Fair enough. I was considering that (a) she reportedly told superiors that she was uncomfortable going there, presumably because of how he'd acted in past interactions, and (b) he reportedly specifically requested that it be her to come take the photos for that appointment and numerous previous ones.

When you add that shit on top of the *67 and weird towel thing, I disagree with you that it's not at least a bit odd. It's definitely weird IMO.

Like Frank said above, though...it's completely fair to question the veracity of those claims under the notion that once some evidence is tainted, it's ALL tainted. And even if those facts above are 100% correct, it's still not even close to proving or even suggesting his guilt.

At this point, all things considered, I'm starting to be inclined to think it's "more likely than not" that he killed her, but with these caveats:

-Even if the evidence was clean, I don't think it meets the burden of proof in a criminal trial. I'd have voted not guilty. "More likely than not" is not sufficient to convict someone of a crime.

-The police misconduct and failure to follow protocol is enough to invalidate his conviction, and at the very least should be grounds for an appeal.

-The larger points the documentary is making about abuses of power, class disparity, and the shortcomings of the justice system are still valid regardless of what any "new" or omitted evidence might say about this particular case.