In an article written for a site called Splash, which is owned by the Chicago Sun Times, Wahlberg briefly comments on the parallels between the two cases. Specifically, he brings up the allegations in both cases that police planted or otherwise fabricated evidence to pin responsibility for a heinous crime on their suspect.
That's all true and fine, but from there, his arguments completely fall apart. For starters, he points out how in the O.J. trial, we knew based on evidence presented at the time that the cop accused of planting evidence, Mark Fuhrman, was a legitimately bad person. That's true. He was caught on tape using racial slurs, and lied on the stand when asked if that was something he'd ever done. However, Wahlberg then quite absurdly suggests that we have zero evidence of the "evil" nature of the law enforcement officials involved in the Avery case.
When you see it ...
Did he even f*****g watch Making A Murderer? The cops he's referring to sent Avery to prison for 18 years for a rape he didn't commit. When they came upon evidence that pointed to another suspect, they kept it secret for years, leaving an innocent man to waste away in prison while an actual rapist was allowed to run free and continue assaulting women. I'm no ethics expert, but that seems pretty damn evil to me.
His reasoning goes even further off the rails when he talks about what he believes to be the key difference between the two cases. In Making A Murderer, the public was only able to view the trial through the lens of a lopsided documentary that left out key facts to make their case stronger, but with the O.J. trial, we got to see everything. From there, his article turns into yet another variation of the countless "The Evidence Against Steven Avery That Making A Murderer Left Out" articles which you've undoubtedly read several times on any number of different websites.