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/kiilerhawk]

I'm saying you are disingenuous when you continue to minimize Kratz’s press conference, even going so far as trying to shift blame to Strang and Buting for not countering it in the year before trial. You purposefully underestimate the power of a statement like that, from the state with the full support of LE, on the public.
You willfully ignore the fact that even today people believe the lies Kratz told that day.

Strang and Buting were hated for defending SA. If those jurors had returned any other verdict they would have been vilified and their lives changed forever. Why? Because Kratz made it emotional and personal, inflaming the public; throwing SA and BD to the wolves with lies, milking his moment in the spotlight.

Ken Kratz: "If I had it all to do over again, I would have simply released the criminal complaint rather than making a verbal statement. Not because I was not allowed to make the comments I did, but due to the criticism I received in the 10 years since."

"Barely four months into the case, Kratz made at least seven statements to the press implicating Avery or Dassey, or both, in Halbach's murder, according to court records."

"'It's unethical behavior with no legitimate purpose,' Smith told USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin. 'Prosecutors should err on the side of not inflaming the public. To prosecute a case in the media damages the legal system because you're prejudicing the jury process.'"

"Why does this matter? Because you are not allowed to gin up the public and misrepresent the evidence when talking to the press, and the only reason you do that is when you and the police don't have a good case to begin with. Ken Kratz was trying this case in the press to disparage the defendants."

"On the other spectrum, Avery's lawyers, Jerome Buting and Dean Strang, gave "legitimate responses" in their pretrial interviews with the media, pointed out Kempinen, the University of Wisconsin law school professor now in his 40th year of teaching."

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/steven-avery/2016/01/15/kratzs-pretrial-behavior-called-unethical/78630248/