Why Making a Murderer Part 2 is even better than Part 1

Tweets by ZellnerLaw

Kathleen Zellner, Making a Murderer: Part 2, Episode 2

29 OCTOBER 2018

Note: This article contains spoilers for Making a Murderer Part 2

Making a Murderer Part 2 might have felt, for some fans, a long time coming.

Almost three years after the first season hit Netflix, the follow-up could have easily come too late as interest in Steven Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey waned.

Steven Avery, Making a Murderer, Netflix, Part 1

Documentary filmmakers Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos took a bit of a gamble when it came to finding the right time to release the second batch of episodes. Following their subject's appeals in real time, they needed to wait for things to have developed enough to make an interesting series, whilst also ensuring that they weren't about to miss out on a breakthrough moment.

Some critics questioned the need for a Part 2. With every legal development being public knowledge and worldwide media attention ensuring that the rulings made headlines, what new information was there to learn?

Brendan Dassey, Making a Murderer, Netflix

Well, as we've now found out, there's plenty. In fact, we'd even go as far as to say that Making a MurdererPart 2 is a better documentary than the first, as we've come out of the other side armed with a lot more knowledge.

Part 1 was vital in setting the scene, giving an insight into Manitowoc County, Wisconsin and what it's like to live in this remote part of the US. It also gave us some history around the main subject Steven Avery, detailing his wrongful conviction in 1985, when he was jailed for rape and attempted murder before DNA evidence exonerated him in 2002. This was to form part of the backdrop for what happened when Teresa Halbach was found murdered in 2005.

Teresa Halbach, Making a Murderer

Part 1 detailed the (sometimes murky) road to the conviction of its subjects. But one of the most commendable things about Part 2 is that it transcends the case in question to explore the workings of the American justice system as a whole.

For anyone who was left scratching their head after watching Avery and Dassey's separate trials the first time around – or had been keeping up with the press coverage surrounding the appeals – the second instalment went a long way to explain exactly what went on behind the scenes.

Jerry Buting and Dean Strang, for example, came out of the first series with statuses akin to rockstars. And yet they lost their case, and Steven was convicted.

Dean Strang, Making a Murderer, Defence team

Part 2 looked into some of the shortcomings of his original defence. Their hands were tied by the ruling that they weren't allowed to point the finger at any other Denny suspects (ie people who had material opportunity, means and motive), something that new attorney Kathleen Zellner has explored in appeal, turning fresh attention to Bobby Dassey and Teresa's ex boyfriend Ryan Hillegas.

Suspicion of others arose from Making a Murderer viewers, of course, but the trial was very much centred on Avery.

Not only can viewers now understand the impact that this would have had on the jury, but it also adds wider legal context to that understanding.

Brendan Dassey, Making a Murderer

The same can also be said for Brendan Dassey's appeals process, which has had more highs and lows than the world's biggest rollercoaster. We all saw the 2016 headlines of his "overturned conviction", closely followed by news that he was being kept behind bars, but few of us knew why.

Part 2 of the docuseries took us through every court decision, even deep-diving into the history of the '96 Act (known as AEDPA, introduced in episode three) and its affect on the workings of the US appeals process.

Brendan Dassey, Making a Murderer, Netflix

We might not agree with the fact that a man is, to this day, still incarcerated despite multiple rulings that he be set free, but at least we now know why. Perhaps even more importantly, we also have an understanding of what intrinsically would need to change in order to prevent miscarriages of justice.

Making a Murderer Part 2 shines a harsher light on the system and, as such, could just pave the way for people demanding some sort of reform.

Kathleen Zellner, Making a Murderer: Part 2, Episode 1

Part 1 left our jaws on the floor at some of the apparent holes in the prosecution's case, and we were still left with a whole heap of questions. Was the blood really planted? Is "sweat DNA" a thing? What about Teresa's voicemails?

In the new episodes, we saw Zellner meticulously working her way through every single theory that the prosecution put forward, using scientific testing and enlisting experts to piece together what reallyhappened.

This lead to a laundry list of new Making a Murderer evidence, but it also helped us to gain much more of an understanding of how a criminal investigation can be approached.

Kathleen Zellner, Making a Murderer

With commentary from a bloodstain pattern expert, a forensic pathologist, a forensic DNA consultant and a a former FBI agent, to name a few, viewers are invited to interpret the crime scene evidence along with the experts.

For true-crime fanatics and armchair detectives, these themes have surely made the whole story all the more compelling.

By delving further into the nitty gritty of the evidence and the Avery case, we've actually subsequently been offered a wider commentary on the American justice system and how it works. Oh, and more importantly, how and when it can fail.