Making A Murderer Lawyers Call Prosecution "Insecure," Forensics Questioned

Photo Courtesy of Netflix
As many of you know by now, the Netflix docuseries Making A Murderer looks at the case of Steven Avery, a Wisconsin man wrongly convicted of a crime in 2003, only to be arrested and later convicted for the murder of photographer Teresa Halbach in 2005. Though the case may be old, Avery's former attorney, Jerry Buting, told People that the show has led to "newly discovered evidence, either fact witnesses or scientific evidence" that offer Avery a chance at a new trial.

But more importantly, Buting said, "The documentary has shown the public for the first time — through the actual testimony of witnesses and statements of participants — how much reasonable doubt there was in Steven Avery's case."

It's the reason he feels prosecutor Kent Kratz has been making the interview rounds to reveal his own new information. Most of which, Buting says, is Kratz "continuing his public misinformation campaign."

"He is making statements he should know are untrue, like claims about Steven Avery's 'sweat DNA' being found on the hood latch of the RAV4," Buting said. "There is no such thing as 'sweat DNA.' DNA is found in all nucleated cells, but there has never been a test to determine that a sample of DNA came specifically from perspiration."

On CBS This Morning, Buting, along with lawyer Dean Strang, who was part of Avery's defense team, continued to shoot down Kratz's claims, which he calls "insecure."

Kratz recently emailed The Wrap to share nine reasons why he thinks Avery is guilty, including evidence and information of Avery's past that was not featured on the show. This includes phone records that show Avery called Halbach three times on October 31, the day she went missing.

"One at 2:24 and one at 2:35 — both calls Avery uses the *67 feature so Teresa doesn’t know it [was] him...both placed before she arrives. Then one last call at 4:35 p.m., without the *67 feature," Kratz wrote. "Avery first believes he can simply say she never showed up [his original defense], so [he] tries to establish the alibi call after she’s already been there, hence the 4:35 call. She will never answer of course, so he doesn’t need the *67 feature for that last call."

“With regard to this for instance," Buting told CBS, "[Kratz] also left out was the fact that [Avery] called and made an appointment to the office. 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.”

The two also questioned Kratz's DNA evidence once again, with Strang saying this DNA could have "transferred from something that may or may not have been him." This once again raises the question of whether someone had framed Avery by placing his blood in her car.

The lawyers did share some good news for Avery supporters, explaining that since the show, scientists from all over the world have reached out to say “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.

Meanwhile, as Avery's defense continues to refute the prosecution's new claims, some of the original evidence is also getting a second look.

The digital magazine On Milwaukee found a newly discovered court document revealing that a nurse was set to testify during the original trial; she put a puncture in a vial of Avery's blood.

The show had originally positioned the hole in the vial, which was the size of a hypodermic needle, as a sign that the police could have tampered with the crime scene. Buting even called it "a red-letter day for the defense" on the show.

In actuality, nurse Marlene Kraintz said she had taken a sample of the blood on January 2, 1996. Kraintz, who passed away in 2012, wasn't called to testify, because "the prosecution didn't think the defense had raised the blood-hole theory at trial strongly enough to warrant rebuttal."

"Although the documentary suggests that the hole in the vial of blood was significant, everybody at the time knew and certainly the filmmakers had to know that the hole in the vial was put there by the nurse who drew the blood," Kratz told the magazine.

Experts also told On Milwaukee that blood vials such as Avery's are supposed to have holes pierced in their rubber stoppers. According to the experts, that's how the blood gets into the vial, something the documentary doesn't explain.

On Milwaukee does, however, note that this doesn't "eliminate the possibility that someone could have planted blood by removing it another way from the 1996 Avery tube — putting a syringe into the already existing vial hole, for example, or by removing the cap."

More from TV