FOOL'S GOLD

The State VS Steven Avery

De: Nick van der Leek, Lisa Wilson

Narrado por: Virtual Voice

Is the criminal justice system taking advantage of ordinary Americans, or is Steven Avery [and a pair of filmmakers] playing us for fools? It has to be the one or the other, so which is it? Is there something unsavoury about a pair of defense lawyers [defending a murderer/rapist] becoming celebrities? Is Ken Kratz' sexting more offensive than the murder, and is Ken Krantz more of criminal than Steven Avery? Are Teresa Halbach's family really bigger suspects than any of the Averys? What do we make of Dr Phil's statements about this case? Is the judge working in cahoots with the prosecution/sheriff [is this a serious question, or is it not a serious enough question thus far]? According to a single juror [Mahler], the jury was tainted. Really? Make no mistake, right now a war is being waged. On the face of it the war seems to be for Steven Avery’s soul, an innocent man sent to rot in hell. But dig a little deeper and what’s really on trial here seems to be the U.S. Justice system. Neither is true. In Fool’s Paradise we described an America where things are not as black and white as people would like to believe. Fool's Gold interrogates what the trial didn't touch - those suspects besides Steven Avery who could have the means or the motive to murder Teresa Halbach. The narrative also examines the celebrity status of defense lawyers Strang and Buting and shines another light, shedding new angles on what really happened that Halloween in the Junkyard. The real story here isn’t Avery’s guilt, or whether police err in the execution of their duties [sometimes grossly], but our victim-oriented society. Avery is the perfect vehicle for those who see life as unfair to cry foul on the whole world. It is a platform to blame others because bad things happen to good people. Richard Mahler, a juror in the Steven Avery trial is a case in point. To date Mahler is the only juror to speak in the MAKING A MURDERER documentary. We’re subjected to more than one scene with him dissing the jury’s decision. Do you think the filmmakers mentioned what actually happened with Mahler and the post-conviction motions in 2009? Besides trying their damnedest to sell a film, the real psychology at work here is that of the Junkyard Prince. There’s a sociopathic attitude to women, where they are worth less to him than scrap metal. And yet a pair of female filmmakers have made Avery into an American hero; a symbol of Innocence Lost. In van der Leek and Wilson’s view a trial that is technically not 100% fair doesn’t automatically mean a resumption of a presumption of innocence. And the certainty of Avery’s innocence is the Fool’s Gold that’s most alarming of all. “...what ails our criminal justice system... lies in unwarranted certitude on the part of police officers and prosecutors and defense lawyers and judges and jurors... that they’re getting it right. That they simply are right. Just a... a tragic lack of humility of everyone who participates in our criminal justice system.”- Dean Strang Isn’t the one person here with a tragic lack of humility Steven Avery? Is it Avery that killed Halbach, or us? Is Avery the criminal, or the Justice System? Is Avery a victim of his own weakness and folly? Which is the bigger fool, the fool or the fool who follows him?