If you were in jail for 18 years, you would probably do whatever you could to get released early. In Steven Avery’s case, that required a confession in order to be eligible for parole, but he never gave in. He maintained his innocence, and with his parents by his side, was eventually exonerated using DNA technology.
What was most appalling in this case, but also understandable in some sense, was the way in which the personal relationships played a role in this story. In a town like Manitowoc, where a lot of people know each other, what you do to one person can have lots of other consequences. This was definitely the case for Avery, when he pulled a gun on his cousin after he rode her off the road. Her grudge against him spread to her friends, who were involved in the criminal justice system. His actions before the initial conviction did not help his case, as many people wanted him to be locked up and taken into custody.
This was a giant issue in this case, as the complete lack of evidence was ignored, and he was portrayed as a rough person who had to deal with the consequences of his actions. Law enforcement also (appeared) to intentionally ignore any signs that it could have been someone other than Steven Avery. Simply wanting to get the case over with and provide closure, as the District Attorney wanted, is a complete lack of due diligence and fails the defendant. Penny Beernsten’s initial description of her assailant did not match Steven Avery in many areas, but that did not seem to matter to anybody when he was taken into custody.
This case is also another example of a lineup failing. Beernsten had also already been exposed to a picture of Avery, leading her to be 100% sure that he was the correct person. However, as we know, if you are exposed to someone before the lineup is presented you are much more likely to choose that person. That sense of familiarity is extremely dangerous because it can construe what you believe you remember from the time of the crime. The lack of physical evidence was large, but the conviction was based on recollections and verbal testimonies.
This has to be a happy ending, right? He was freed, after all. Well, maybe not. (392)
Meddling Kids, I think that the author is alluding to what happens next in the documentary…there are several more episodes…and there is a turn that you would not believe! Definitely not a happy ending for Steven Avery.
This case really showed a dynamic of power form the police and how that influenced the outcome of the case. Avery was not guilty but because the police wanted him to be he was.
The mention of a happy ending is also very interesting to me because, was it really a happy ending. Avery was freed in the end but not after he had lost 18 years of his life, so is that truly a happy ending? It really brings into perspective what an effect faulty eyewitness testimony can have on a person’s life.