Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi took to Twitter today to answer questions from viewers about their popular documentary. I took the liberty of combining the text from all of their tweets to make it easier to read!
Q1A1: Steven's unique status as one of WI's first DNA exonerees + efforts to improve the system Before he was charged again made the context for the new case significant.
Q2A2: Teresa was the only Auto Trader photographer who covered Manitowoc. As the only Auto Trader photog in the county, if he asked for her there is nothing suspicious about that.
Q3A3: Vote to encourage ethical behavior by those working in the system, Support reforms re how juvenile suspects are questioned, support funding for public defenders, Demand accountability for misconduct in office, Write to editors and/or news directors when you see/read prejudicial pretrial publicity
Q4A4: People need to engage with the system. You can do that by writing to your elected officials and voting your values.
Q5A5: While we're not in a position to release extended footage the full trial transcript is available online for free.
Q6A6: [Laughs] Now lots of folks in the media want to talk with us. Our hope is that their focus will be on the bigger issues the series raises.
Q7A7: The point of the series is to get viewers to face uncomfortable questions abt how guilt gets decided in this country
Q8A8: They continue to suffer every day Steven and Brendan are in prison. But they're feeling uplifted by the recent letters of support they've received, and encouraged that Steven has a new lawyer.
Q9A9: No. Strongest evidence of guilt is in the series. The evidence left out is less significant, redundant, Disputed, and in some cases inadmissible (unreliable/irrelevant/prejudicial)
Q10A10: Still working on this one. Our hope is to travel+speak to students across the US about the system and its failings. We're also accepting invitations to travel abroad and talk about the series.
Q11A11: There are many inaccurate stories being aired/printed about our process.
Q12A12:
We saw no indication of that. We saw a woman who was supportive of Steven & Brendan & under a tremendous amt of pressure frm law enforcementQ13A13: We don't know who deleted her messages. He testified he did not.
Q14A14:
We had her permission to use all the footage. It's not true that she asked us not to be part of the documentary.Q15A15:
We have no idea what's behind Jodi's recent statements. The filming we did w/ her 9 years ago accurately captured her views and state of mind at the time.
Q16A16: The question is how it got there. A crime lab expert testified that he went under the hood after handling other evidence and did not change his gloves. The defense argued there was the potential for contamination. The alternative argument was planting. It was disputed evidence and neither side was presented in the series with respect to this less significant evidence.
Q17A17: No. We included all of the State's strongest evidence. What's left out is less significant, circumstantial ev, disputed by defense and/or excluded by the judge.
Q18A18: MaM isn't about whether or not Avery is guilty. It's about what the state of Wisconsin did or didn't do in its efforts to convict Avery.
Q19A19: Hope people think deeply about problems that plague our justice system. Understand that every time someone is wrongly convicted that means the true perpetrator is left on the streets. Learn from what happened in 1985. Support reform by writing to your elected officials. And signaling through your vote that justice matters to you.
Q20A20: Yes. It was only because we went through all of the materials in depth That we could begin to understand how these convictions came about.
Q21A21:
There were many challenges. One was when the State of Wisconsin tried to subpoena our footage. We had to hire a lawyer and file a motion to quash the subpoena which we won. If State had won they would have effectively shut down the production.Q22A22: People may have come away from the series feeling that way but that's not what we did. Our goal was not to convict or exonerate anyone. It was to go where the facts led us. MaM is not about whether Steven is innocent or guilty. It's about whether the process was fair
Q23A23: The defense called Dr. Gordon to testify abt Brendan's suggestibility. It did not make the final cut of the series.
Q24A24: This was legal. The Q is was it a violation of the WI code of ethics. Many argue it was.
https://t.co/LOlcLJXHCFQ25A25:
The judge excluded the evidence. The woman who outside the presence of the jury testified abt conversation with Teresa was the receptionist for Auto Trader Who said it was a 10-15 second conversation about unusual or funny things that happened with customers And here Teresa said "Ew" and laughed. You can check the trial transcript.https://t.co/MRkQKdTqo9Q26Closing statement:Thanks for all your great #AskMAM questions. There is so much to be learned from this story. Here are a few things we learned... How vulnerable juveniles are in the system. There are powerful external forces like the media impacting our court system and influencing verdicts. It is in everyone's interest that the process be fair and for verdicts to be reliable. Anybody can be accused of anything and for every wrongful conviction there is a wrongful acquittal as we saw in 1985. This should be about us coming together to work towards the common goal of an improved system.
Does any of this change your opinions??Source:
Making a Murderer Twitter