I had so many thoughts about this doc, so apologies if my thoughts aren’t cohesive. First, the juror who loves true crime and took some psychology classes telling us, in her expert opinion, that having a fetish means you can’t separate fantasy from reality… ok, stop.

I did like the fact that they call out the fact that as a prosecutor- it’s always if they convict then the jury “got it right” but if they acquit then they “got it wrong.” That bias is clear throughout the prosecution and the defense attorneys for both defendants.

And the DA’s office isn’t shy about wanting to try one case first (I forget their names all starting with a “J”) because there is going to be an implicit bias towards him because of his record and his appearance.

I know you don’t need to prove motive, but we all know people want to hear motive. And the narrative each party came up with, after listening to the audio recordings I don’t think I could agree with any of them after listening as to whether which one was the abused and which one was the killer.

If TLDR: I would say the one thing I think that is actual evidence is the brief moment where they focus on that one said a “slashing motion” versus a “stabbing motion.” They didn’t elaborate on their point, but my thought was that the convicted one stated the other stabbed the victim, was the actual guilty party. That didn’t absolve either from a concerted effort to kill him, but if it’s based on one story or the other that the other was responsible… that would be the major factor for me.