Bloodstain pattern analysis along with fiber and hair matching are widely considered to be pseudoscience or very close to it. Feel free to discuss the other two points, but saying that the source was an open wound in the _right_ hand is ridiculous.

Anyone who believes that "innocent people don't make confessions" really needs to be aware of the Norfolk four: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pag… . But beware, watching this next to Making a Murderer ain't nice…

I still can't take out of my mind the FBI expert saying in front of a jury that he hasn't tested all the samples, but he can *scientifically* state that those non-tested samples didn't come from that tampered vial. He surely has extrasensorial perception or something like that. I can understand (but not condone) a…

Exactly my point. Not to mention other things, like the key. He was so diligent as to find the tiniest speck of blood behind the furniture but he left behind the frigging key in plain sight.

I essentially agree with you that the documentary is biased towards the defence. And yet, I still find the third possibility scenario inconsistent.

There's an even better statement from him. I don't recall his exact words but he said something like "well, if he is guilty, does it even matter if the evidence was planted?".