Originally Posted by DonDadda59
The documentary was heavily biased towards the defense. The filmmakers left out some key details, ie- Avery was charged with dousing a cat with gasoline and burning it alive (not directly linked to the case but shows what he's capable of), he was accused of raping two women (not counting the one he was wrongly jailed for. He admitted to his girlfriend Jody or w/e her name was that he raped one woman... probably why she left him.), his dried sweat was found under the hood of the victim's car.
IMO it's a scenario much like OJ's case- Avery committed the crime, but the police planted/doctored evidence to bolster the case.
The cat thing actually was touched upon early in the documentary. I'm as avid an animal rights person as you'll find and if he were being punished for that (which he did as a juvenile fwiw), I'd be all for it... but I don't see why it would be a major focus of the documentary. A mention at the beginning (which is what they did) is all that was necessary, imo. I think it was accompanied by Avery saying something like, "I admit the wrong things I have done in life ... "
I didn't think any of the stuff that prosecution has trotted out as being intentionally "left out" by the filmmakers to make Avery look innocent were all that important, tbh. The main arguments made by the prosecution in court were contained in the doc. There were some interesting things they left out from the defense side, too.
For instance, Avery's lawyers put a forensic anthropologist on the stand who testified that an open fire -- like the one prosecution claims Avery used to dispose of the victim's body -- would never have generated enough heat to burn a body in the way the bones were destroyed. To me, that is pretty damning testimony and it really calls into question the prosecution's entire scenario of events.
Also, there were little blood droplets from killed deer found all over the garage in which prosecution claimed the victim was shot (where the bullet was found). That essentially debunks the idea that the blood could have been cleaned up, because the deer blood would have also been cleaned in the process.
Neither of those facts were mentioned in the documentary. It was a long trial and I'm sure they had to pick and choose to move along the story.
Being found guilty is an incredibly high threshold. I'm not saying Avery had nothing to do with her death. But, I didn't think the state even came close to meeting the "without a reasonable doubt" standard, with or without the additional evidence not included in the documentary (from either side).
Brendan Dassey is just a flat-out travesty. That confession was coerced, plain and simple, and since it was the only thing connecting him to the crime, I feel safe in saying he had nothing to do with it and a clearly innocent person is sitting behind bars. To me, that was far and away the most egregious part of the documentary.
Watching those confessions and then his own "defense" working with the police was stomach churning.