I would add that I do watch "The First 48" on a semi-regular basis, and I consistently see excellent police work on that series. What impresses me as much, or even more, than when they solve a case is when after pursuing someone or a few individuals for a while, the police come to the conclusion that they were…

But in the end it's one case (well, two 'guilty' parties). The larger picture is much more important in my mind. And that is how easily the system can railroad someone into being convicted of serious crimes. That covers endless individuals in our society and others, not just two people. You can see how people are…

And in the parody of a parody department, let's not forget the finale of "The Jinx," which was a brilliant send-up of Frank Drebin's bathroom adventures.

Oh yes, the jury. The jury that first voted 7 not guilty, 3 guilty, and 2 undecided.

I'll put it more simply since you insist on being extremely evasive.

You seem to take away that I think Avery is innocent in the murder case and that's what bothers me the most in regards to this series, when that's not the case at all. What I'm bothered about the most are 2 things that we know (won't get into Brendan's situation) to be true: 1) That he was imprisoned wrongly for 18…

As far as the "loony" defense, let's look at these 3 things:

"I expected that in a doc about a family with a rap sheet (minus one extraordinary story of wrongful imprisonment) a mile long."

Considering Avery was already wrongfully convicted for 18 years and he was suing them for $36 million, it's far from "unbelievable" that they'd want to "get" Avery. In fact, they had a huge motive. That Sheriff's department never should have been remotely involved in the murder case, much less finding key evidence.…

I deleted a comment I wrote because I didn't want to go any further into this, but your opinion fascinates me, since I haven't heard anything remotely like it. One thing I have to know:

There's a difference here though. Without either of them for this project, it doesn't work. It isn't some random project that should be based on what they've done elsewhere. We're not talking Harrison Ford vs. some relatively unknown actors in the new Star Wars. We're talking about the two main stars of a series. For…

So out of all the slimy characters in MaM, the Avery defense attorneys stood out as the ones that bugged you?

I figure it will be Hillary vs. Trump (by default) and my recommendation during the debates is when it's her turn, she just says, "Pass. Let him keep talking."

I'd still prefer her presiding over the court instead of the same damn judge in the Brendan Dassey hearing for a retrial.

I chose alcohol for that.

If Brendan were rich, he never would have been found guilty in the first place.

When I hear people talking about propaganda, my only question is, were police officers who were involved in the lawsuit active in the Halbach investigation and finding evidence? That's what I care about. Was that propaganda or the truth? Because they should have never had anything to do with it. There's a reason even…

That's what is the scariest part. Avery was able to hire very good/excellent (especially in the case of Dean Strang) lawyers and there was all kinds of reasonable doubt. Yet he was found guilty (though apparently the majority of jurors voted for not guilty in the first vote). So he had many, many things going for him…

No, he's way horrible for forcing a confession from a boy with low intelligence that was obviously a lie and the basis for his conviction. Because if he's a "private investigator" wouldn't he want to see some actual physical evidence to back up the boy's story before forcing him to sign something that will be his…

If Brendan didn't get another trial when his own legal team was playing head games to get a graphic confession, what the hell do you have to do to get another trial?