>Implying any of the kind of people defending the documentary's point would be the kind of people that care about actual laws' validity above the court of public opinion

We are just preaching to the choir here, honestly. Anyone else's stance would be better explained with a fitting Simpsons quote:

my tl;dr-
I didn't really pay much attention to the trial while it was going on because I was still in school and at the time bad family stuff was going down. I do remember being at a relative's house and catching a few minutes of a documentary on Michael's childhood with his Jehovah's Witness mom which moved me just to the side of "he probably didn't do it", and I'm thankful for that. But when I actually looked into the trial later, years after Michael's death… God, Janet Arvizo is infuriating. Some of the things she said literally made the jury laugh because of how outlandish her statements were. Easily proven as lies. I'm wondering why at the time I didn't hear even a snippet about Janet's past scams, about the celebrities who said they warned Michael about how Janet had tried to scam them.

After learning about what really went down, I still feel horribly guilty for the one time I made a really, really stupid joke about the trial with my older sister's friends. I didn't even believe it when I said it; I was just a stupid idiot teenager trying to make the older kids laugh because validation. If I knew then what I know now, I never would have said it. My only hope is that people who are buying that crapumentary stuff are just doubling down so they don't have to face the guilt of having contributed to Michael's suffering.