The Netflix documentary Making a Murderer brought the Steven Avery murder trial into the public spotlight. Viewers were outraged, believing Avery was falsely convicted.

But was he actually guilty? Some key facts were left out of the series that point to his guilt. This raises important questions about how documentaries can manipulate our perception of guilt and innocence.

In the US legal system, you’re innocent until proven guilty. When you serve on a jury, you must assume the defendant is innocent until the state proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

However, our minds can be easily manipulated depending on how information is presented. My own experience serving jury duty showed how indignant jurors became in their judgements, regardless of the actual evidence.

Making a Murderer left out critical evidence against Avery. Another documentary, Convicting a Murderer, highlights what was omitted and makes a strong case for his guilt.

Watching both films back-to-back is an interesting exercise in seeing how your mind can be swayed. At first Avery seems wrongly convicted. But the full facts paint a very different picture.

In this episode, I discuss:

• My recent experience with being called to jury duty—which was both fascinating and horrifying for me to witness

• How my fellow jurors’ reasons for believing something had nothing to do with the evidence of the case—and they were indignant about it

•  How people complete a picture in their mind that’s false—and they end up putting innocent people in prison

• How it’s very difficult to change a person’s mind, once they’ve made their mind up about something

• The 2015 Netflix series, Making a Murderer, about a Wisconsin man who was falsely accused of murder, served 18 years in prison, and was released after DNA evidence overturned his conviction

Talented filmmakers can control the narrative and make anyone appear guilty or innocent to suit their agenda. This shows the importance of looking at all evidence yourself before making judgements.