Agreed. Documentary filmmakers are not investigative journalists, as some seem to think. Occasionally these two fields overlap, but not always, and obviously not in this instance.

Ha. Now I'm wondering if that would be someone who investigates pirates or a pirate with a side business investigating crime.

Some people also tend to confuse "bad feelings" with "proof of guilt." Your feelings that he's a stalker and a creeper aren't based on anything. He has an animal cruelty conviction for throwing a cat over a fire and a conviction for running his cousin (with whom he was feuding) off the road and pointing a shotgun at…

Documentary filmmakers aren't time traveling private investigators/ police detectives. None of the alternate people who could have killed her were investigated at the time so there are no files or evidence to go through that pertain to their possible guilt. All of their conversations with police were about Steven…

Well, the judge ruled that the defense were not allowed to offer a third party theory of the crime, so the hints would pop up, but the defense couldn't look any deeper into them and, obviously, the folks making the documentary couldn't investigate either.

I am so confused by the people who think he was framed, but is still guilty. If the evidence was planted, then where is this belief in his guilt coming from?