If there is one sitcom trope I absolutely despise, it's the heightened misunderstanding scenario. Nick picking up "not mom" was tedious, and her various scenes elsewhere did not warrant that c-plot at all. BUT, "And stop being so mean to me or I swear to God I’m gonna fall in love with you!" is in fact an amazing…

AMEN

Daaaaaaamn the visuals of this are sumptuous.

I too enjoyed this season of TD over GoT. True Detective got better once it got into gear at the end, but damn was it doing its best to wheel spin for too long.

I've only seen this specific "evidence" provided by prosecutor girl voice in response to the series, but nothing that backs it up.

He's in the flashbacks. The older man with the white beard, the intellectual. That's Bradley playing a different character.

I'm not sure how I would act after having a child or sibling murdered. But I do know that there's no way I can guarantee it would be rational.

I think the documentary specifically is aimed to show the injustice that these two experienced, and not to necessarily solve the murder.

Which would you rather believe, that your daughter's ex-boyfriend killed her, or the police telling you that a white trash (wrongly) convicted rapist did?

Do we know if the blood in the care was found before or after Avery was first interviewed? There is a period of time that the police have contact with him prior to the arrest.

Did they even run it for prints or anything? I wish that was answered.

This is where's it's important to keep in mind just how differently the jury and the Halbachs would view and process information. This case would require them to doubt the cops completely, and essentially admit that the system screwed them too in never knowing more about who killed their daughter let alone catching…

Brendan's story is so terrible. There's absolutely no evidence to place him there, or to corroborate his story. He basically had his life destroyed because he told a story and people believed him without checking any of the facts.

If you're insinuating that a rogue campaign of intimidation be carried out, I find that abhorrent. It also doesn't help Avery or Brendan.

That's a pretty crass statement. If he enjoyed anything, it was the ability to voice his continued disapproval of the defense and Avery in general.

Look, of course having the police murder someone takes this to a next level of evilness. And I'm not saying that is what happened. I am saying that enough people had motive, that if presented with someone that was in the right place at the right time, had the means to create a scenario to destroy Avery.

Let's clear something up, people that abuse and kill animals are not automatically on the path to murder. Yes, murderers are more likely to have this in their past. As information presented, Avery does not have a record of continued or progressively extreme animal torture. We have the documented offense, that he…

But, what's his motive? Where's the murder weapon? Where did it actually happen? Why can he perform some elements of this crime like a spy, and others like Velma without her glasses?

Why that exact question with the ex-boyfriend stands out is because he can remember exact details of things that happen just the next day. 24 hours prior is all vague, but the next day he can identify without such a struggle.

Personally, I'm glad it's at long as it is. I can understand the desire for it to be a tidier story, as the broad strokes of it can be told in a more compact way.