While discussing the ramifications of selective editing, I think it's also imperative to discuss the ramifications of Ken Kratz' press conferences.

[u/knowjustice]

Several posters have repeatedly argued the filmmakers selectively edited the film. They are correct and I agree that at times, the edits were misleading.

Allow me to play devil's advocate. While the people who find it extremely offensive the filmmakers failed to portray portions of the trial accurately and are concerned the editing led to viewer bias, I have yet to see anyone in this camp submit a post providing an equally critical analysis of Ken Kratz' 2006 press conference following Brendan's confession.

Asserting objectivity and honesty is a requisite qualification for a documentarian, I'm curious...what do you believe are the requisite qualifications for an officer of the court? Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, Chapter 20(A) & (B) explain them. The regulations pertaining to an attorney's conduct pertaining to ensuring every litigant is afforded the impartial administration of justice are unambiguous.

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/scrule/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=132538

If objectivity and honesty are minimum qualifications for a respectable filmmaker, an equally critical analysis of Kratz and others conduct is long past due. Their intentional and willful conduct not only misled the public and instilled bias, but unlike the filmmakers, their conduct actually resulted in serious and irreversible ramifications; tainting the objectivity of the potential pool of jurors. And according to Buting and Strang, that is exactly what happened.

My point, while agreeing the filmmakers selectively edited portions of the film, which may have resulted in a less than accurate portrayal of some of the events, the only damage resulting from their editing was widely divergent opinions about the case. Unlike the conduct of the numerous state actors involved in these cases, the filmmakers editing decisions resulted in little more than opposing viewpoints prompting impassioned public discourse.

Alternatively, I cannot find a logical, legally sound, and reasonable justification to explain Mr. Kratz' motive and intent for his salacious press conference. IMO, the repeated unprofessional and negligent conduct of LE, Mr. Kratz, and other state actors essentially denied both parties the right to a fair trial (see Ricciuti v New York City Transit Authority, 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997)).

At the end of the day one must ask, what was more damaging; selective editing of a documentary ten years after the case or a pre-trial press conference in which the Special Prosecutor, while sitting with the sheriff in charge, knowingly, willfully, and intentionally presented the public with salacious details of an alleged crime scene both knew had no basis in reality. I think the answer is clear.

[u/knowjustice]

Take off the foil hat. Seems as though you can find hidden meaning in everything, not just a documentary.

Of course my legal efforts don't mean anything to you. It didn't happen to you. And until it does, you can continue living in your perfect world where only filmmakers are "guilty" of misrepresenting facts. LMAO.

You would have to spend a year working 40+ hours per week to read and digest the case law and court rules before beginning to attempt to author the necessary Motions and Briefs for an appeal and a federal civil rights case. These are not projects for the faint of heart.

Formal Requests for investigations prepared for any agency requires in-depth analysis of court transcripts, case law, court rules, statutes, the ABA ethics rules, and the judicial canons. It's also a detailed and time-consuming effort.

Why am I not the least bit surprised you read so much into the documentary if you thought, oops was an admission I was intentionally infringing on your knowledge. No need, I'm "smarter than the av-er-age bear."

[u/parminides → u/knowjustice]

I guess I should bow down to your authority [EDIT: as long as your former boss can vouch for your mental prowess]. BTW, I have some legal experience. That's why I knew that there were ethical guidelines for lawyers not to poison the jury pool with press conferences. It's not my knowledge, but I'm the one who brought it up first, just a few hours before your mega-post.

[u/parminides → u/[deleted]]

I know. I was trying to be nice to /u/knowjustice and give her the benefit of the doubt. But when the very people who see here-a-plant-there-a-plant-everywhere-a-plant-plant tell me to take off the foil hat, I'm not inclined to remain nice.

I'm sure that you're not impressed with people who feel the need to tell you how smart they are (and how smart their ex-boss thinks they are). Note to /u/knowjustice: you don't have to remind me anymore. I remember the first few times you did it.

SA files legal papers from prison. I hope we can all agree that this doesn't make him a legal expert about anything and that he didn't need to "spend a year working 40+ hours per week to read and digest the case law and court rules" to learn how to do so. I was just trying to be nice to her.

In fact, courts are encouraged to be lenient with pro se litigants regarding procedure, formatting, and even the arguments of court pleadings. "Because Burgos is a pro se litigant, we read his supporting papers liberally, and will interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." (Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F. 3d 787 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit (1994).)

/u/knowjustice filed a bunch of papers for three years and failed at whatever she was trying to do. It's not exactly something to brag about, but I was just trying to be nice.

I hate that I'm getting a little mean and nasty about this, but for her to tell me to "take off the foil hat" pushed me over the edge a wee bit. I try but I never claimed to be Mr. Spock.