Convicting a Murderer does not do anything to invalidate Making a Murderer. Candice Owens spouts her opinion time and time again. It is full of information and misinformation that would never be allowed in a court of law. Hearsay, prior bad acts, etc are used to justify the opinion that Avery is guilty. I was very disappointed in the lack of critical thought and analysis of this film.
The popularity of Making a Murderer is the only reason this film was done. It is a far cry from setting the record straight. It appears to be nothing more than an attempt at making money off the coattails of the Netflix Documentary. A documentary should never be focused on a host that narrates everything and offers nothing but opinion every step of the way. Which is what this film does.
Anyone buying into Candice Owens narrative and opinion should ask themselves the following questions when watching this film.
1.) Was what is portrayed in the film be allowed as testimony or discovery that would be admitted into evidence in a court of law.
2.) Does this film truly rebut the original Netflix Series. And if so where? (Just don't take what is said in the film as fact but research what is presented).
3.) Why does Candice Owens get so much exposure?
4.) What is not addressed in this film that was presented in the original documentary?
5.) Why when Jodi is asking Steven something on a recorded call the film does not give us Avery's Response?
6.) Why is the film primarily based on what Candice Owens knows? Candice Owens does not know what happened to Teresa. She only has her opinion and her testimony would never be allowed in a court of law.
7.) Why is Brendan Dassey's interrogation cut and spliced together? It is readily seen how the video of the interrogation presented by the film cuts out before resuming.
There are numerous more questions to be asked. This film is nothing more than something I see on social media. People spouting opinion with no basis in fact and lack of properly cited source material.
The popularity of Making a Murderer is the only reason this film was done. It is a far cry from setting the record straight. It appears to be nothing more than an attempt at making money off the coattails of the Netflix Documentary. A documentary should never be focused on a host that narrates everything and offers nothing but opinion every step of the way. Which is what this film does.
Anyone buying into Candice Owens narrative and opinion should ask themselves the following questions when watching this film.
1.) Was what is portrayed in the film be allowed as testimony or discovery that would be admitted into evidence in a court of law.
2.) Does this film truly rebut the original Netflix Series. And if so where? (Just don't take what is said in the film as fact but research what is presented).
3.) Why does Candice Owens get so much exposure?
4.) What is not addressed in this film that was presented in the original documentary?
5.) Why when Jodi is asking Steven something on a recorded call the film does not give us Avery's Response?
6.) Why is the film primarily based on what Candice Owens knows? Candice Owens does not know what happened to Teresa. She only has her opinion and her testimony would never be allowed in a court of law.
7.) Why is Brendan Dassey's interrogation cut and spliced together? It is readily seen how the video of the interrogation presented by the film cuts out before resuming.
There are numerous more questions to be asked. This film is nothing more than something I see on social media. People spouting opinion with no basis in fact and lack of properly cited source material.