Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.
Some of the evidence given that was not in the series was not presented at trial, so I agree in leaving it out. The jury didn't hear it, so in documenting how the trial progressed it was a fair call.
|
Quote:
"I guess I would ask Kratz what he would trade it for. We tried to choose what we thought was Kratz's strongest evidence pointing toward Steven's guilt, the things he talked about at his press conferences, the things that were really damning toward Steven. That's what we put in. The things I've heard listed as things we've left out seem much less convincing of guilt than Teresa's DNA on a bullet or her remains in his backyard."
...
"It was a nearly six-week-long trial, and it would just be impossible for us to include all of the less significant evidence," Ricciardi told The Wrap when asked why some evidence against Avery was excluded from the series.
|
They weren't saying "well they didn't use it in trial, so we didn't need to include it." They flat-out said it would basically be too hard to fully explain the DA's case that he argued in trial, so they just chose what they thought were the couple strongest bits of evidence to give the DA's side. Obviously they shouldn't be expected to just air 6 dry boring weeks of trial footage OJ-style, but they apparently omitted relevant evidence.