One Juror's Shocking ‘Making A Murderer’ Claim Creates Even More Doubt In Steven Avery's Case

The wildly popular Netflix documentary series Making a Murderer follows the case of Steven Avery, who was exonerated of rape before being convicted of murder. The series explores the possibility that Manitowoc County authorities involved in Avery's wrongful sexual assault conviction framed him for murder after he filed a lawsuit against the county. (The department wholly denies this.) But now, a key figure has supposedly come forward with information that could further convince fans of the show. According to the creators of the show, an alleged juror in Avery's trial claimed they believed Avery was framed. The filmmakers say that the juror said that Avery was only convicted because the juror feared for their life.

The juror was not named by the filmmakers, and has not spoken out themselves.

Appearing on the Today show Tuesday, showrunners Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos dropped the bombshell revelation that a juror in Avery's 2005 murder trial reportedly reached out to them after their docuseries premiered on Netflix.

We were contacted by one of the jurors who sat through Steven Avery's trial and shared with us their thoughts and they told us that they believe Steven Avery was not proven guilty. They believe that Steven was framed by law enforcement.

The juror went on to claim that each verdict was a compromise. Ricciardi called it a "significant revelation."

That was the actual word the juror used and went on to describe the jurors ultimately trading votes in the jury room and explicitly discussing, "If you vote guilty on this count, I will vote not guilty on this count."

And the reason the jurors compromised in this way, according to the filmmakers? They might have been pressured.

They told us really that they were afraid that if they held out for a mistrial that it would be easy to identify which juror had done that and that they were fearful for their own safety.

That juror voted to convict Avery, the filmmakers said.

Ultimately, that juror believes that Avery deserves a new trial, and if he gets one, "it should take place far away from Wisconsin," Ricciardi said.

The filmmakers have explained that the potentially pervasive corruption plaguing the country's criminal justice system was a principal driving force behind their series.

Ricciardi noted on the Today show:

Our through line in the entire series really was a question of how is the American criminal justice system functioning? Is it delivering on its promises of truth and justice? And we thought Steven Avery would be an amazing window through which to look at the system.

Image: Netflix