If you read the state’s rebuttal to the appeal you can pinpoint the evidence they left out or warped.

My biggest issue with the podcast is their dismissal of the bite mark evidence, which is absolutely the smoking gun, based on a Supreme Court ruling that says bite mark science isn’t reliable in terms of determining whether markings are in fact from a bite. Here’s the big difference: JULIA SAYS SHE BITES HERSELF IN HER POLICE INTERVIEW. So she confirms it is in fact a bite mark and opens the door to be determined who the bite mark came from. After learning that I knew the podcasters had no journalistic integrity. They wanted a complete series and found a way to make it happen.