> I'm basing my opinion on the sworn testimony of the actual officers that did the framing
All the sworn testimony, or the testimony the documentary showed you, in the order they showed to you, with you primed by earlier scenes?
> Do you feel that the documentarians faked this testimony?
It's not about the documentary faking the testimony, it's about the documentary being able to manipulate the information presented to you, and then forming an opinion about whether the documentary was biased by using that same curated view of information to decide one party was in the wrong, and therefore the documentary as in the right. That's circular logic, unless you have some other source to counter the presentation from the documentary in question.
The point here is that you, as a watcher of the documentary, were not presented the same evidence as the jury. It's easy to assume you were given a superset of the evidence, but there are indications that what some people believe to be important parts of the prosecution and defense were left out. Without access to, at a minimum, all the information the jury saw, it's impossible to say what conclusion you would come to.
Now, my own opinion is that from the evidence I've seen so far, which the vast majority but not all was received from the documentary, that the trial should have ended in a mistrial at a minimum, or a not guilty due to reasonable doubt. That said, at this point I lean slightly towards thinking he did it. That doesn't matter though, because I don't know all the evidence, nor even all the evidence that was presented in the trial. That's the whole point.