in the tv thread i asked if it was 'fake' after about 4 episodes...i didn't mean the case itself necessarily, i just began to think it was more of a really clever dramatisation of the case, a 'mocumentary' if you will. i still find it a bit odd how many times the camera would be in the face of a person taking an important call, or they'd be with the defence team as they happily chatted through their plans etc.mannaboy wrote:Watched this over two days, half way through I started to think it wasn't a real doc, I just couldn't believe how incompetent the cops were, by design or accident, and the appalling treatment of Steven's nephew. But you couldn't make this shit up.
Roujin wrote:Beano said it earlier in the thread guys when considering how fucked this case was and the 'only in america' aspect - Hillsborough.
Roujin wrote:A crush of football fans that left a lot of people dead at a Liverpool game in the 1980s.
Was blamed on drunk fans. 30+ years later it was finally overturned and cops and local govt to shown up to be as crooked and lying as everyone present had said they were all along.
ShabbyMcCrabby wrote:Police and gov at fault because of poor planning for crowds? How were they at fault for a crowd crush?Roujin wrote:A crush of football fans that left a lot of people dead at a Liverpool game in the 1980s. Was blamed on drunk fans. 30+ years later it was finally overturned and cops and local govt to shown up to be as crooked and lying as everyone present had said they were all along.
ShabbyMcCrabby wrote:
Police and gov at fault because of poor planning for crowds? How were they at fault for a crowd crush?
superflyninja wrote:This makes for some interesting reading.
mk64 wrote:This is where i'm at pretty much.superflyninja wrote:This makes for some interesting reading.
For those people, and for others close to the original case, “Making a Murderer” seems less like investigative journalism than like highbrow vigilante justice. “My initial reaction was that I shouldn’t be upset with the documentarians, because they can’t help that the public reacted the way that it did,” Penny Beerntsen said. “But the more I thought about it, the more I thought, Well, yeah, they do bear responsibility, because of the way they put together the footage. To me, the fact that the response was almost universally ‘Oh, my God, these two men are innocent’ speaks to the bias of the piece. A jury doesn’t deliberate twenty-some hours over three or four days if the evidence wasn’t more complex.”
mistercrayon wrote:We don't know why they took that long either though.
Not knowing shit has never stopped us before.Facewon wrote:We don't know shit, and we should STFU.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!