To put it simply making a murderer tries to make you sympathize with convicted serial killers, mass murderers, and rapists. All while pretending that the system was wrong for putting the convicted behind bars or to death. The producers and writers of this show attempt emotional manipulation multiple times throughout the series. I'd not recommend this series to anyone who is intelligent enough to make their own decisions.

Netflix really did the job on this one! This was an epic. I just finished episode 4 and I never realized I can be this excited about a documentary film....the last time I did was Breaking Bad. But it with all its glory, Breaking Bad is still fiction.No other words to say but just WATCH IT!

I have always been a whodunit nut, so a crime thriller like this show seemed immediately up my alley.Episode 1 lays the groundwork and portrays the gross miscarriage of justice which seems inconceivable in retrospect. Episode 2 is essentially what lends the series its name. At this point, I could clearly see where this series was heading and hence left it hanging. It was only this week that I picked up Episodes 3 and 4 which left no doubt in mind that the show is following the same script as the podcast Serial which was perhaps the first investigative true-crime series that caught the public's imagination. The coverage and impact of such shows is usually as follows:1. The protagonist is found guilty and to this day is in jail with repeated appeals being rejected 2. The series investigates and puts forth "evidence" that indicates wrongful conviction 3. There is a public uproar amongst the viewers of the show 4. The possibility of a new trial arises based on the discovery of new evidenceHaving struggled to watch through Episodes 3 and 4, I decided to quit the series and instead read up on the the case's progress. Surprisingly, it doesn't seem I am missing much in terms of content. Unsurprisingly, all the 4 points that I stated above seem to be applicable to this case/show as well.We live in times where there is a media trial painting the accused as guilty prior to conviction and then a media retrial post- conviction portraying the convicted as not guilty. Based on the episodes I have seen, I can see only one opinion forming in the minds of most viewers. Everyone is free to make their own opinions but ultimately it comes down to the courts. The judicial process in any part of the world is particularly onerous one and the outcome largely depends on how a case is presented. This provides the leeway of the guilty being exonerated and the innocent being convicted. The truth for most is how and what they choose to see and hence I am pretty unsure of what to take away from this show. Should it be anger, disbelief, misrepresentation or something else? It seems that I feel most comfortable in just having the facts presented in a neutral manner with a less protracted coverage and hence I couldn't really get in to this show.

Not having been present at the trail, I of course cannot judge about the case. However, after having seen this documentary, I feel two quotes summarize how I now feel about the American justice system:"We can all say we will never commit a crime, But we can never guarantee that someone will never accuse us of a crime. And if that happens, good luck in this criminal justice system." (Jerry Buting, defense attorney). "If I'm gonna be perfectly candid, there's a big part of me that really hopes Steven Avery is guilty of this crime. Because the thought of him being innocent of this crime, um, and sitting in prison again . . . I can't take that." (Dean Strang, defense attorney).