bocomoj This film series is a documentary.Doc-u-men-ta-ry : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art : being, consisting of, or contained in documents : a presentation (such as a film or novel) expressing or dealing with factual eventsI don't know why people seem to believe documentaries are somehow "required" to present both sides in an unbiased manner. That's the job of journalists, and even they don't do it; the nightly news is filled with bias.People who confuse "documentary" with "news" don't understand what documentaries are supposed to be. Read the definitions above. Nowhere does it say that all facts must be presented or the presentation should be unbiased.The intent of documentary film is to present an argument and support that argument with information. Documentary film is the media equivalent to a structured debate or writing a persuasive essay. You include opposing arguments and facts only to the point they help make your case. End of story.This series provides a clear narrative from a certain point of view. It tells a compelling story about a man and his encounters with law enforcement and our obviously imperfect judicial system. Some of the things we see are truly horrific. Things on both sides of the argument.And that's really the point. We should really only be shocked by horrific things done by criminals. We shouldn't observe police and prosecutors engaged in any activity that even gives of whiff of impropriety. Yet, we do. In fact, it's observed so often, it has become almost a running joke. A very tragic joke, to be sure.Also, it's dumbfounding how many people fundamentally misunderstand our criminal justice system. Only the prosecution must prove anything using evidence. The entire purpose of the defense is to create reasonable doubt. Avery's attorneys have no mandate to provide evidence or even substantiate their claims in any manner. Defense attorneys routinely manufacture outrageous lies to save their clients. This is done every day. It is how it is supposed to be done, if the lawyer is any good. If the defense were required to state the truth and provide evidence, 99% of trials would never happen, because the defendant would just plead guilty.

tristanspohn The fact is that this was a great compelling show, and had a very strong entertainment value, and that is what we have to look at, and that is what I used in rating this show.The hope is for this to raise a conversation, and the treatment of individuals in the system can be vastly improved and this does great at conveying that idea.Its problem and the problem a lot of people have with it is its manipulation by omission. I thought that Avery and Dassey were wrongfully convicted wholeheartedly by the end of it. Not necessarily that they were 100% innocent, but that they weren't undeniably certifiably without a shadow of a doubt guilty.Research did great at changing that, and it was surprising to learn just how much was left out, and how critical it was. Producers claimed time, but they included a lot of less important bits than what they included.If you do a bit of research, you see just how bad Avery looked, and it really destroyed the image of good guy at heart with an awful lot of rotten luck image the show portrayed.His past offenses were really bad, and the evidence they omitted was very damning. It was testified or said by him in the documentary that he had never even talked to Halbach, yet he knew her well enough to repeatedly call and request for her.He was released and cleared 18 years after his wrongful rape conviction, but had personally admitted and been accused of multiple sexual assaults.I won't get into it all, but that's the tip of the iceberg,and are things that play a huge role of perception of innocence. It was stupid and ridiculous to think someone could be released from serving 18 years for a rape he didn't commit to turn around and months later rape and murder Halbach. It would be completely idiotic and make no sense, which is something that would have given him leverage. Because its tough to go pointing fingers at the man just undeniably exonerated for the same crime.He intentionally doused a cat in gasoline and threw them into a fire, and I'm sorry but that's despicable. The show made it seem accidental. It wasn't.I think that Brendan Dassey was given a raw and unfair deal. One piece of evidence that does look bad for Dassey that was left out is the fact that his mother claimed he helped Avery clean his garage with bleach, the location many investigators believed to be the murder site, but that is heresy.Dassey was convicted based on his own confession which he then denied and coupled with the fact about the garage floor with bleach from what I read that was it. Whether he did it or not, that was unfair and unjust. How can you convict someone based on what they say when they said the opposite as well? You can't pick and choose.Regardless a well-crafted show.

Majikat My best tip for this series, is that if you find it a little slow at the beginning, stick with it!Ilwhilst this series has been knocked a little for being bias, your own instincts from some of the facts provided will have you torn in both directions as to the innocencevor guilt of the two involved.So engrossed was I, that I went to see the Lawyers used in this series, whilst on tour who did a great Q&A evening hosted by Professor David Wilson.This will be of all kinds of interest to people interested in law, justice, truth, police, human rights activists and of course the ripple effect of all those touxhed by this.

Frank Lampard Like most people I was unfamiliar with this case before watching this "documentary." And like most people, I was disturbed as the makers of the film started to create real doubt as to the guilt of this man. Little insinuations and open ended segments are put in that make you scream "what is going on here!?" However, unlike most people that have watched this series, I started to research the court records of this case. I started to examine the actual evidence and testimony. I went beyond just getting my information from this show. What I found was probably the most open and shut case in the history of mankind. You had a truly evil human being, that had motive (the desire to rape and kill women). means (he was the last person to see the victim alive) and more physical evidence than you can shake a stick at. The man made numerous anonymous attempts to lure this woman on to his property, there is no evidence of her ever leaving his property, her vehicle and remains were found on his property... it is open and shut. As for the defense's case, they did not have one. They simply relied on "it is a conspiracy." But there is not one example of them ever expanding on or proving that conspiracy. So many facts all but scream, Avery did it, from his numerous attempts to lure the nervous victim on to his property, numerous incidents of his abusing women and others, his feeling that his being wronged in the past allowed him to do anything he wished to women, the actual physical remains of her body on his property, along with her vehicle, all of which he tried to cover up. I will not even bother with the numerous incriminating events in his background and numerous people that heard him brag about what he did. Steven Avery is a very bad man and a very guilty man, the testimony in court proved that, which is why the jury convicted. Anybody that would take the time to actually examine the case on their own, instead of simply relying on this extremely deceptive and manipulated "documentary," would know that. People have said this is a disturbing documentary, I agree. It is disturbing, because some manipulative filmmakers decided they were going to create a documentary to con thousands of people into thinking a guilty person was innocent, and they did just that. They mixed and edited a film that turned black in to white and up in to down. They banked on a viewing audience being too lazy and inflamed to actually take time to examine the real facts of the case. That is evil almost in the realm of Steven Avery.