Case 1 vs. Case 2 outcomes made no sense to me
The verdicts in the first two cases seemed flip-flopped to me.
In the first case I was convinced that Michael Dunn was not guilty until the very end when the trial was already over and they confirmed it was his prints in the girl's blood on the blue bottle which really seemed like a sucker punch to the viewers imho and the program ended without explaining it. So it astounded me when he was found guilty with no physical evidence, contradictory witness statements, witnesses who lied, and the police admitting that a young Constable had planted the key piece of evidence linking him to the girl.
What astounded me even more was that in the next case in contrast Damon Morton was acquitted of the attack on the third woman even though he had her severed breast in a jar in a box in the ceiling of his office, his van was used to carry out the attacks and she identified him out of around 8 different men in the identity parade.
I suppose it is just the vagaries of the justice system and the unpredictability of jurors that made these cases seem so contradictory, but I am left scratching my head at both verdicts.