You're right, the series really should have just been a camera in the middle of the court room, and 6 weeks of unedited footage.

A couple (lostinthesuas, epeg) have said the only bias is in the fact the prosecution chose not to participate.

I would also assume this is readily obvious toe everyone, but seeing as they manged to make this conclusion multiple times, I felt it necessary to break it down in a more verbose way(and epeg has managed to stick to his guns, impressive!).

Sadly I wish it was obvious to everyone

FFS, no.

I clearly said the doc shows bias. You seem to feel the filmmakers intentionally showed bias. I said they tried really hard to get all parties to participate.

We both agree the scene with them finding the vile needed to be included. I see no issue with them including the discussions between Strang and Buting, because they included many discussion between the 2 of them. Because, you know, they agreed to participate and be filmed.

If Kratz and his team had also agreed, we would have also seen footage of them discussing the vile. They didn't, so we didn't.

Oh also the beginning of ep 5 also deals with the vial, where a prosecution lawyer is going on a spiel about how the defense plans to bring in the vial and imply that an officer used it to plant evidence. But officers are good hard working family men and deserve to have their reputations protected.

lol


Almost seems like the filmmakers are doubling down here.

Thoughts Oski?

Its vial btw.

You also state the doc in no way leads to the conclusion that the tampered vial was the work of a frame job by officers. But you wont address this topic. I understand.

Also I wonder if theresas brother's interviews would have been included in the doc if he didnt come off so poorly and fame seeking?

I mean the rest of teresas family didnt seem above speaking to reporters:

http://wbay.com/2016/01/07/video-nov...-steven-avery/


But somehow the person who comes off the worst gets all the screen time!

Note: the above is sarcasm, i think the filmmakers knowingly included the scenes with the brother because it made him look bad and his form of grief was non-standard. I am going to start explaining my points more!


Also I believe the reporters covering the case were horrible. They only ever asked questions that seemed to favor the defense! Or made Halbach's brother or the prosecution look bad! They really need training on asking questions from both sides. Whats even weirder is that despite what these in court reporters were asking, the public perception at the time seemed to point to massively supporting the prosecution! crazy!

On one hand we have a properly sealed evidence box kept in a proper location with a purple top vial inside that is also properly sealed with good logistics and access records kept on the handling of the evidence box.

On the other hand we an evidence box that has been cut open and resealed with scotch tape that has a purple top vaccutainer with no additional seal inside, all being kept in a less than standard evidence storing fashion and Lenk's signature showing he was to some degree responsible for this box.

I'll agree, the vial was made to seem like a bigger deal than it actually was at that point in the documentary. But you can't say that there aren't massive implications surrounding the circumstances and state in which the box was found.

In the end, it certainly wasn't the slam dunk that the defense thought it would be, but it was definitely and no-look dime from half court assist.

Well, maybe I didn't watch carefully enough, but I do not remember it ever being presented in the series that it was known that the seal was previously broken. I do remember them being disappointed, but thought it was because it wasn't clear that they would find EDTA in it even if evidence was planted. Frankly, in hindsight, with all the facts, the whole blood thing seems like a wild goose chase to me, rather than some key plot point.

So you're basically of the opinion that the vial of blood is just completely inconsequential?

With all the facts, and the bottom line being that the vial was just not resealed properly after the defense used it several years prior, think there is maybe a 1-2% chance that Lenk planted blood. With Avery's blood being damning evidence if it is legit and let's say at most there being a 5% chance it was planted, I believe we are beyond reasonable doubt.

To clarify, the vial was used years prior by the team that got SA's wrongful conviction overturned.

Not by Strang/Buting.

And that 5% is just a number you grabbed out of thin air, with no real basis right?

Is this a genuine question?

What would basis look like?

No tape makes it easier to tamper with, but we don't know if it was ever tampered with after that point but it does allow the cops to have access to it without anyone knowing it. With that being said, the reason it wasn't sealed/seal was broken was not b/c it was tampered with but b/c the civil case investigators didn't seal it up correctly. While one of the cops could have done something, the fact that the seal was broken doesn't implicate anyone in planting SA blood.

You don't think it was intentional they tried to humanize Steven Avery and glossed over his past crimes and didn't acknowledge the sexual assault allegations against him?

You don't think it was intentional they made the victim's brother look like a dumb douchebag?

You don't think it was intentional they made the ex-bf look suspicious (this includes calling him the "ex-bf" even though they broke up like 5 years before but remained friends), along with many other people?

You don't think it was intentional they made Colborn and Lenk look like they were heavily involved in the wrongful conviction and had a lot to lose from the lawsuit and played ominous music when they testified?

You don't think it's intentional they made the EDTA test and every prosecution witness look like **** during the trial?

The documentary had a story to tell and selective editing certainly helped tell that story to the fullest.

Haha, exactly...... Someone had the motive and possibly an opportunity to plant blood, but we have no evidence that they did and an imperfect test didn't turn up anything so exactly what should we assume the number is....

Especially when considering the EDTA test was actually a reliable test, as long as the samples were larger than 1-2 uL (a drop of liquid is 50 uL).

I think they didn't include the allegations against him, because they were just that, allegations.

I think he made himself look like a tool. If you're suggesting they edited his media footage, I would entertain a citation.

First, no, I don't think referring to someone's ex-bf as their ex-bf is wrong. It's a perfectly good descriptor.

Again, I think he made himself look suspicious with his testimony. Unless you're saying they misrepresented his testimony, in which case, again, I'll gladly entertain a citation to the contrary.

I don't know what you're talking about here? I don't think they made it look like they were heavily involved. I think they made it clear they were both deposed in the civil lawsuit. Is there something factually incorrect about that?

If you don't think the FBI guy, or the DNA girl made themselves look bad/inept at their jobs, I don't know what to tell you.

but the bigger point is that the box was not properly re-sealed.

It doesn't matter who was in the log as accessing the box. After 2002, it was not sealed.

So, in 2005, it may have been accessed - without an evidence seal, nobody can tell either way (unless you expect the log book to be accurate from that point on).

It's pretty sketchy that the voice mails were deleted and you have genius ex-bf who cracks TH passwords like it's no big deal.

I would say it's possible that the blood was planted. I don't know that I would assign an % of likelihood that it was planted.

It's semantics I guess.

So you agree?

This is simple. Do you think they used every piece of interview he did? If not, then they edited(you seem to think edited means manipulated footage, I could show interview clips of almost anybody with enough source material and make them seem a certain way). Then the question becomes why did they choose to include the things they did and not include the things they didnt.

I mean, or you can ask yourself why his viewpoint mattered at all. What value does he add? Do we think he killed Teresa? Do we think he was part of the frame job? So what is the point of his inclusion?

You have to realize they had days of footage, and they condensed it to 10 hours, so not like they had a shortage of stuff to fill his place(or they can take away all of his clips and have 9 hours and 55 minutes).


Every scene was a conscious choice by the filmmakers, and in fact judging by what can only be assumed days and days of footage to choose from, there is strong purpose to every scene they included. Why was her brother a repeating character?









And in case it needs repeating. I think theres a 60% chance avery is innocent, and a 99% chance the cops did some sketchy police work intentionally, and about 90% chance they planted evidence to aid the conviction.


And no peg, there isnt any "basis" for these numbers.

Yeah, it shows that at that time, even the prosecution did not have a pat answer which would lead people to understand the broken seal and hole in the vial were "business as usual." Otherwise we woukd have heard about how stupid Strang was for getting excited over it.

I also recall a statement (probably by Dean) about the prosecution team present when the box was opened seemed very surprised. So, I'm not sure who was misleading them at the time.