’s own case,” Ricciardi tells The Post. “[Prosecutor Ken Kratz] chose two pieces of evidence [Steven Avery’s DNA on Teresa Halbach’s car key, which was found in Avery’s home, and Avery’s DNA inside Halbach’s car] at a pretrial press conference and said, ‘This, to me, convinces me that Steven Avery is guilty of this crime.’”

People around the globe have been captivated by the 10-part Netflix documentary series “Making a Murderer.” The program follows the story of Avery, a man who was imprisoned for 18 years in 1985 for a rape he didn’t commit, and eventually freed by DNA evidence in 2003. Two years later, in the middle of a $36 million lawsuit against Manitowoc County, Wis., its former sheriff and its former district attorney, Avery was arrested for the murder of Halbach, a photographer whose charred bones were found on his property.

Avery was convicted of the murder in 2007, and is currently serving a life sentence.

Over 350,000 people have signed a petition to free Avery, believing that the evidence shown in the documentary doesn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime.

However, Kratz, who served as the prosecutor in Avery’s murder trial, told Maxim that Ricciardi and Demos “don’t even tell [viewers] 80 percent of the evidence that the jury saw.” Such evidence allegedly includes Avery’s DNA found under Halbach’s car’s trunk; Halbach’s phone, camera and other contents of her purse found, burned, 20 feet from Avery’s door; and that Avery targeted Halbach specifically, requesting that Autotrader magazine send her to take photos on the Avery property.

“What’s really important to note is the type of evidence Kratz is pointing to now. He’s trying to present it as undisputed evidence, that these were uncontested facts, and none of that is true,” says Ricciardi. “For every argument the state made about [this evidence], the defense had a counter argument. Neither side is heard with respect to [the evidence]. That doesn’t make it prejudicial.”

The pair also revealed this week on “Today” that prior to the documentary’s release, a juror from Avery’s murder trial came forth to admit that he or she had voted to find Avery guilty, even though they believe there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he killed Halbach.

“[The juror] said that the world needed to know more about this case, that the trial never should have happened in Wisconsin, that they believed that justice was not done, that they believed Steven Avery hadn’t committed the crime,” Demos told The Post. The juror worried that if they fought for a mistrial, that the Manitowoc County sheriff’s department would come for them next. “[They felt] that if law enforcement were capable of framing Steven Avery, they were capable of framing that particular juror.”

But if those following the case believe that this new information could help free Avery from prison — or at least get a new trial — they’re likely wrong.

“If the jury is compromising in order to cut a resolution and get out of there, I think that would be unsettling for a lot of people,” says Ricciardi. “But it’s a question of what the current law is in Wisconsin, and whether the courts think that that type of solution is acceptable. And I think the current answer is yes.

“It’s another opportunity to learn from this story. It’s just more information to further understand how the system currently functions, which is what we’re most interested in.”

Though the pair won’t share whether they believe Avery is innocent — and if so, who they think may have killed Halbach — they do agree that justice was not served.

Says Demos: “It’s clear that for Steven — the trial, the whole prosecution — it was not fair.”