Many additional sources, especially that "Rebutting a Murderer" website that I mentioned earlier in the thread. It is as biased as the documentary, but having both perspectives is helpful.
You can't be serious though, about the bias.
Oh, MaM has bias. Everything, to a certain degree has bias. They were very clearly trying to lead you to the conclusion that Avery might be innocent and was framed. My point on the bias would be twofold:
1. Was the bias SO BAD that it painted a very incorrect picture of the case and trial?
This is what's important to me. Everyone keeps screaming about the bias and what was left out. But does what was left out really change the overall picture? For example, that WaPo link which then links to a Milwuakee article on the "14 Pieces of Troubling Evidence Left Out or Glossed Over" is instructive. Her first piece? "Leg irons" and handcuffs were found in Avery's residence. Here are those "leg irons" from the trial:
Little toy handcuffs that don't even properly lock. Some of this stuff is so cringe worthy to read, and it keeps getting repeated as if it should de-legitimize the MaM documentary. So, folks hear "they left out the discovery of leg irons" but when you actually see what they found you just roll your eyes. It's really, really, really hard to think he tied her up at all and then for them to sell that those were the evidence--without a spec of DNA evidence of course--is so funny it's sad.
Holy crap, this was left out of the MaM documentary--it actually strengthens Avery's defense!
Her 5th item left out was that Avery had porn. I mean, come on!
2. Did anyone watch the documentary and come away thinking, "Hmm, well this seemed bias to me I sure would have liked to hear more what Ken Kratz, Len Kachinksy, and Lieutenant Lenk have to say to balance out the bias."
Maybe Avery did it. Maybe he's a lot worse of a person than is portrayed in MaM. There's certainly a lot more people from the defense side who get to speak on the matter. But there's no narration and MaM is full of a ton of interviews, trial testimony, press conferences, and other evidence that isn't altered. It's a pretty raw bones show as far as documentaries go. Yeah, you could quibble about how they present all that evidence.
But did we really need to hear more from Ken Kratz in the documentary? He declined to be a part of it and has been scrambling in the media ever since it was streamed. His protestations have been so lame and sad. Now, if the head prosecutor, who I would claim is a terrible human being, really doesn't have any bullets to fire in the media right now just how biased do we think the MaM doc really was? Don't people think that if the doc really left a bunch of important stuff out that Kratz would be the first person to let it be known? Instead, all he could do was raise a whimper about "leg irons" and such.
So yeah, there's bias in the MaM series but does it ever get so bad that it provides us an unethical or incorrect painting of the events? I'd argue it doesn't even come close to being that biased.
