The question isn’t whether he’s innocent or guilty. It’s whether he was accorded due process under law. He was tried. Evidence was presented, testimony was given and rebutted. Rulings were made, and ultimately, the decision was handed over to a jury, which returned a verdict.
That the verdict was “guilty beyond a shadow of doubt” is absurd, given the evidence we saw in the documentary. But due process was served, and that’s as close as we get to “justice” in this system.
You should also note that the state appellate and supreme courts denied his requests for a retrial, so the case has been thoroughly reviewed.
Be careful of “trial by camera.”
But you do understand the juxtaposition of this case after Avery’s previous rape conviction?? You saw how much he looked like the actual rapist. And he was convicted, due process and all that. He was wholly innocent and spent about 20 years locked up for a crime he had NOTHING to do with. It does happen. And the second case has MORE doubt than the first had. Plus motive for the county to frame him.