Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911
That's not the argument epeg was making.
The filmmakers chose to include that scene of them being shocked by the hole and acting like it was a huge break. They did so purely for narrative and it mislead mislead a lot of viewers. To act like it didn't happen is so bad.
Also I don't ever recall them stating the hole was standard for all vials. Simply making a comment that the physical condition of the vial isn't as big as they originally thought doesn't tell the audience much other than they at least over hyped it.
Again either the filmers didn't understand the hole was standard or chose not to include a scene citing this (while including the reacting that it was non standard, making it biased). Either way any look at early posts on the subject tells you all you need to know about the common perception of the vial.
I appreciate the common perception and respond by asking you what the documentary could have done differently to prevent this "terrible misconception among the peanut gallery?"
I cannot see any circumstance that would make it reasonable to omit that scene. It was a contemporaneous account of something that is important in the case (the lack of proper evidentiary seal on the evidence box). Once the box was opened, was the scene supposed to be cut? Was is improper to include Dean's telephone comments (to the effect) "that it was a good day for the defense?"
If you you answer "yes" to either, you either are being disingenuous or naive. At the very least, you demonstrate you have no future in making documentaries.
Now, given the fact the film does not use a narrative, what exactly is supposed to happen from there? I suppose we could have a scene where the prosecution explains that the hole is not important, but they did not agree to participate in the film.
Instead, the film shows a later exchange between Dean and J.B. where they admit the vial was not the smoking gun they hoped for; that to make use of it, they would have to take some complicated steps. That was in the documentary. If people can't weigh those against each other, I don't know what to tell you.
To have this presented in "simpler terms" for the casual viewer, I supposed there would have to be footage in order to do that. That there was not can be a result from a number of things - but I think one of the biggest reasons is because the hole turned out not to be a big issue. So there was no footage. If you find it being discussed at length in the trial transcript especially where Kratz argues, "hey, the hole is really a standard occurrence, it bears no importance in this matter," then I would agree they may have been able to present a more balanced view by showing that.
Anyhow, the show is about the unfairness of the system, the bigger point of the blood is that the prosecution had access to the FBI to put a lot of resources into producing a special test for the case on short notice. Did you not see that, either?
At the end of the day, the defense concedes the hole is irrelevant; we linked to their brief stating as much.