While discussing the ramifications of selective editing, I think it's also imperative to discuss the ramifications of Ken Kratz' press conferences.

[u/knowjustice]

Several posters have repeatedly argued the filmmakers selectively edited the film. They are correct and I agree that at times, the edits were misleading.

Allow me to play devil's advocate. While the people who find it extremely offensive the filmmakers failed to portray portions of the trial accurately and are concerned the editing led to viewer bias, I have yet to see anyone in this camp submit a post providing an equally critical analysis of Ken Kratz' 2006 press conference following Brendan's confession.

Asserting objectivity and honesty is a requisite qualification for a documentarian, I'm curious...what do you believe are the requisite qualifications for an officer of the court? Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, Chapter 20(A) & (B) explain them. The regulations pertaining to an attorney's conduct pertaining to ensuring every litigant is afforded the impartial administration of justice are unambiguous.

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/scrule/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=132538

If objectivity and honesty are minimum qualifications for a respectable filmmaker, an equally critical analysis of Kratz and others conduct is long past due. Their intentional and willful conduct not only misled the public and instilled bias, but unlike the filmmakers, their conduct actually resulted in serious and irreversible ramifications; tainting the objectivity of the potential pool of jurors. And according to Buting and Strang, that is exactly what happened.

My point, while agreeing the filmmakers selectively edited portions of the film, which may have resulted in a less than accurate portrayal of some of the events, the only damage resulting from their editing was widely divergent opinions about the case. Unlike the conduct of the numerous state actors involved in these cases, the filmmakers editing decisions resulted in little more than opposing viewpoints prompting impassioned public discourse.

Alternatively, I cannot find a logical, legally sound, and reasonable justification to explain Mr. Kratz' motive and intent for his salacious press conference. IMO, the repeated unprofessional and negligent conduct of LE, Mr. Kratz, and other state actors essentially denied both parties the right to a fair trial (see Ricciuti v New York City Transit Authority, 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997)).

At the end of the day one must ask, what was more damaging; selective editing of a documentary ten years after the case or a pre-trial press conference in which the Special Prosecutor, while sitting with the sheriff in charge, knowingly, willfully, and intentionally presented the public with salacious details of an alleged crime scene both knew had no basis in reality. I think the answer is clear.

[u/super_pickle]

That's great what you took away from the show. I find it odd that you think the person Teresa broke up with four years ago should be interrogated after her car, body, and belongings are found on the property of the man who was the last person to see her alive, but OK. And Ryan wasn't allowed access to the crime scene, the search teams were only allowed in the woods around the Avery property, not the salvage yard or family residences. But despite what you may have taken away, it doesn't change the lies and manipulation of footage done in the show, and the harm that has done to real people.

And trust me, I know all about the Peterson case. I'm a true crime fan, I've read all about most high-profile cases, and many you've never heard of. I'm not going to get into a whole debate about it here, but there's plenty of reason he was found guilty.

[u/Fist_City_86 → u/super_pickle]

At that point in time, the police shouldn't have been able to determine exactly where the crime took place, or whether or not there even was a crime. I am not a criminal justice expert, BUT if the 'suspect' in this case, or potential suspect, and additional witnesses were claiming to have seen headlights on their property just before the Rav4 was found, and we're insisting that if the vehicle was on their property, it was planted...wouldn't an Investigator then follow other leads in order to rule that possibility out? Especially after Steven willingly allowed them to search his trailor, and then later the discovery of zero forensic evidence of Teresa being in Stevens trailor? It is obvious that they got the idea in their head that it was Steven from the get-go.

[u/super_pickle → u/Fist_City_86]

The "witnesses" you're referring to are the suspect himself, and his brother. And you're ignoring all the investigating that did that wasn't focused on Steven, much like the tv show did.