We've Got Hollywood Covered

‘Making a Murderer': Steven Avery’s Lawyers Respond to DA’s ‘Insecure’ Arguments

”If the prosecutor and the police are really secure in the convictions… I’d wonder why they sounded so insecure about a movie,“ Dean Strang says

Steven Avery’s former defense attorneys think “Making a Murderer” prosecutor Ken Kratz’s criticisms of the docu-series sound “insecure,” and responded to them point-by-point in an interview Friday.

“The state is now trying to make that a lot of these pieces that weren’t in the movie [were] more sinister than they really were,” Jerry Buting said on “CBS This Morning”, sitting alongside colleague Dean Strang.

Kratz has said the Netflix series left out key evidence, and sent TheWrap 9 reasons why he believes Avery is guilty in the murder of Teresa Halbach. Among his evidence: Phone records showing three calls from Avery to the victim’s phone on Oct. 31.

“With regard to this for instance, also left out was the fact that he called and made an appointment to the office,” Buting said. “If he had her cell phone number and was trying to lure her, why would you call the office and create a paper trail? You would just call her directly and no one would ever know that he’d come here. Instead, he goes to the office.”

Kratz also cited evidence that “Avery’s DNA (not blood) was on the victim’s hood latch.”

“The SUV was at the crime lab since 11/5,” Kratz said. “How did his DNA get under the hood if Avery never touched her car? Do the cops have a vial of Avery’s sweat to ‘plant’ under the hood?”

Buting’s not buying it.

“First of all, the prosecutor has said that ‘sweat DNA’ is found on the hood, and there’s no such thing as ‘sweat DNA’ or ‘perspiration DNA.’ It’s just DNA. Where it comes from, they can’t tell,” Buting said.

“It’s transferred from something that may or may not have been him,” Strang added.

The attorneys said that while they can’t possibly be sure Avery did not kill Halbach, they were never convinced of his guilt. Strang noted it’s not “OK to convince people on maybes.”

The pair also shared more good news for Avery and his sympathizers. Since the series premiered in December, Strang said, a number of scientists from around the world have reached out to point out “there’s a lot more that can be done” to test for evidence.

“I think his best hope lays in really discovered evidence,” Strang said.

“Making a Murderer” creators Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos previously spoke to TheWrap about criticisms Kratz lodged against the 10-episode true crime series, and stated they focused on what the State of Wisconsin’s strongest evidence against Avery.

“All of the most significant evidence of the state is in the series,” Ricciardi said. “It was a nearly six-week-long trial, and it would just be impossible for us to include all of the less significant evidence.”

Strang also noted the impossibility of condensing a trial that lasted over 200 hours into a documentary, even as long as “Making a Murderer.”

“The movie gives a very lavish, three hours plus to one trial (that) went over 200 hours,” Strang said. “If the prosecutor and the police are really secure in the convictions they obtained, I’d wonder why they sounded so insecure about a movie that necessarily couldn’t run 200 hours.”

Watch the interview above.