Latest news with #MakingaMurderer
Time of India
25-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Grenfell: Uncovered OTT Release Date - When and where to watch documentary revisiting 2017 horror
Grenfell: Uncovered OTT Release Date - Netflix is set to release this powerful new documentary on June 20, 2025. This feature-length film explores the tragic events of the Grenfell Tower fire that occurred in London in 2017, aiming to shed light on the circumstances that led to one of the UK's most devastating residential fires. What is Grenfell: Uncovered all about? Produced by Rogan Productions, the documentary offers a comprehensive look at the disaster, featuring interviews with survivors, bereaved families, firefighters, and experts. It examines the decisions and systemic failures that contributed to the fire, highlighting issues such as the use of combustible cladding and inadequate safety measures. Grenfell: Uncovered also includes perspectives from public figures like former Prime Minister Theresa May, who faced criticism for her response to the tragedy. The Grenfell Tower fire occurred on June 14, 2017, in North Kensington, West London. An electrical fault in a refrigerator on the fourth floor ignited the blaze, which rapidly spread due to the building's flammable exterior cladding. The fire resulted in 72 deaths and over 70 injuries, marking it as the deadliest structural fire in the UK since World War II. The incident prompted widespread scrutiny of building regulations and fire safety standards across the country. Grenfell: Uncovered aims to provide a platform for survivors, bereaved families and firefighters to share their stories and seek justice. What more real-life tale can you watch on Netflix? While you wait for Grenfell: Uncovered, Netflix offers a wide variety of documentaries, including true crime, nature, sports, culture, and more. Some popular documentary series include Tiger King, Making a Murderer, The Last Dance, and American Manhunt: Osama bin Laden. They also have documentaries on nature, such as My Octopus Teacher and Our Planet.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Yahoo
Wisconsin Supreme Court denies review of Steven Avery's latest appeal
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has denied convicted murderer Steven Avery's petition for review of his latest appeal. The state's highest court issued the decision May 21. Avery's attorney, Kathleen Zellner, said in a post on X that the denial was "expected." The state Supreme Court denied Avery's petition for review for previous appeal attempts in 2011 and 2021. Avery's next step will be to file a petition in federal court — the first time Avery has done so, Zellner told USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin. "Two things are certain at this point: (1) Steven Avery will never give up on proving his actual innocence. (2) Steven Avery's legal team is more dedicated to winning his freedom than ever before," Zellner said in an email. Avery, 62, is serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole for the murder of Teresa Halbach, a 25-year-old woman from the Calumet County community of St. John. Halbach, who worked as a photographer, went missing after going to the Avery family's auto salvage yard near Two Rivers to take pictures of vehicles on a work assignment on Halloween 2005. Avery and his teenage nephew Brendan Dassey were arrested and convicted of Halbach's murder after trials in 2007. The Manitowoc County case gained international attention after the 2015 premiere of the Netflix docuseries "Making a Murderer," which spotlights arguments made by Avery's trial attorneys: that Avery may have been framed by the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Office, as it stood to lose millions to Avery in a lawsuit for a wrongful conviction for which he served 18 years in prison. Avery was wrongfully convicted of a sexual assault in 1985 and released from prison in 2003, after DNA evidence pinned the assault on a different man. He had been a free man for just over two years when he was arrested for Halbach's murder. Avery has pursued numerous appeals over the years. His latest appeal, a third motion for post-conviction relief filed in August 2022, asserts that a different man killed Halbach, then framed Avery and was a key witness against him at trial. Sheboygan County Circuit Court Judge Angela Sutkiewicz, who was presiding over the case at that time, denied the motion in August 2023. Avery then appealed that ruling to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, which issued a decision in January siding with Sutkiewicz. A panel of three judges from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals District II stated that Avery's motion was "insufficiently pled" and that there was not adequate evidence to warrant an evidentiary hearing. Avery's attorneys then petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court to review the case in February. The Wisconsin attorney general then filed a response, arguing a review by the state Supreme Court would be a "waste" of the court's "scarce time and resources." RELATED: Wisconsin Supreme Court dismisses letter from Steven Avery; no decision yet on review RELATED: Court of Appeals denies Steven Avery's latest appeal, will not grant evidentiary hearing RELATED: Nearing 20 years since Teresa Halbach's murder, Steven Avery continues appeal efforts In March, while awaiting a decision, Avery sent a letter to the state Supreme Court without help or advice from his legal team. In the letter, Avery wrote that he is "a victim of a setup" that "has to be fixed now." The Wisconsin Supreme Court then indicated in the court record that it would not take Avery's letter into account in its decision, because "Mr. Avery is not entitled to hybrid representation in which both he and counsel present arguments to the court." Contact Kelli Arseneau at 920-213-3721 or karseneau@ Follow her on X, formerly Twitter, at @ArseneauKelli. This article originally appeared on Appleton Post-Crescent: Wisconsin Supreme Court won't review Steven Avery's latest appeal
Scottish Sun
10-05-2025
- Scottish Sun
How innocent people could be jailed because of sinister AI bot ChatGPT… and leave dangerous criminals walking free
ROBOCOP How innocent people could be jailed because of sinister AI bot ChatGPT… and leave dangerous criminals walking free Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) JURORS could secretly be using ChatGPT to decide crunch verdicts, top US lawyers fear. Dean Strang and Jerry Buting, who starred in Netflix documentary Making a Murderer, warned it could see innocent people convicted - or let criminals off the hook. 4 Top lawyers have warned how ChatGPT could be being used to decide verdicts Credit: Reuters 4 Jerry Buting and Dean Strang, who were Steven Avery's defence lawyers The lawyers, who defended Steven Avery on the hit show, insisted it is vital jurors are stopped from accessing the AI tool during trials. Strang said jurors could be tempted to use ChatGPT as a 'sounding board' if they are uncertain about a defendant. But he stressed it could have "disastrous" consequences as jurors could get skewed answers that force a mistrial or bring them to the wrong decision. Strang, who has worked in criminal defence for more than 30 years, told The Sun: 'Jurors should be banned from using ChatGPT. More on AI TRUTH TWISTING AI could jail innocent people with fake CCTV, Making a Murderer lawyer says 'I can't prove this and I'm not a computer engineer, but my sense is that AI, in part, is assessing what it thinks we want to hear and tailoring answers to its perception of what our human wishes and purposes are. 'That would be disastrous in a jury room, to the extent that AI decides the juror is inclined to a conviction. 'You're going to get a skewed answer. To the extent AI perceives the jurors are inclined to acquittal or if AI develops its own will, which I read is at least possible, kind of developing a consciousness. 'Either way, you're getting a skew and neither skew is good, and you're substituting out what you hope is human judgment, a human assessment of what's happening in the courtroom, credibility determinations.' Asked if he fears jurors are already using the tool, or soon will, Strang answered: 'Yes. 'Some never would, and I fear that some would be tempted to or use it as a sounding board, use it as an advisor. China's new cheap AI DeepSeek sparks ALARM as it outperforms West's models like ChatGPT amid race to superintelligence 'Even if the juror says I'm going to make the decision, but I'm getting advice from AI, that's going to be advice that's probably hard to ignore.' Strang and Buting defended Avery in the 2015 documentary, which claimed Avery had been framed for the murder of Teresa Halbach. Avery has been behind bars for the crime since 2007. Before that, he spent 18 years in jail for a rape and attempted murder he was later found innocent of. Strang and Buting continue to maintain his innocence, as does Avery himself. Now, Buting fears even more alleged miscarriages of justice through the use of ChatGPT. Buting, author of Illusion of Justice, told The Sun: 'I've seen people online take situations like the Steven Avery case or the Karen Reed case, a second trial going on right now because the jury was hung, try and use GPT by putting in the facts as they know them. 'Then they ask ChatGPT whether the person is guilty or innocent and they come up with an answer. 'It's bulls*** basically, because it depends on what you put in as the facts. What are the arguments against AI? Artificial intelligence is a highly contested issue, and it seems everyone has a stance on it. Here are some common arguments against it: Loss of jobs - Some industry experts argue that AI will create new niches in the job market, and as some roles are eliminated, others will appear. However, many artists and writers insist the argument is ethical, as generative AI tools are being trained on their work and wouldn't function otherwise. Ethics - When AI is trained on a dataset, much of the content is taken from the internet. This is almost always, if not exclusively, done without notifying the people whose work is being taken. Privacy - Content from personal social media accounts may be fed to language models to train them. Concerns have cropped up as Meta unveils its AI assistants across platforms like Facebook and Instagram. There have been legal challenges to this: in 2016, legislation was created to protect personal data in the EU, and similar laws are in the works in the United States. Misinformation - As AI tools pull information from the internet, they may take things out of context or suffer hallucinations that produce nonsensical answers. Tools like Copilot on Bing and Google's generative AI in search are always at risk of getting things wrong. Some critics argue this could have lethal effects - such as AI prescribing the wrong health information. 'This would be the problem with jurors doing it because jurors listen to the evidence. "If they go back in there and they can't really resolve something themselves, well then that's probably reasonable doubt in most cases. 'But if they say, well, we can't resolve this, you think this and I think that and there's a dispute, let's put it into ChatGPT and see what it says, and then it comes up with an answer, then somebody may be swayed by that. 'AI, at least in its current iteration, has built in biases because of the algorithms.' Buting previously told The Sun he fears AI could destroy the entire justice system by sending innocent people to jail with fake CCTV. ChatGPT exploded onto the scene in 2022 and has since become an essential tool for individuals and businesses worldwide. Buting said: 'We don't know at this point exactly how it's filtering, how it's learning. 'The idea is that it learns from more fact situations presented over and over, but what fact situations, what trials, for instance, is it looking at? 4 Steven Avery listens to testimony in the courtroom at the Calumet County Courthouse in 2007 Credit: AP:Associated Press 4 Jerry Buting argued to jurors that Steven Avery had been framed in Making a Murderer Credit: NETFLIX 'Are there already ones where there has been a built-in bias? Because there is a lot of bias in America's legal system. Bias against minorities in particular. 'So are they kind of underrepresented in the algorithm, machine learning that is happening with AI? A lot of people wonder about that. 'I just know I've seen people use ChatGPT. I can use it and put in facts, and leave out facts that I want to, and it'll come up with an answer probably that I want. 'So I think there's a real problem.' When The Sun asked ChatGPT if Avery was guilty, the response was: "Legally: Steven Avery is guilty, he was convicted and remains in prison. What does the law say? UNDER UK law, judges are allowed to use ChatGPT to assist them when making rulings. AI assistance was given the green light by a landmark ruling in 2023. Guidelines from the Judicial Office sent to thousands of judges across England and Wales said that the tech can be useful for summarising large volumes of text or carrying out administrative tasks. However, it cautions that chatbots should relied upon for researching legal frameworks, because there is a risk it will fabricate cases or legal documents. The guidelines also warn that generative AI technology could be used to create false evidence - such as deepfake pictures or videos. The US is currently grappling with the integration of AI in its legal proceedings. Spearheading progress is the Illinois Supreme Court, which issued guidance on the use of AI by judges and lawyers in December 2024. The document encouraged the responsible and supervised use of AI, and suggested that the use of chatbots in drafting pleadings need not be declared. Its tone is generally pro-AI, and emphasises that existing legal and ethical guidance can be applied. In early May 2025, a federal judicial panel advanced a proposal to seek the public's feedback on a draft rule designed to ensure AI-produced evidence meets the same standards as human evidence. 'Public opinion and expert debate: Divided. Many believe he may have been wrongfully convicted again, especially given the suspicious handling of evidence. 'No definitive proof of innocence or of a frame-up has yet convinced the courts.' It comes as fears continue to be raised about its threat to jobs, and the dangers of the software outsmarting humans. Many experts have also warned of the security dangers of advanced AI – and how cyber-crooks could abuse them to scam innocent victims. The Sun has approached ChatGPT for a response.
The Irish Sun
10-05-2025
- The Irish Sun
How innocent people could be jailed because of sinister AI bot ChatGPT… and leave dangerous criminals walking free
JURORS could secretly be using ChatGPT to decide crunch verdicts, top US lawyers fear. Dean Strang and Jerry Buting, who starred in Netflix documentary Making a Murderer, warned it could see innocent people convicted - or let criminals off the hook. 4 Top lawyers have warned how ChatGPT could be being used to decide verdicts Credit: Reuters 4 Jerry Buting and Dean Strang, who were Steven Avery's defence lawyers The lawyers, who defended Steven Avery on the hit show, insisted it is vital jurors are stopped from accessing the AI tool during trials. Strang said jurors could be tempted to use ChatGPT as a 'sounding board' if they are uncertain about a defendant. But he stressed it could have "disastrous" consequences as jurors could get skewed answers that force a mistrial or bring them to the wrong decision. Strang, who has worked in criminal defence for more than 30 years, told The Sun: 'Jurors should be banned from using ChatGPT. More on AI 'I can't prove this and I'm not a computer engineer, but my sense is that AI, in part, is assessing what it thinks we want to hear and tailoring answers to its perception of what our human wishes and purposes are. 'That would be disastrous in a jury room, to the extent that AI decides the juror is inclined to a conviction. 'You're going to get a skewed answer. To the extent AI perceives the jurors are inclined to acquittal or if AI develops its own will, which I read is at least possible, kind of developing a consciousness. 'Either way, you're getting a skew and neither skew is good, and you're substituting out what you hope is human judgment, a human assessment of what's happening in the courtroom, credibility determinations.' Most read in Tech Asked if he fears jurors are already using the tool, or soon will, Strang answered: 'Yes. 'Some never would, and I fear that some would be tempted to or use it as a sounding board, use it as an advisor. China's new cheap AI DeepSeek sparks ALARM as it outperforms West's models like ChatGPT amid race to superintelligence 'Even if the juror says I'm going to make the decision, but I'm getting advice from AI, that's going to be advice that's probably hard to ignore.' Strang and Buting defended Avery in the 2015 documentary, which claimed Avery had been framed for the murder of Teresa Halbach. Avery has been behind bars for the crime since 2007. Before that, he spent 18 years in jail for a rape and attempted murder he was later found innocent of. Strang and Buting continue to maintain his innocence, as does Avery himself. Now, Buting fears even more alleged miscarriages of justice through the use of ChatGPT. Buting, author of Illusion of Justice, told The Sun: 'I've seen people online take situations like the Steven Avery case or the Karen Reed case, a second trial going on right now because the jury was hung, try and use GPT by putting in the facts as they know them. 'Then they ask ChatGPT whether the person is guilty or innocent and they come up with an answer. 'It's bulls*** basically, because it depends on what you put in as the facts. What are the arguments against AI? Artificial intelligence is a highly contested issue, and it seems everyone has a stance on it. Here are some common arguments against it: Loss of jobs - Some industry experts argue that AI will create new niches in the job market, and as some roles are eliminated, others will appear. However, many artists and writers insist the argument is ethical, as generative AI tools are being trained on their work and wouldn't function otherwise. Ethics - When AI is trained on a dataset, much of the content is taken from the internet. This is almost always, if not exclusively, done without notifying the people whose work is being taken. Privacy - Content from personal social media accounts may be fed to language models to train them. Concerns have cropped up as Meta unveils its AI assistants across platforms like Facebook and Instagram. There have been legal challenges to this: in 2016, legislation was created to protect personal data in the EU, and similar laws are in the works in the United States. Misinformation - As AI tools pull information from the internet, they may take things out of context or suffer hallucinations that produce nonsensical answers. Tools like Copilot on Bing and Google's generative AI in search are always at risk of getting things wrong. Some critics argue this could have lethal effects - such as AI prescribing the wrong health information. 'This would be the problem with jurors doing it because jurors listen to the evidence. "If they go back in there and they can't really resolve something themselves, well then that's probably reasonable doubt in most cases. 'But if they say, well, we can't resolve this, you think this and I think that and there's a dispute, let's put it into ChatGPT and see what it says, and then it comes up with an answer, then somebody may be swayed by that. 'AI, at least in its current iteration, has built in biases because of the algorithms.' Buting previously told The Sun he ChatGPT exploded onto the scene in 2022 and has since become an essential tool for individuals and businesses worldwide. Buting said: 'We don't know at this point exactly how it's filtering, how it's learning. 'The idea is that it learns from more fact situations presented over and over, but what fact situations, what trials, for instance, is it looking at? 4 Steven Avery listens to testimony in the courtroom at the Calumet County Courthouse in 2007 Credit: AP:Associated Press 4 Jerry Buting argued to jurors that Steven Avery had been framed in Making a Murderer Credit: NETFLIX 'Are there already ones where there has been a built-in bias? Because there is a lot of bias in America's legal system. Bias against minorities in particular. 'So are they kind of underrepresented in the algorithm, machine learning that is happening with AI? A lot of people wonder about that. 'I just know I've seen people use ChatGPT. I can use it and put in facts, and leave out facts that I want to, and it'll come up with an answer probably that I want. 'So I think there's a real problem.' When The Sun asked ChatGPT if Avery was guilty, the response was: "Legally: Steven Avery is guilty, he was convicted and remains in prison. What does the law say? UNDER UK law, judges are allowed to use ChatGPT to assist them when making rulings. AI assistance was given the green light by a landmark ruling in 2023. Guidelines from the Judicial Office sent to thousands of judges across England and Wales said that the tech can be useful for summarising large volumes of text or carrying out administrative tasks. However, it cautions that chatbots should relied upon for researching legal frameworks, because there is a risk it will fabricate cases or legal documents. The guidelines also warn that generative AI technology could be used to create false evidence - such as deepfake pictures or videos. The US is currently grappling with the integration of AI in its legal proceedings. Spearheading progress is the Illinois Supreme Court, which issued guidance on the use of AI by judges and lawyers in December 2024. The document encouraged the responsible and supervised use of AI, and suggested that the use of chatbots in drafting pleadings need not be declared. Its tone is generally pro-AI, and emphasises that existing legal and ethical guidance can be applied. In early May 2025, a federal judicial panel advanced a proposal to seek the public's feedback on a draft rule designed to ensure AI-produced evidence meets the same standards as human evidence. 'Public opinion and expert debate: Divided. Many believe he may have been wrongfully convicted again, especially given the suspicious handling of evidence. 'No definitive proof of innocence or of a frame-up has yet convinced the courts.' It comes as fears continue to be raised about its threat to jobs, and the dangers of the software outsmarting humans. Many experts have also warned of the security dangers of advanced AI – and how cyber-crooks could abuse them to The Sun has approached ChatGPT for a response. Who is Steven Avery? STEVEN Avery is serving a life sentence at Wisconsin's Waupun Correctional Institution. He and his nephew He has been fighting for his freedom ever since he was found guilty of murder in 2007. Avery argued that his conviction was based on planted evidence and false testimony. In 1985, It took 18 years for his conviction to be overturned and he was given a $36million (£28.2million) payout in compensation. But days later, he was re-arrested for the murder of The 62-year-old is continuing serving life in prison without the possibility of parole. In the 2015 Netflix original series Making a Murderer, Avery documented his struggle for "justice." In the last episode of the series, viewers were told that Avery had exhausted his appeals and was no longer entitled to state-appointed legal representation.
Scottish Sun
27-04-2025
- Scottish Sun
AI could destroy entire justice system by sending innocent people to JAIL with fake CCTV, Making a Murderer lawyer warns
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) AI could wreak havoc in the justice system by sending innocent people to jail, a top lawyer has warned. Jerry Buting, who defended Steven Avery in Netflix hit Making a Murderer, said video doctoring is becoming so sophisticated it is increasingly hard to spot. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 3 Deepfake technology is advancing to clone the features of a person and map them onto something else. Stock picture Credit: Alamy 3 Jerry Buting argued to jurors that Steven Avery had been framed in Netflix documentary Making a Murderer Credit: NETFLIX 3 Avery remains is prison after being given a lift sentence Credit: Splash News He believes advanced AI convincingly fabricating evidence could lead to innocent people being thrown behind bars. Buting, author of Illusion of Justice, told The Sun: 'More and more people could get convicted.' Deepfake technology is becoming worryingly advanced and exceedingly more difficult to regulate. Experts have previously told The Sun that deepfakes are the "biggest evolving threat" when it comes to cybercrime. More on AI MORE TO LIFE Four ways humans are trying to 'resurrect' & come back from the dead Deepfakes are fraudulent videos that appear to show a person doing - and possibly saying - things they did not do. Artificial intelligence-style software is used to clone the features of a person and map them onto something else. It could see people accused of crimes they didn't commit in a chilling echo of BBC drama The Capture. The show saw a former British soldier accused of kidnap and murder based on seemingly definitive CCTV footage which had actually been altered. Buting said: "The tricky part is when AI gets to the point where you can doctor evidence without it being obvious, where you can alter videos. 'There are so many CCTV cameras in the UK, virtually every square foot is covered. Deepfakes: A Digital Threat to Society 'But if that could be altered in some way so that it is designed to present something that's not true, it could be damaging to the defence or prosecution. "Then what can we believe if we can't believe our own eyes?' Buting, who defended Avery in his now infamous 2007 murder trial, said AI is now in a race with experts who are being trained to tell the difference. But the US-based criminal defence lawyer claims that is no guarantee to stop sickos twisting the truth. Buting claimed: 'It may result in dismissals but I think it's more likely to result in wrongful convictions because law enforcement and the prosecution just have more resources. "Nobody really knows how AI is going to impact the justice system. "But there are also very skilled people who are trying to develop techniques of being able to tell when something has been altered, even at a sophisticated level. "How AI actually affects the legal system is still very much up in the air. Deepfakes – what are they, and how do they work? Here's what you need to know... Deepfakes are phoney videos of people that look perfectly real They're made using computers to generate convincing representations of events that never happened Often, this involves swapping the face of one person onto another, or making them say whatever you want The process begins by feeding an AI hundreds or even thousands of photos of the victim A machine learning algorithm swaps out certain parts frame-by-frame until it spits out a realistic, but fake, photo or video In one famous deepfake clip, comedian Jordan Peele created a realistic video of Barack Obama in which the former President called Donald Trump a 'dipsh*t' In another, the face of Will Smith is pasted onto the character of Neo in the action flick The Matrix. Smith famously turned down the role to star in flop movie Wild Wild West, while the Matrix role went to Keanu Reeves "If people are able to discover that evidence has been altered, let's say it's a situation where the defence has an expert who can look at the metadata and all the background, then that may very well result in a dismissal of the case, and should. 'Because the evidence was altered, it's original destroyed, how can we believe anything anymore?" Former White House Information Officer Theresa Payton previously warned The Sun about the huge risks deepfakes pose to society. She said: "This technology poses risks if misused by criminal syndicates or nation-state cyber operatives. "Malicious applications include creating fake personas to spread misinformation, manipulate public opinion, and conduct sophisticated social engineering attacks." In Black Mirror style, Payton warned malicious actors could exploit this technology to sow confusion and chaos by creating deepfakes of world leaders or famous faces - dead or alive. Buting warned that although teams are being urgently equipped with skills to spot deepfakes, the pace at which the technology is advancing could soon become a real issue. Who is Steven Avery? STEVEN Avery is serving a life sentence at Wisconsin's Waupun Correctional Institution. He and his nephew Brendan Dassey were convicted of the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach. He has been fighting for his freedom ever since he was found guilty of murder in 2007. Avery argued that his conviction was based on planted evidence and false testimony. In 1985, Avery was falsely convicted of sexually assaulting a young female jogger. It took 18 years for his conviction to be overturned and he was given a $36million (£28.2million) payout in compensation. But days later, he was re-arrested for the murder of Teresa Halbach. The 62-year-old is continuing serving life in prison without the possibility of parole. In the 2015 Netflix original series Making a Murderer, Avery documented his struggle for "justice." In the last episode of the series, viewers were told that Avery had exhausted his appeals and was no longer entitled to state-appointed legal representation. He added: 'I do fear it could be an issue sooner rather than later. "There has been a steady erosion in the defence in the UK, for example barristers make very little money, really, for what they have to do. 'There is a real imbalance. The whole idea of an adversary system which the UK employs as do we in the US, is if you have two relatively skilled, equal parties on each side presenting their view of the evidence against the others that the truth will come out. 'Or that the jury will be able to discern the truth or close to it in anyway, whatever justice might be. 'But to the extent that there is this big imbalance and the defence is unskilled or underpaid, then you tend to get lower quality or lower experienced attorneys. 'That's been going on for a long time, so then when you add something like AI to it, it's going to be even harder." Buting became internationally renowned after appearing on the 2015 Netflix documentary series Making a Murderer. He alleged Avery had been convicted of a murder he didn't commit, falling foul of a set-up. But Avery, now 62, was found guilty and is serving a life sentence for the murder of Teresa Halbach in 2005.
