How to Think About Making a Murderer (I think).
This is going to be another one of those posts where I talk about something that a lot of other, better writers have tackled recently. (See here, and here, or Google).
The first thing I need to establish for us to have this conversation is that there are three distinct worlds weāre operating within:
The story you see on the show Ā - āTrue Crimeā entertainment. Making a Murderer, the Serial podcast, etc.
What actually happened at trial - every single moment, uncut and unedited
The truth - what really happened, second by second, during the alleged incident at issue
Clearly, there is a lot of overlap between these three spheres. Actually, one would hope for a huge amount of overlap. And in a perfect world, maybe all three of them would be one enormous sphere of justice and virtue and other lofty words.
The problem is that trials, real trials, donāt make good TV. Nobody would watch an actual uncut stream of a court proceeding. They justā¦theyāre boring. Even with the same cast of characters, the same issues at stake, life in prison hanging in the balance: itās not exciting. It straight up isnāt good TV. (You get some of this in Making a Murderer. Even at crucial moments of the trial, when one side or another is scoring a huge point - itās hard to pay attention. People in the back are shuffling around, someone sneezes, and the next thing you know youāre four weeks deep into your Facebook feed and you completely missed what just happened.)
And thatās where I run into my first issue: the oft-raised objection to āTrue Crimeā entertainment. This is, at the end of the day, entertainment. It is in the best interest of the filmmaker, the podcast writers, and everyone involved to produce something that is compelling. And they have all the creative liberty in the world to do so. Unlike in the formal structure of a court, to make a documentary, there are no governing rules of evidence. There are no restrictions on using unfairly prejudicial testimony, on using evidence of past acts to show a propensity for that person to act in the same way on this occasion. The list goes on, but the point is so basic that it must be re-stated: these true crime story tellers operate however they please in a space completely defined by rules, structure, and regulations.
These are shows. They deserve to be seen as entertainment, not as gospel truth. The Serial podcastĀ set records, in a time where podcasts have mostly just existed quietly with little attention.Ā It was in NPRās very real business interest for you to be interested - to think that Adnan is innocent. Or at the very least, to think thereās a possibility he is. Is he innocent? I donāt know. I donāt know if Steven Avery is innocent, either. But I do know that there were humans making those shows. Humans susceptible to pressure from bosses, but whatās more, humans that want to be compelled, too: they want to tell a great story. They want to make something that makes you think, makes you doubt, makes you wonder.
Thereās is nothing wrong with that desire. In fact, it is one of the noblest endeavors, given the current chill towards any entertainment that isnāt cut up into 8 second looping videos or boiled down to a pile of hashtags.
So, to avoid disparaging the writers too much, and for the sake of argument, lets say that the writers, producers, and editors all stuck to the facts. They gave you the closest depiction of the trial as possible. You have all the facts the jury did, nothing more, nothing less.Ā
That, even still, is not the full picture. That still may not be the truth.
Trials and the court system in America are in the business of serving justice. And to a large extent, thatās what they do. They look to find the most guilty party, assign some kind of punishment, and move on.
The distinction here is that truth and justice may not be the same thing. Courts are not necessarily set up to find truth. It just is not the objective. And it canāt be - if the courts started getting involved in digging into the minutiae of every single moment of the day or days at issue, it would overrun the already ridiculously clogged system. It would be impossible for prosecutors to prove each second of the defendantās day, and guilty criminals would go unpunished. Instead, the way we set it up is that if the truth happens to be found, thatās great. Certainly some cases are much simpler than those featured in these stories, and can be pinned down to the truth easily and efficiently. But in many complicated, contested cases ā the point of a trial is to find justice, a verdict, something that can be stamped āfinalā. The point of a trial is to look at the evidence and make a call: are you sure, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this person on trial did this act? The question is not āare you sure we got the truth here? Are you sure that each detail was correct and laid out for you?ā Itās ādid we do enough to convince you that this is the guy?ā
So while maybe the TV show is accurate, and the trial was fairly represented, it still may not be the truth. We will probably never know with certainty the real story of what happened to Teresa Halbach. We may never find the truth. And thatās a tradeoff of the system we have in place. We have to, as a society, decide that weāre okay with trusting the structure to put away people that a jury finds guilty, while knowing that it is still possible that the truth is something different than what was presented to that jury. Maybe Steven Avery did kill her, but didnāt do it in any of the ways described by the prosecution.Ā
Thatās the distinction we need to live with and understand if we start looking into these cases: the court can still get the final guilty/innocent decision right without finding every single shred of evidence and constructing a truthful picture of what exactly happened. At the same time, we have to hold the opposing truth in our heads: the system can get it wrong. Completely, egregiously, life-ruiningly wrong. There can still be foul play, very tragically real prosecutorial abuse, police corruption.
The system is not infallible, but it is as much a part of these stories as the parties in court. To talk about these cases in the vacuum of a true crime series ignores the larger picture, and oversimplifies what is going on.
I still think these shows are important, and can serve as a valuable vehicle for public discourse. People should care about this stuff. Everyday people should know how the system works, should talk about prosecutorial abuse, the deficiencies of public defenders, the coercion that police and investigators are allowed to get away with. I think we should get angry about these things - because they do happen and they are a disease of the system. These are essential, vital, hugely important conversations that are worth having, in whatever forum they occur.
I just think they need to happen in a larger way. Use the shows as a place to start, not as a final verdict of guilt or innocence.