That only makes sense if you use nonexistent evidence to assume he did it, and then say, "does this fact fit within the imaginary narrative that hasn't been proven?" and ok, it might. That theory takes a lot of wild supposition though.
But there were people who did see her at the house taking pictures, so she was there. Of course, the call could've just been "hey, you forgot to take a picture of x". It's more the blocked numbers before, then non-blocked afterward that make it stand out. Again, not exactly damning, but interesting none the less
Yes. In the Rickshaw preferably.
No. I think OJ was found Not Guilty by a jury of his peers. I do however believe he committed the crimes he was accused of.
Woah! That's some heavy evidence! Is that quote from when Kratz himself was testifying under oath or when he was blatantly lying to the public and/or jurors during his statements?
I don't understand the question. It is both, as many documentaries tend to be.
I'm more inclined to believe he called her hoping she'd had a change of heart about the previous incident where he answered the door in a towel and after taking some pictures of a shitty van was in the mood for some hillbilly loving. Maybe he was even going to crank call her telling her he was going to rape her and come in her so hard it would come out her ears.
No a documentary establishes facts and hopefully lets you figure out why.
I would say despite all the hubub it's a pretty straightforward, unbias documentary on things like due process, presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt. People are in an uproar and emotionally invested and all the rest because that's what people do. They put a human face on things, think through them emotionally, and react. But it's basically just a bunch of testimony and interviews that all go back to those basic themes. Which is why it's absurd people are freaking out they didn't include certain bits of evidence. They included the things that were obviously related to raising reasonable doubt, because that was one of their points. They included stuff that eroded the presumption of innocence and then had people talk about that, because that's what the documentary was about. Etc. They didn't include some of the evidence that is straightforward and perhaps more damning because the documentary wasn't an attempt to re-try Avery. Leave that irony to the court of public opinion after having seen the documentary.
That's exactly what this documentary does. Which is precisely what a "what if" is all about. So to answer your question it's both, as many documentaries tend to be.
You got in before my edit.
The documentary is biased insofar as the creators tried to get the other side of the story but everyone on the other side of the story declined to participate. It's not biased (in my opinion) beyond that and that's through no fault of their own.
I don't think they were making a documentary about the truth or seeking to re-try Avery or even seeking to manipulate/withhold the so-called truth to drum up public outcry hoping to get paid. They were making a documentary about injustice and shenanigans in our legal system... so they showed stuff that featured injustice and shenanigans in our legal system. At its core I don't think the actual documentary is nearly as bias or interesting as people are making it out to be. In fact, I find it's ironic that the type of public outcry of overwhelming support for Avery is cringe-worthy to the film-makers since it was exactly that sort of court-of-public-opinion BS and it's power to undermine what is fair and just that they were in part seeking to highlight in the first place.
