Quote:
Originally Posted by t-tom
There is a whole bunch of evidence that points to him as well. The documentary leaves all that out. It's sad that people are allowed to make these kind of films and that people think they are showing all the facts. It is clearly a one sided show.
|
This film (which I haven't seen) is no different than a court presentation by a slick, well financed defense team, except that none of it is playing before a jury. As such, no defense is going to present any evidence that points to guilt of a client which cannot be explained away in another "reasonable" context. If it can't be explained away, it will not be part of the defense argument. The accusations of framing, collusion, and planting of evidence is an attempt to explain away damning evidence by putting it in another context. Unfortunately, the context is
all speculation with no corroboration. During a trial, that might open the door to "reasonable doubt" as did the accusations against Mark Furman in the OJ trial. Now that the trial is long over, the argument (the film) is used to stir up public opinion to demand an investigation and, possibly, a new trial. It is a legitimate ploy, and is a legitimate documentary. It is not presented as an objective look into the Avery case.
There is one curious element about all of this which, IMO, could open things up. The claim of planting blood evidence. The film makes the claim that Avery's blood sample from 1996 was left unsecured and, thus, able to be used as a plant in the victim's car. The murder took place in 2005. It would be simple for the blood that was found in the vehicle to be tested for preservative that is put into blood evidence samples. If the blood in the car had preservative, then it likely came from the unsecured sample and you have hard evidence of possible planting of evidence. If no preservative, the car blood is consistent with Avery having been there. Problem is, the judge will not allow further testing of the blood.
Finally, the group Anonymous, threatened to leak hacked evidence of collusion between the two officers to frame Avery. They set a deadline for the police to release the information themselves or they would do it. The deadline passed and nothing has surfaced. So what do we have? Another area of speculation that has no basis in fact nor corroboration.
If films that present themselves as finding the real truth about a subject are required to present all sides equally,
what would happen to all the "Ancient Alien" episodes or, for that matter, the entire program library of the History Channel?