guilty as hell

[deleted]

What incriminating evidence? No, really? I've just watched all of it and I do not understand how he was ever convicted in the first place. I have no idea whatsoever if he is guilty or not, but the prosecution definitely did not manage to prove that he was.

They said they thought the murder weapon was the blowpoke which was missing. It turned up and they proved it wasn't the murder weapon. Deever's experiments showed it snapping even with light tapping on a sponge. The prosecution never even suggested another weapon, or a believable narrative for how it was murder.

The autopsy evidence was refuted by experts and was inconsistent with every other murder case related to head injuries in the previous decade. There were no skull fractures or brain bleeds - why not? Again, not explained.

It was clear that Deever's testimony was *beep* at the time. They found he didn't hand over a negative report during the first trial - his testimony should have been thrown out then.

Being bisexual and emailing a male prostitute does not make you any more likely to be a murderer. Many couples have open relationships to some degree and are perfectly happy - just because it's not the norm doesn't mean their marriage wasn't happy. Almost all of their kids were convinced it was - her daughter said her opinion changed when everything came out, that mainly seemed to be based on his sexuality, the lacerations and Ratliff.

The witnesses from the Ratliff death had obviously conferred and were lying. The scene report did not mention blood eve where and the experts that attended didn't find it even vaguely suspicious. Those witnesses NEVER told authorities about their concerns.

The defence proved that the crime scene was contaminated and that you couldn't trust any of the photographs from it.

Seriously, what is the overwhelming evidence that he's guilty? I just don't see it.

Now it's very possible that the film left out vital evidence that led to his conviction, but based on what's in the film, there's so much reasonable doubt that I can't believe he was ever found guilty.

I have no idea if he did it or not, but the evidence does not match him beating her with that pole and the prosecution didn't offer any other explanation, so he should have been found not guilty.

Also, the entire point of the hearing was to prove that Deever's actions and testimony invalidated the trial - that must be the sole focus of the hearing. I don't find Rudolf sleazy, I felt he genuinely was devastated by the result, as proven by his ten years of pro boon work until he could no longer afford to continue.