Damien was pretty eccentric it seems outside of the courtroom. I read that he had a fairly heavy mental health record which led to him being both institutionalized and deemed "fully disabled" and has made claims that drinking human blood gives him superpowers shortly before the murders. Also he was charged with burglary previous to the murders. It seems to me like a classic case of a slightly older kid who is a little nuts and desperate for validation/power influencing his significantly dumber, younger, and smaller peers. He was the only one dedicated to certain ideas and ideologies, the other two were way too scared and dumb to register as responsible in the same vein he was, assuming he committed the crime. It also seems like due to that quote i made a post before yours that his peers really aren't sure of him nor do they know him very well, and I don't think they have the ability to do so with anyone like Damien.
I also wasn't really fond of the way the filmmakers practically accused the one father of the murder in their own way. I agree that defense had to question the knife and the blood on it (and I'm curious what the circumstances are of the knife being a 'gift' to the filmmakers...?) if it was a 'gift' it is indeed a very cocky and menacing trophy-like way of stirring the pot to see the reactions of ones' handiwork on murdered children.
I don't know. Its kind of a tricky thang... somehow a little more difficult to form an opinion on than the Steven Avery case (I'm 95% sure Avery did it, if you're wondering). I don't trust filmmakers to paint an unbiased picture for me and it really isn't their job to, but I can smell a left-wing warp from people who are bitter about conservative rednecks and want to make them look even dumber to a bunch of armchair sociologists/lawyers at home.
