THE BLOG
01/25/2016 01:58 pm ET Updated Jan 22, 2017

Making a Mockery

Ever since the docuseries, Making a Murderer, came out on Netflix, the internet has been abuzz. But I ignored it. When my brother called and told me to watch it, I ignored him. But once he explained what it was about, I was intrigued. I moved to Milwaukee in December 2005, right after Teresa Holbach went missing. It was on the news every day and I followed it closely.

My brother, like a lot of viewers, believes Steven Avery to be innocent, but I knew I couldn't be swayed. I told my brother that I remember the nephew's confession and that was enough for me. My brother laughed and said, "Just watch it."

So I did. I will say the two ladies who made the series did an awesome job. Sure it was one-sided and most likely left out some things that might not have conformed to their narrative, but it certainly made you think. That was their goal after all, and to that end they were extremely successful.

It turned out I wasn't remembering the nephew Brendan Dassey's confession at all. I was remembering the district attorney Ken Kratz's comments he made at a press conference he held just to tell everyone of Brendan's confession. I even remembered the part about Avery coming to the door of the trailer all sweaty. But Brendan never used those words; Kratz did. In fact, Kratz delivered the confession in his own words as if he was reading it from some historical document.

Was that a tad underhanded? Oh yeah. Did it make it impossible for Avery to get a fair trial? Oh yeah. But if you watch the series, you'll see that pales in comparison to a lot of tactics used by this prosecutor. Seriously, when you watch this guy you can't help but think he's some kind of lowlife degenerate. Then he later proves you right after it comes to light that he sent a bunch of text messages to several young ladies to try to seduce them. Ironically this means that between him and Steven Avery, he's the only one proven to be a pervert.

After watching the actual confession, it was easy to see it was coerced. Brendan is not a very bright young man and the investigators kept telling him if he told them anything at all he wouldn't get into trouble. Sadly Brendan believed them so he told them anything at all. Then after confessing to rape and murder, he explained he needed to be back at school at 1:29.

What became very clear very quickly was that Brendan's confession couldn't have possibly happened. Steven Avery's trailer looked like it hadn't seen a vacuum cleaner or duster since it was parked there, so tying up a person on the bed, raping them, stabbing them, and cutting their throat would have left a smidgeon of evidence. Likewise the garage hadn't been cleaned in forever, so dragging a bloody body there to finish the job would also leave telltale signs.

Yet the victim's DNA was nowhere to be found in the trailer or garage. The confession was so impossible that the DA decided not to use it at the trial at all. And why should he? The damage was done during the press conference about the confession.

But why would a relative of the defendant make such wild statements and then change them? I don't know. I can't figure that part out. But I can tell you that when it comes to this family, it's not as strange as you think. In fact, three other members of the family did the same thing.

The brother-in-law told the police, which they recorded in their report, that Steven's bonfire was three feet high. On the witness stand, however, he said the flames were ten feet high. That's a huge difference. But then again it would be very difficult to completely burn a human body with a small fire.

Brendan's brother Brad also pulled a fast one. On November 10th a friend of Brad's joked about asking Steven if he needed help hiding a body. This again was documented. But under oath that story also changed. Brad said it was November 3rd (Actually the DA fed him that date), and it was Steven himself asking for help to hide a body.

It gets more bizarre. Brendan's 15-year-old first cousin, a female, had told the counselor at her school, then later the investigators, that Brendan, who had been crying at a birthday party, told her about seeing body parts in the bonfire. When questioned under oath at Brendan's trial, she said she had made it up and Brendan hadn't said anything. Amazingly by this point, that seemed pretty normal for this family and even the prosecutor was like okie dokie.

Put this all together and all you have is one confusing case and one seriously backwards family. But even the most English language destroying, lowest IQ, probably should reconsider reproducing, backward people in this country deserve a fair trial. Even people who have spent 18 years in prison for a crime they didn't commit deserve a fair trial. And that did not happen.

I'm not convinced of Steven Avery's innocence, but I am convinced of the other side's guilt. The key and bullet were planted. There was no doubt. They were planted right after Brenan's confession and they were planted to coincide with that confession, that impossible confession, to put Teresa Holbach in the trailer and garage.

It was so obvious that the key and bullet were planted that the DA mentioned it in his closing arguments, saying (paraphrasing), "Does it matter if the key was planted?" I couldn't believe my ears. I know it was a rhetorical question, but I'd like to answer anyway. "Hell yes it matters. What freaking country do you think we live in?"

Everyone on the state's side during the sexual assault trial, the civil suit, and the murder trial acted so smugly and unprofessional. Like when the defense tried to question a person from the cellphone company to show that someone two days after Teresa Holbach disappeared had accessed her account using her password and listened to, and possibly deleted, some voicemails. But the DA objected... again. And the objection was idiotic, but the judge, who I like to refer to as the 13th juror, took the DA's side... again. He even said, "I'm having trouble seeing the relevance."

Holy crap. I couldn't help but wonder if this judge was ever an attorney or whether he was simply elected. How could it not be relevant? Not to mention it fit into the defense perfectly, to show that no other leads had been followed upon once they had Avery in their sights.

The judge later revealed his personal bias at the sentencing when he told Steven Avery that the thing that bothered him the most was that as Steven got older, his crimes got more serious. What? What crimes are the 13th juror referring to? Avery hadn't been convicted of a crime since he was 20 years old, except the sexual assault charge for which he spent 18 years in prison but was later found to be innocent. That crime, Your Honor?

And like when the DA kept complaining about the defense attorneys "accusing" officers of planting evidence and saying they better have proof. Again, does this high ranking member of the courts not understand the law? The officers were not on trial so no proof was called for. And from what I can determine about the authorities in Manitowoc County, an officer being on trial for anything would never happen. The defense attorneys didn't need proof; they only needed to plant doubt. And like the ladies who made this docuseries, to that end they were extremely successful.

Everything regarding all the legal happenings involving Steven Avery in the county of Manitowoc Wisconsin was void of any resemblance of the American judicial system. It was a circus perpetrated and performed by clowns. The police operate much like the Gestapo. My recommendation would to be to build a wall around the entire county and have it require a passport to visit, because this isn't the USA.

But hey, that's just my opinion.