Little Miss Innocent: Passion. Poison. Prison.

From the first episode you feel a biased toward the convicted killer. I've listened to several lengthy podcasts about this case, all seem to lean one way or the other. One thing that is undeniable is she was convicted of 1st degree manslaughter, judge gave her a long sentence due to her complete lack of remorse. She is the only one directly connected to all the important evidence, all the evidence she has in her favor are theories & statements from people who only came forward months after Mary died and only when Katie was charged. The police did first look at Bill & Adam. Even though it was Adam's Jeep & it was a mess none of his dna was on package or bottle but hers was, she denied in trial that she wrote the letter, but admitted it in docu.

In my opinion is she guilty, this documentary leans towards her innocence yet only a person that didn't know all what think she's been wrongly convicted. She is guilty, she has those evil eyes, that shark look, every killer has it. This is an attempt by an important family to further her appeal efforts since none have been successful as of yet.

I don't believe Katie, I've listened to the interrogation tapes, her lies, flip flopping, her notes app had a ton of incriminating evidence, the evidence against her is massive, that's why she was convicted. The first trial only ended in mistrial because they couldn't decide on charge all thought she was guilty.

There's plenty of evidence that they did not focus on, such as her DNA was on both the box and the bottle of the drug used to kill Dr. Yoder. The fact that all the searching was on her phone and work computer. Do we really need to go any further? And then on top of that, the letter that she mailed the police stating exactly where the drugs were. Katie is infuriating to watch. She is creepy, laughing throughout the interview and when she is asked any tough questions she avoids or breaks down in fake crying. There were moments in her testimony where she slipped up and you could tell it was evident. She's guilty as sin and continuing to frame Adam, and the finger is pointed at Bill to make good tv. Looking at ALL the evidence its clear and cut and dry that she is guilty. She should have gotten murder and should be in prison much longer than 23 years. It's frustrating that so much focus was on her talking about herself and random citizens that barely knew Mary. No one from her practice, her pottery group or garden group were interviewed.

I watch a lot of true crime docs, and changes the perspective when you know the victim and the actual details of the investigation.

She's a total psycho and is as guilty as sin, the fact that her parents & siblings even bought into her lies and still do tell you all you need to know.

She sits there throughout lieing through her teeth, I'd be surprised if she could lie straight at night in her prison bunk bed.

Watch her smiling in court, this documentary is a masterclass in showing a spider woman weaving a web of lies and deceit.

I don't agree with making documentary's giving murderers this much airtime but at least it shows her for what she truly is.

Unbelievably the town folk were split 50/50, well after watching this even the dumbest ones should be able to come to the correct conclusion.

Well done to the prosecution and cops for their due diligence.

I wouldn't let her see the light of day until she admits her guilt.

I know for a fact that she will read this review, you are where you belong little miss innocent up there in the big house.

I know absolutely nothing about this case. Never heard of it. I have no preconceived ideas or judgements.. I literally know absolutely zero about these people or this case.

Everything I have or will learn would be from this documentary.

I failed to realize this is an "ABC News" documentary. In my experience ABS "news" makes the absolute WORST documentaries. Primarily because they assume everyone watches their "news" programming and would already know the basis for any story. Therefore the ABC "new" documentaries are terrible at describing events prior to the documentary or the events which were the catalyst to the actual story.

This documentary is a VERY typical "ABC "news" lack of content documentary - I struggled to make it through the first episode and will not be watching any more.

This is HORRIBLY produced. Sticking to traditional ABC "news" docs...

.... There's no point where the doc actually sparks any interest. There's no point where they actually describe the crime, allegations, defense, conviction, etc.. You know the STORY... there is absolutely NOTHING. A viewer is left to fit together pieces here or there and GUESS at the story as minor bits are described by overly monotonous talking heads.

And I do mean monotonous. In spite of the (kind of comically bad) wanna-be-dramatic musical tones underneath, most of the first hour is just talking head after talking head after talking head. All with the vocal inflection of someone reading the local newspaper.. no emotion, no tonal variation, nothing. While it is actually humans speaking, it all sounds very, very, robotic. Like a constant hummmmmm for an hour all at the same pitch.

I'll never learn more about this case. As posted, there was NOTHING in the first episode that garnered my interest. After 40 minutes I honestly had no connection or interest in the story whatsoever.

If that's not a statement on how poorly this doc is produced, I don't know what is. For a "news" organization they sure do make terribly LACKING documentaries.

No idea if this woman is guilty or not and don't really care... Truth is, I don't really understand the crime, there was no explanation of it...

I am sorry for the families loss and I do hope they are able to reach some sort of closure.

First of all, I don't know what I don't know, but if everything is told in this documentairy about the case, I would recommend to watch it to literal everyone.

I am not a US citizen and can't believe the incredible bias that is constantly appearing. The interviewer is asking the right questions and if it was only her who was the 'sherrif', I think it would be a whole different outcome.

Would love to hear real experts opinion about this forensic evidence. The person who is analysing the digital evidence, oh dear. Not sure what his expertise is, but digital evidence isn't one of them.

Great example for US justice attitude: it's not about solving the case, it's about winning the case.

Disclaimer: I can't give a opinion about if she's guilty or not, the only conclusion I can get to is how can a murder be solved with so much bias and no one is mentioning it.

Must see if you're able to hear, see and feel the miscarrige of justice and how not to investigate proparly. Otherwise just skip it.