I watched the first episode of season 1, but gave up after that. I could not take it seriously. If I had to guess, I would say there was 85% chance the guy (Ronnie Hendrick) was guilty, but people shouldn't be convicted based on a feeling. The investigation produced no new evidence, as far as I could tell; they just developed a new narrative about what happened, based on inconsistencies in the suspect's story, and pretended like this was a breakthrough. It wasn't. That's not how this works. Human memory is unreliable at the best of times, and to suggest otherwise is irresponsible. The show is more disinformation than documentary. I can't speak to the following episodes, because it didn't seem worth my time to continue, but I certainly hope they're not all this bad. It's really just boring fiction.
If he was guilty, fine, that doesn't surprise me, but how did they actually prove it?
Also, if there is any chance you could be a suspect, please remember to STFU. Even if you are innocent. Especially if you are innocent! The right to remain silent exists to protect the innocent, not the guilty, and you need to exercise that right, or this is the standard of evidence that might put you away.
If he was guilty, fine, that doesn't surprise me, but how did they actually prove it?
Also, if there is any chance you could be a suspect, please remember to STFU. Even if you are innocent. Especially if you are innocent! The right to remain silent exists to protect the innocent, not the guilty, and you need to exercise that right, or this is the standard of evidence that might put you away.