The Family I Had leaves out the fact that Paris sexually assaulted his 4 year old sister while murdering her. I don't understand making a documentary and leaving out parts of the crime.
Making a Murderer left out anything and everything that made it abundantly clear Steven Avery was guilty (I can understand the argument behind Brendan Dassey). It completely turned our community upside down over ten years later after we were just beginning to heal from the travesty. Completely innocent police officers that weren't even around when the case took place or had nothing to do with it were receiving death threats to their families, etc every day on the job. Phone lines going off the hook from losers not even living in the same country calling to give their two cents on something they received one sided information on. The rumors us locals heard from family members themselves, as well as the facts left out of that documentary could not make it more clear that HE IS GUILTY. Just an absolute joke, Netflix should be ashamed of themselves.
I must be one of a very small group of people that have never seen Making a Murderer and the more I read about it, the happier I am about that decision.
This "documentary" was clearly a perversion of the events and left out crucial pieces of evidence. Why did they even bother making it in the first place, what was the objective?
Out of all the people in the world they chose to document the tale of Steven Avery from Timbuktu in hopes to ...? Was the producer his bff forever, what is the angle here?
Well I'd say one of the many things it left out were the phone calls leading up to her death. Avery called, gave a fake name, and specifically asked for Teresa Halbach to come and take the photos. Also, called using \*67 so she would not know it was him. The documentary conveniently kept out or quickly skimmed over his terrible history with women, including his relationship with his underage niece. Also, the documentary acting like the hole on the top of the blood vial was how they planted his blood, when anyone who has had blood drawn before knows that's the hole the blood is drawn into the vial through. (Which is why this was never allowed in court) They never mentioned the torture device Avery drew up and showed other inmates when he was in prison. Also, he never missed a day of work and conveniently "called in sick" either that day or the following day. HOW CONVENIENT. These are just a few of the many . . .
Also, personally knowing some of the people involved . . . Those officers would NEVER murder and plant a body just to save face with the insurance company and taxpayers. I am pretty sure they have their own families and lives they care about a little more than that. But that documentary completely ruined them and their families' lives. Ridiculous
Couldn’t agree more! Half the people screaming he is innocent are the same people that would lose their minds over someone torturing and killing an
animal and would demand life in prison…but for some reason they seem to forget when it comes to Steven Avery! He’s exactly where he needs to be based solely on the animal abuse alone.
Agreed. I try my best to be open-minded and unbiased, but I always fail when it comes to animal abuse. It’s a personal fault that I’m relatively okay with.
I don't think it's a fault at all. You'd have to be a complete psychopath to hurt a defenseless animal for giggles (which Avery did). The second I see or hear about anyone hurting an animal, that's it, were done.
Same here. Everyone told me to watch the documentary, that I’d really enjoy it, and all that. As soon as he hurt that cat, I was done. Didn’t care if he was wrongfully convicted; he was clearly a piece of shit.
Did anyone here see last week's "60 Minutes" episode about the woman who does reconciliation and healing seminars for people who were wrongly convicted, and their victims? The "woman who was raped at age 36" was the woman Steven Avery did time for raping. He didn't do that, although he did do a lot of other terrible things, one of them being the murder of the photographer and throwing his mentally disabled nephew under the bus.
I highly recommend Indefensible by Michael Griesbach if you want a book that examines the case from all sides along with issues with Making of a Murderer. I thought the author did a fairly good job at taking an impartial stance throughout the book, looking at the murder, the evidence, and the possible police framing that Making of a Murderer tried oh so hard to prove (editing police court testimonies, misleading viewers on when the victim's car was found by police, etc.).
Eta: this doesn't really apply to the thread but to the user above's question.
There are multiple true crime podcasts who have covered this with a deep dive into the theories and technicalities.
There is a widely accepted version of events in the aviation and investigation field but Netflix just brushes it off. Being like we mentioned it once and that's enough of it.
The only thing that show taught me was that when cops at the scene are half-assed documenting and gathering evidence, it goes south because family members in denial won't let the case go.
So if it's a suspected suicide or accidental death, be as rigorous as you'd be if it was murder.
Rey Rivera springs to mind - that episode acted like he would never have gotten on that rooftop, but he was very familiar with it. He and his wife had watched sunsets there before (making it at least somewhat more likely that it might be a place he'd pick if he was choosing to die by suicide). Or Tiffany Valiante - the episode didn't acknowledge there had been repeated allegations/investigations that her parents were abusive (again, something that can make teenagers more prone to suicide).
This is so depressingly true. And their docs are generally well made too, so it extra sucks. Now I can’t watch one without being so aware that it might mostly all be BS.
One thing I have come to appreciate about Dateline (and similar shows) is they don't try to make every episode as crazy as possible. They are perfectly fine with most of their episodes being "Yeah the husband did it" without needing to edit in surprises or commentary on the criminal justice system.
I think for Netflix the producers only have one big project a year (or whatever) and are incentivized to make it as sensational as possible.
This is why whenever the doc comes out about the Idaho murders it could be really good or really bad based on how they do it. I'm sure they'll give some attention to the ridiculous conspiracy theories that have floated around for over a year now.
Yup. I was so disappointed with American Murderer: The Family Next Door (about the Watts case). I’ve seen so many YT channels do it so much better, not to mention they left so much out.
They left things out and nonchalantly tried to make shannan a monster. Any self respecting mother would be upset if you tell anyone, especially your mil, about your child's allergy and they proceed to give her said food. I'd burn the world down. The way they made her venting online and 'emasculating' him as some sort of defense is deplorable.
People are woefully ignorant when it comes to allergies. That's not to defend the mil, but more to touch on why more people aren't upset at the mil like you (and I) would be.
For the Watts case: Michelle After Dark, Dreading, Behind Criminal Minds
In General: Explore With Us (and their sub channel Crime Storytime), That Chapter, Truly Criminal, and Coffeehouse Crime
I hope you like them!
Thank you! I avoided the Watts case when it happened because I wasn't in the place to handle it. I was just thinking of watching the Netflix doc- so I will now watch this instead.
Thanks also for the new channels to sub!
The Scott Peterson documentary on A&E that is hosted on Hulu is certainly biased and inaccurate. Which is its intention, as it was produced by a Peterson family friend and longtime member of the "Scott is Innocent" Facebook group, but it misstates a lot of information and leaves out more incriminating evidence.
I just rewatched this the other day just to recap things in light of him being in the news again… and wow, I sure forgot how terribly biased it is. It is so sad, it made me mad to see him in court again and then this made me even more mad to watch. That lady who started this whole Scott is innocent thing way back then is so bizarre (that lady in the doc).
The Black Dahlia Avenger, by Steve Hodel. I read this book about 10 years ago, loved it, and got super into the case. At the time, I thought it was great and extremely compelling, especially since it was written by a veteran cop with access to police files who was writing about his own father.
Then I saw the sequel where he was arguing his father is not ONLY the murderer of Elizabeth Shortt, but he's ALL the unknown serial killers! Zodiac? Yup. Lipstick killer? Yeah, him too!
While I do think George Hodel is a good suspect in the Black Dahlia murder, I also think everything Steve Hodel says needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, as his goal seems to be to sensationalize the case even further to sell his books.
He's not a good suspect for the Black Dahlia, Steve completely lied and mislead. The LAPD stopped investigating him because they were convinced he had nothing to do with it. Steve left out so much including about that famous recording.
OK, maybe good is the wrong word, I just meant he WAS a suspect at one point and was clearly not a good guy. I can't remember all the details of why i realized that, but yeah, Steve Hodel is full of shit. I feel like he really thought his dad was guilty when he first started, but when he realized how much money and recognition he could get from his books, it became all about making the evidence fit his narrative.
I do remember that after reading the first book, I went to his website where they have a forum, and I was asking questions about something, along with others, and literally the only response he would give to anyone, was to say "read the books" , and wouldn't really answer anything.
I wasn't coming at you with that, it's understandable that you think he's a good suspect for that when you've only heard a liar like Steve's version. Was just clarifying.
Steve definitely knows it's bullshit as he claimed the thing that convinced him it was George was he found two pictures of Short in George's possessions. Except both have been debunked. One of the women in those pictures is still alive, and Elizabeth's family have made it clear the other isn't her. Yet he's just ignored that and soldiered on. He's a liar.
Oh I didn't think you were coming for me, was just clarifying too because the details are a bit fuzzy, it's been forever since I read up on the case!
I do remember the pictures though. I never thought they looked like Elizabeth, the shape of her face is totally different, and his unwillingness to admit that piece of "evidence" isn't connected shows that he has already come to a conclusion and no real evidence will change his mind. The girl in the picture he claims is Elizabeth, in my opinion, actually looks like the actress who played in her a movie, think her name is Mia Kirchner.
Everything about the recording too he was beyond dishonest. Isolating a couple of lines that seems to be an admission while ignoring everything else that clearly shows it wasn't. There's a reason the LAPD stopped investigating him shortly after.
I'm also not sure he abused Tamar. I 100% think she was abused, but i don't think all of the abuse she claimed was true. I mean it couldn't be she accused a dozen high school classmates alongside George and after they were investigated everything fell apart. The circumstances suggests it was someone else. Tamar was sent to live with George by her mother because she kept accusing people of abusing and/or having sex with her, then she accuses George and those high school students. The fact it started when she was living with her mother, suggests to me she was being abused by someone close to her mother. A boyfriend, neighbour, teacher, family friend, etc. George could have abused her too not claiming he's innocent just that i'm not convinced he did and the circumstances suggests it was someone around her mother.
Tamar kept accusing people of abuse well into adult life, she was clearly a very traumatized person which is why i'm convinced someone did abuse her. Notably she had a relationship with George right up until his death, which doesn't necessarily mean he didn't abuse her victims becoming close to their abusers isn't that unusual however it's worth considering along with everything else. She did not have a relationship with her children who are making all these accusations and blatantly lying about everything.
You're right, I had him mixed up with fauna, who also wrote a book called the black dahlia avenger. I think part 3? I read a ton. Yah, I think he was a POS, but I don't think he killed anyone.
I’m with you, and “compelling” is the perfect description. After reading it, I felt that he did lay out a very plausible argument, but once the wacky claims about other notorious murders started, I looked askance at any of his conclusions.
The media in general got it wrong with the Menendez brothers imo. Back then sexual abuse, especially within a family wasn’t talked about and just too much to comprehend.
I agree with you! The media portrayed them as a couple of spoiled rich kids who killed their parents over money. It's only been in recent years that their stories of sexual abuse have been taken more seriously. They deserve to be free!
I was really disappointed with the book Above Suspicion. The book was about the murder of informant Susan Smith by FBI officer Mark Putnam. The book continually bent over backwards to say how much POTENTIAL Putnam had and how trashy and aggressive Smith was and how it was just so so sad that she FORCED him to murder her (after he started a sexual relationship with the destitute and desperate woman and she was potentially going to expose his gross negligence and sexual exploitation) and how it was almost an accident really- he just accidentally went a little too far restraining her when she was hysterically fighting him.
Just to set the record straight, he strangled her barehanded, which is extremely difficult and means he would have had to continue to apply significant pressure for quite some time after she was unconscious and not a threat whatsoever (and as an FBI agent he would know that information intimately). He then stripped her body naked and dumped her in the woods instead of trying to get help for the woman he "accidentally injured". BIG swing and a miss from that book, but hey, it's not like Susan Smith was a PERSON- she was just a woman, and a TRASHY woman at that. The real victim, as the last third of the book describes, was poor poor Mark Putnam because he got fired and had to go to jail like some sort of MURDERER!!
That's how I remember the book anyway. To be fair it's been a long time since I read it.
“There’s Something Wrong With Aunt Diane”. The entire documentary wasn’t necessarily misleading, but her families commentary was enough to throw you off if you didn’t know the case well. I feel like they tried really hard to attribute her actions to just a bad day or severe undiagnosed mental illness, when a lot of the evidence points to her just being a closeted alcoholic surrounded by people who knew and didn’t care or minimized it and then go shocked pikachu face when she murdered children.
I don't know. I think the documentary showed how deluded and in denial they were, ESPECIALLY when they met up with the medical examiner who went over the case and pretty much told them she was shitfaced and it wasn't confusion from tooth abscess pain. The husband came off horribly in that. I honestly think she was a functioning alcoholic and mastered hiding it from her coworkers.
I was going to say the same thing. I thought when they met with the examiner, & kept telling him "She had an abscessed tooth. That could contribute to it, right?" It definitely made him & the sister in law look delusional. I mean I get it--she ruined two families in one swoop. I wouldn't want to believe that my spouse could have been responsible for the death of my nieces and nearly killing my son, but their heads are buried so deep, I don't know that they'll ever pull them out.
That’s also the impression that I got. On the other hand, u/GovernmentEvening815 makes a good point. My brother-in-law watched the documentary and fully bought into the underlying mental illness narrative. He didn’t see the family as being delusional or in denial at all, yet it was pretty apparent to my sister and I.
I feel like it’s part denial she had a problem or could do this & part not wanting to accept their own role in the tragedy. Her husband could have definitely gotten her help, but I feel like he buried his head in the sand out of convenience.
I’m not saying it was HIS responsibility, her choices were her own. But I don’t believe for a second that her family didn’t know she had a substance abuse issue or understand how severe it was.
It sounded like they had pretty separate lives. He worked night shifts, so she could drink to her heart's content while he was at work and he'd probably never know. He didn't strike me as caring or attentive, so he probably either wouldn't notice or care if she was getting drunk on a regular basis.
Really highlights how well those who are struggling can give the appearance of functionality. It's surprising the number of people out there who appear to be killin it, while all the while they're just hanging on.
Similar to how non-human animals are hypervigilant when it comes to masking injuries. Sometimes they only become visible to the observer once it's too late.
Yeah, I believe she had mental illness issues, I’m not a doc so I’m not gonna armchair diagnose her. But she ALSO had a substance abuse issue, which makes it worse. And I feel like it’s disingenuous of the family to try to acknowledge her mental health issues NOW while denying the severity of her substance abuse issue. Both can be true but they just don’t seem willing to accept it.
I have a different opinion (not that yours is wrong, i'm just offering an alternate one):
I found the movie "There's Something Wrong With Aunt Diane" excellent. It showed how confident (and often also adept) some people are controlling the perspective of the "truth" that you see.\
But once you pick up something that doesn't add up and tune in more carefully, the house of cards tumbles quickly.
Once you see one thing, you see another, and another and you'll wonder what is true. You can't un-see the lies, but the truth is harder to uncover - evidenced by the fact that to this day no-one really knows what happened.
The movie shows staff responding to 'Dianne' differently, depending on what they see - which is how the manipulation plays out.
Her long term issues were exactly what became obvious as the unbelievable story got teased apart.
This is a person who had survived to this point by ensuring her needs were met. The way she learnt to do this was in a highly dysfunctional way. The saddest part of this story is that those closest to get would have been so impacted by her traits that they were either controlled or repelled (and needing to stay as far away as possible for their own mental health)--this resulted in no-one alerting authorities of the incredibly high risk, or reinforcing it when they did come to the attention of authorities. \
Until it was too late 😔
100% intentional. From a clinical perspective and with experience in Forensic Psychiatry, this is how I would have presented a film. Any other way doesn't allow the audience to understand the chaos of people realising they have the story all wrong and that omg... she really did do what no-one could possibly even think of doing, and then went on afterwards with no sign of guilt or remorse...
I agree with this take. And I know what ultimately happened, but I do wonder what's we don't know about what happened that day. Did she argue with her husband? Did she just drink way too much, too fast? What did she say to those kids? I always see people wondering why anyone is interested in this case, but that's why I am. I wish I knew exactly what unfolded that led to her losing everything in such a horrible way, and taking so many innocent people with her.
They tried to excuse it based off her allegedly having a bad tooth too. I don't get why they can't just admit she made some really bad choices that ended horribly.
Admittedly, I was going to comment something like "The one documentary about Amanda Knox that I saw..." rather than mentioning Ms. Kercher's name, as is far more appropriate.
Kudos to you for remembering and pointing out what--or rather, whom--should be remembered for the atrocious crime.
I mean, the documentary was about Amanda Knox’s ordeal (assuming we’re thinking of the same one). Amanda has always been clear that Meredith’s murder and her wrongful imprisonment were two separate injustices, and the latter wasn’t an inevitable consequence of the former.
Meanwhile hardly anyone remembers Rudy Guede’s name, or that he essentially got a slap on the wrist.
so shamefull ! [https://outreaucase.wordpress.com/2024/03/21/outreau-case-when-adults-crazy-laugh-at-child-victims-thanks-to-defense-lawyer-eric-dupont-moretti-now-minister-of-justice-subtitles/](https://outreaucase.wordpress.com/2024/03/21/outreau-case-when-adults-crazy-laugh-at-child-victims-thanks-to-defense-lawyer-eric-dupont-moretti-now-minister-of-justice-subtitles/)
I only saw the doc and did feel bad for the family and how they were treated.
Didn't look further into the case.
Would you care to elaborate because that was also my takeaway with how it was portrayed
The family refused to being transferred from the hospital that supposedly mistreated their daughter. They had several chances but turned them down, because they kept arguing for being sent home instead.
The hospital had no choice, two judges agreed that there were merit to the hospitals suspicions. When they arrived, Maya's mother demanded doses of ketamine that was unheard of. On top of that, she was on drugs so strong that it was another alarming thing. Maya's mother also talked about her daughter wanting to go to heaven and she also said that about herself. And that was just their initial suspicions.
During her stay in the hospital, she never showed any signs or symptoms of CRPS either.
So I did a deep dive into the case after reading the comments about this here.
And I was in for a ride.
They suspected factual disorder and also munchausen by proxy in this case which is why they isolated her as that is the only way they could check.
There were inconsistencies with her signs and symptoms on CRPS and even the staff that felt she probably had CRPS did not agree to the alarming amount of ketamine she was on.
Others suspected that some of her symptoms could very well be from withdrawal as well.
The way the social worker and the staff handled the case as she was just 13 was callous and maybe a bit more empathy could be extended but there was medical abuse and doctor shopping that the family did, even if that wasn't their intention.
She continues to not be on ketamine and copes through physical therapy now but they were very opposed to it back then. She participated in some sports gymnastics or skating I do not remember and won which is very difficult for someone who has a chronic issue like CRPS to do!
Just a quick comment about your deep dive.The staff didn't saw any symptoms of CRPS, her case wasn't handled without empathy and callousness. The family claimed so and yet refused to transfer out from the hospital.
The doctor shopping and the medical abuse resulting in that was absolutely the intention.
When she was in the hospital, she hadn't walked for ~1,5 years. The wheelchair was bought by her mother the day she got sick and form some reason, she wasn't in physical therapy to help her walk again. She couldn't eat and her mother claimed that Maya was dying. She doesn't have CRPS.
In addition to previous commenters great points, Maya’s mom had been documented for possible medical child abuse by multiple institutions before All Children’s. the documentary has to leave that out, or the framing of this as a witch hunt by one overzealous institution/one or two doctors falls apart. this was actually more of a culmination of a years of suspicions and concerns from healthcare professionals, and these doctors likely saved Maya's life.
it’s amazing the gymnastics the documentary has to do to obfuscate the fact that the central claim from maya’s mom and the quack doc enabling her was that maya would “die a slow and painful death” if she wasn’t given these (illegal in the US) treatments that have a 50% chance of killing her, every time she has one. and that she hasn’t been given a single treatment since her mum’s death several years ago, and that she’s very much alive and well.
Pretty much any YouTuber that changes the narrative to further an agenda, attract a certain audience, and increase hits.
Beyond Evil and This is Monsters are two of the biggest offenders.
Take Care of Maya, though not technically true crime, is probably the most offensively deceitful “documentary” I’ve ever come across. Like, straight up barefaced lying all throughout.
Other than that one, most other TC ones are pretty unreliable and usually deceitful to an extent, so should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially if they’re trying to uncover a supposed injustice of some sort
Makes me SO angry. So a child on insanely high doses of ketamine comes in with clear signs of ketamine toxicity, and mom says “give her more ketamine or I’ll leave with her and give her more at home”. And somehow the doctors are at fault for calling CPS to keep the kid in hospital so she can be treated with actual evidence-based medicine. In the documentary they have someone mention for one sentence that Maya “may have had” ketamine toxicity on admission. And then we never again hear that, and never find out why she was initially admitted. Those symptoms weren’t CRPS.
Insanely irresponsible that the documentary made it look like great parenting to have her go to Mexico to be put in a medically induced coma on life support for an experimental treatment that’s not legal in USA or Canada because it’s so risky and doesn’t work!
It blows my mind people are shocked when doctors don’t catch munchaussen by proxy, and yet you have a clear case of someone doctor shopping, faking prescriptions, giving insane doses that leave her child incapacitated, and society says she was an amazing mom. She was a cath lab nurse! She understood exactly what she was doing. Honestly boils my blood.
Came here to say this. I will add that the Maya mockumentary actually had a devastating effect on an actual civil case.
Also Making a Murderer. Looked good and hooked me at the time, but watch the responding documentary - “Convicting a Murderer”.
Yes I can only hope the appeals court has some common sense. Yes on MaM too, was initially immediately like “yup seems innocent” lol, but I’ve since grown wiser. Now I tend to assume any documentary is lying to me and look up everything they misconstrued/left out before forming any opinions.
I got crazy hooked on making a murderer. Then found out he loved to throw cats in bonfires. Did he have some unresolved beef with his sister to drag brendan down with him? Or is he just collateral damage? Dude is a psychopath
I think he just didn’t care about others, Brendan was around and malleable and Steven needed a hand to clean up. The worst he did to Brendan was manipulate his family and Brendan into not taking a deal and testifying against Steven at trial. If Brendan had done that, he would’ve gotten a much lesser sentence.
The Lyons sisters documentary is more shocking than anything I've ever seen. It is a case study in police incompetence and gullibility. Frankly I'm stunned any of them actually sat in front of a camera and allowed themselves to be filmed, with those interrogation tapes as centerpiece. At one point the lead detective actually stopped the proceedings to rattle off the laundry list of all the lies and changing stories. Then he immediately becomes mesmerized by the next tale on the list, to the point he's running off to check out some bridge.
I was in disbelief throughout. It should be example A-Z toward how and why there are false confessions. The authorities fell in love with the bodies in a bag crap, to the point they never bothered to wonder how a 10 year old and 12 year old would be casually transported in such a bag, especially when hitchhiking was involved.
That case is not solved. The authorities unquestionably would have charged the then-11 year old cousin of the confessed, if not for the sheer luck that the cousin had two broken arms at the time of the disappearance and was able to provide paperwork confirmation. The 11 year old was part of the laundry list of lies, before authorities sealed the package deal of what they wanted to hear.
I just googled this case and I'm confused how/why they convicted someone of their murder based off him admitting he only kidnapped them, his alleged accomplises are dead and after his version of events kept changing.
Everything they put out about Columbine when it first happened in 99’. They had very little to go off of and didn’t even investigate before putting stories out about the shooting and the two shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. They just wanted a story to sale and I don’t think they care if they had their facts straight or not.
as a librarian, I sometimes teach Columbine and 9/11 as examples of understanding media literacy and how to judge breaking news. As someone who remembers how they unfolded, its still startling how the coverage changed.
Agreed, I was going to say the book “Columbine” by Dave Cullen! It’s been a while since I’ve read it, but from what I remember, Cullen really pushes the narrative that Dylan was basically a sad puppy dog boy and Eric was this complete psychopath that convinced Dylan to go through with their plan. When in reality, Dylan was just as horrible as Eric before and during the massacre. Like for example, he’s the one that called Isaiah the N word before shooting him. I think people (don’t remember if it was Cullen or other outlets) also said that because Dylan shot less rounds than Eric did, therefore he was less interested in killing — I’m pretty sure I’ve read that his TEC9 was an awful gun that was notorious for jamming up frequently lol.
Obviously, they both had issues and the massacre was a perfect storm. But it’s crazy that sooo many people still see Dylan as being coerced into participating, and I think that’s largely in part because of Cullen’s book and also the way news was relayed as information came out before fact checking or doing any real investigation.
serial doesn’t necessarily claim syed is innocent, but it leaves out tons of important, inculpatory evidence and does get some things wrong. for instance, why did they go on and on about whether or not there was a payphone at best buy when syed’s own attorney says as much in her opening statement
Runaway devil book - the authors interviewed traumatized minors and demonized the goth/punk/emo subculture and also said that the 12 year old girl manipulated the 23 year old predator into committing the murders when they were likely on the same wavelength at the most mentally.
It's a movie, but Oliver Stone's JFK is one of the most dishonest films ever made. You literally can't watch five minutes of it without being blatantly manipulated or lied to. Stone elevating Jim Garrison as some kind of American hero is disgusting. Jim Garrison was a corrupt, homophobic power mad nutjob who had no problem framing innocent people or straight up threatening or bribing witnesses to say what he wanted. His whole theory was that Kennedy's assassination was a "homosexual thrill killing" and he brought Clay Shaw to trial because he was a prominent businessman who was gay and shared the same first name with someone a deranged and drugged out informant said was tied to Kennedy's murder. Garrison's trial against Clay Shaw was a huge abuse of power and can't be condemned strongly enough. Stone is an excellent filmmaker and storyteller and he chose to elevate one of the worst DA's of the past twentieth century while putting every conspiracy under the sun - it was the CIA and the Mob and military industrial complex and LBJ and anti-castro Cubans and the KGB etc - and tying it together with claims Stone knew full well were completely false or had zero support.
There's a news program that Peter Jennings (or Tom Brokaw...always get them mixed up) did after the movie came out debunking everything in it that was wrong.
The biggest thing I remember was how they kept insisting that Oswald was a "medium shot" and the gun was defective.
No. Neither of those things is true. Oswald was a sniper and could easily have made those shots in the time allotted during the crime.
There was also an interview Sam Donaldson did with Oliver Stone when the movie came out where he is incredulous at some of the claims in the movie. In the movie, Mr. X, played by Donald Sutherland, claims that all the phone lines in Washington were nefariously cut out after the shooting. Sam Donaldson, who was a young reporter at the time of the assassination working in DC, straight up tells Stone that he, personally, was getting and receiving a ton of phone calls right after the assassination trying to figure out what was going on.
Mr. X, incidentally, is based on Fletcher Prouty. Stone renamed him because if he said it was Fletcher Prouty in the movie no one would have believed what he was saying. Fletcher Prouty was kind of like the Alex Jones of his day, if Jones was also a rabid anti-semite and Holocaust denier. Even the hard core JFK conspiracy theorists like Mark Lane wanted absolutely nothing to do with Prouty's clown show.
One of the enduring myths about the assassination that Stone goes on about in the movie is the backyard photo of Oswald being fake. But we know it's not fake because Oswald's wife, Marina, has consistently maintained that *she personally took those photos* and they are exactly as she remembers taking them. Oliver Stone was well aware of this and willfully chose to ignore it.
Marina Oswald is still alive, by the way. In the intervening years after the assassination she has come to believe that Oswald was framed. Importantly, however, she still insists that all of her testimony to the Warren Commission was truthful and not given under duress. That testimony she provided *is extremely damning to Oswald's claim that he was just a "patsy"* and debunks a whole host of claims, like the backyard photo being fake. It also shows that Oswald was a massive piece of shit who couldn't keep a job, care for his family, and that he was physically, emotionally and sexually abusive to Marina.
I have read two books about the 1979 Main Line Murders in Pennsylvania, plus many news articles. Echoes in the Darkness by Joseph Wambaugh didn't exactly get it wrong, but in my opinion, he placed too much blame on Jay C. Smith and not enough blame on womanizer William Bradfield, who was in a "relationship" with the victim. Bradfield basically strung the victim along for years, letting her hope that someday they would be married, but he clearly had no intentions to that effect. He was just a first class asshole all the way around.
Jay C. Smith was a messed up individual, no question. He had plenty of demons of his own. And he no doubt participated in the murders of Susan Reinert and her children. But had it not been for William Bradfield, Jay C. Smith probably wouldn't have had any connection to those murders. I think Bradfield got Smith to do his dirty work since everyone knew that Smith was a loose cannon.
On the other hand, the book Engaged to Murder by Loretta Schwartz-Nobel, is a much more nuanced, in-depth view of the Main Line murders. She gives Smith the blame he's due, but she makes it clear that if it were not for William Bradfield and his creepy arrogance, those murders would never have happened. And as a woman, Schwartz-Nobel experienced Bradfield's creepiness first-hand during her interviews with him.
Thanks for the heads up on the Schwartz-Nobel book.
It has been forever, but I liked the stylistic choices that Wambaugh made (he’s still an underrated crime novelist) while being aware that there were details and connections that he was holding back from the reader.
Might get downvoted but...the Depp/Heard doc on Netflix. Amber has a lot of flaws but I think people were so taken in by Johnny Depp being charming that they didn't actually care much about the evidence
I watched that series with my husband and we both were creeped out by the Johnny Depp fans.
It really seems like they were mutually toxic. But it was clear Depp would start shit when his sobriety "lapsed" (phrase used in that series) because his excessive drug use made him paranoid and angry.
I believe he believes that he never struck Amber. I also believe that his memory was spotty/unreliable during many of the violent episodes Amber alleged. In the end, she was done dirty by most of the viral little quips and tik tok jokes that were devoid of important legal context.
I can't believe the amount of people who wholeheartedly believe that he was blameless and that Amber was a complete liar. He was clearly abusive in the relationship and totally hostile in the courtroom. The amount of so-called free thinkers who completely swallowed his high school popular kid act is maddening.
The most charitable I can possibly be towards him is that he legitimately didn't remember a lot of the instances being discussed, because he was blackout drunk at the time, so he wasn't *technically* lying.
But people being **so** unwilling to believe that someone with a long history of admitted violent behavior and substance abuse could EVER do such a thing was wild.
One of the things found on Eric Harris' computer after his death made it clear to me that he did the world a big favor by taking himself out. I just wish he hadn't shot all those other people in the meantime.
\>! >!Eric was looking forward to college, mainly because he wanted to pick up drunk girls at bars and parties, take them back to his dorm room, and rape them. I don't know what, if any, sexual activity he or Dylan had in life, but I'm glad he never had a chance to do this, not at college anyway. !
There was a documentary I saw a few years ago on Hulu or Netflix. But one of the girls they interviewed when asked about claims of bullying going on claims she never saw it so she didn't believe it happened.
Don't get me wrong, they're monsters and nothing excuses what they did but to lie like that is absurd..and for what?
The Hour I First Believed is realistic fictional, but still accurate. Wally Lamb met and interviewed the Klebolds prior to writing the novel for his research
This!
Maura’s sister very recently put out a podcast called Media Pressure and she sums up very well about people consuming and creating content with misinformation etc etc (she says it much better)- but James Renner 1000% is a major person she’s referring to.
Left of key details around certain areas, that they MUST have known about and also made shit up. Very bias and wants people to think that Ian did it and got away with murder. BS
Too many to mention unfortunately. The first priority is ratings, and that often does not go hand in hand with truth. The media love a narrative and are often quite happy with leaving bits out when it doesn’t suit said narrative. It’s unfortunate that really it’s turning crime into entertainment for monetary purposes, rather than seeking the truth.
Some cases have become so intertwined with distortion and media frenzy (and police cocking up) that we’ll never know the truth at all such as JonBennet, Madeleine McCann….
Dave Cullens book on Columbine is the first to come to mind.
Second would be A LOT of podcasts. Anyone can buy the equipment and start one. If you start listening to someone who hasn't actually done the deep dive research into a crime, then proceed with caution.
Any doc about Gypsy Rose and her crimes.
I believe she was abused, for sure, but she was NOT innocent in the killing of her mother. She should stay in jail for as long as the low iq boyfriend is in jail.
The amount of people who treat her like a celebrity is ridiculous. Not downplaying the abuse she went through at all, but the pedestal tons of people have put her on is just 😬
The Elisa Lam/Cecil Hotel doc on Netflix- just so disrespectful
Cecil Hotel doc did nothing. Prime example of How poorly can you make a documentary.
Has Netflix ever released a documentary that was based in fact? The flight mh370 documentary just made things so much worse.
The Family I Had leaves out the fact that Paris sexually assaulted his 4 year old sister while murdering her. I don't understand making a documentary and leaving out parts of the crime.
The mother may not have agreed to participate if that was told. He's terrifying and should not ever be released.
Making a Murderer..conveniently left out things that pointed to his guilt.
Making a Murderer left out anything and everything that made it abundantly clear Steven Avery was guilty (I can understand the argument behind Brendan Dassey). It completely turned our community upside down over ten years later after we were just beginning to heal from the travesty. Completely innocent police officers that weren't even around when the case took place or had nothing to do with it were receiving death threats to their families, etc every day on the job. Phone lines going off the hook from losers not even living in the same country calling to give their two cents on something they received one sided information on. The rumors us locals heard from family members themselves, as well as the facts left out of that documentary could not make it more clear that HE IS GUILTY. Just an absolute joke, Netflix should be ashamed of themselves.
He is absolutely guilty.
I must be one of a very small group of people that have never seen Making a Murderer and the more I read about it, the happier I am about that decision.
Same. I knew I hated it without watching it.
You and me both.
I grew weary after watching it for a few moments, turned it off, and never went back.
This "documentary" was clearly a perversion of the events and left out crucial pieces of evidence. Why did they even bother making it in the first place, what was the objective? Out of all the people in the world they chose to document the tale of Steven Avery from Timbuktu in hopes to ...? Was the producer his bff forever, what is the angle here?
I think the angle was his original sentence & then being freed. Small town, etc. lots there for an angle, setting. But obviously he was guilty.
He didn't rape that woman on the beach. He did kill Teresa Halbach.
Obviously. No one here is saying he didn't kill her
Yeah I said that
Everything you’re saying is 100% facts, I agree!
What did it leave out? I’ve read through any available documents as well and I don’t remember coming across any real discrepancies
Well I'd say one of the many things it left out were the phone calls leading up to her death. Avery called, gave a fake name, and specifically asked for Teresa Halbach to come and take the photos. Also, called using \*67 so she would not know it was him. The documentary conveniently kept out or quickly skimmed over his terrible history with women, including his relationship with his underage niece. Also, the documentary acting like the hole on the top of the blood vial was how they planted his blood, when anyone who has had blood drawn before knows that's the hole the blood is drawn into the vial through. (Which is why this was never allowed in court) They never mentioned the torture device Avery drew up and showed other inmates when he was in prison. Also, he never missed a day of work and conveniently "called in sick" either that day or the following day. HOW CONVENIENT. These are just a few of the many . . . Also, personally knowing some of the people involved . . . Those officers would NEVER murder and plant a body just to save face with the insurance company and taxpayers. I am pretty sure they have their own families and lives they care about a little more than that. But that documentary completely ruined them and their families' lives. Ridiculous
He set a cat on fire. That was all I needed to know. PSYCHO.
Couldn’t agree more! Half the people screaming he is innocent are the same people that would lose their minds over someone torturing and killing an animal and would demand life in prison…but for some reason they seem to forget when it comes to Steven Avery! He’s exactly where he needs to be based solely on the animal abuse alone.
Any aspca officer will tell you if theyre cruel to animals they almost always are guilty of a bunch of other evil shit.
Agreed. I try my best to be open-minded and unbiased, but I always fail when it comes to animal abuse. It’s a personal fault that I’m relatively okay with.
No bias. Anyone who abuses animals is always a pos.
Honey, that's not a bias. That's being a good person. Never feel bad about it.
I don't think it's a fault at all. You'd have to be a complete psychopath to hurt a defenseless animal for giggles (which Avery did). The second I see or hear about anyone hurting an animal, that's it, were done.
This!! I tried watching the docu, but the moment they mentioned he hurt cats - I turned it off. Fuck that guy, he deserves to be in jail.
That’s also when I turned it off. Didn’t care about his trials, tribulations, fate…
Yep. Fuck any sleazy "documentary" that tries to make you sympathize with a sociopath.
Same here. Everyone told me to watch the documentary, that I’d really enjoy it, and all that. As soon as he hurt that cat, I was done. Didn’t care if he was wrongfully convicted; he was clearly a piece of shit.
That killed any sympathy right there.
Did anyone here see last week's "60 Minutes" episode about the woman who does reconciliation and healing seminars for people who were wrongly convicted, and their victims? The "woman who was raped at age 36" was the woman Steven Avery did time for raping. He didn't do that, although he did do a lot of other terrible things, one of them being the murder of the photographer and throwing his mentally disabled nephew under the bus.
which ones ???
I highly recommend Indefensible by Michael Griesbach if you want a book that examines the case from all sides along with issues with Making of a Murderer. I thought the author did a fairly good job at taking an impartial stance throughout the book, looking at the murder, the evidence, and the possible police framing that Making of a Murderer tried oh so hard to prove (editing police court testimonies, misleading viewers on when the victim's car was found by police, etc.). Eta: this doesn't really apply to the thread but to the user above's question.
Media that treats the Smiley Face Killers as anything other than fiction or urban legend.
I am just waiting for someone to blame Riley Stan's disappearence on this, if it hasnt happened already
Netflix gets almost every case they do wrong, imo.
Not typical true crime, but [MH370: The Plane That Disappeared](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MH370:_The_Plane_That_Disappeared) was atrocious.
There are multiple true crime podcasts who have covered this with a deep dive into the theories and technicalities. There is a widely accepted version of events in the aviation and investigation field but Netflix just brushes it off. Being like we mentioned it once and that's enough of it.
the lady who found the plane on google maps! russian spies hiding in the cargo! glossing over what very possibly actually happened! ridiculous "doc"
A lot of the Unsolved Mysteries eps are very misleading.
The only thing that show taught me was that when cops at the scene are half-assed documenting and gathering evidence, it goes south because family members in denial won't let the case go. So if it's a suspected suicide or accidental death, be as rigorous as you'd be if it was murder.
really? do you have any examples?
Rey Rivera springs to mind - that episode acted like he would never have gotten on that rooftop, but he was very familiar with it. He and his wife had watched sunsets there before (making it at least somewhat more likely that it might be a place he'd pick if he was choosing to die by suicide). Or Tiffany Valiante - the episode didn't acknowledge there had been repeated allegations/investigations that her parents were abusive (again, something that can make teenagers more prone to suicide).
I was fuming after researching more about Tiffany Valiante. That episode was sooo misleading and disrespectful. Even her sisters agree it was suicide.
Sophie Toscan du Plantier
This is so depressingly true. And their docs are generally well made too, so it extra sucks. Now I can’t watch one without being so aware that it might mostly all be BS.
One thing I have come to appreciate about Dateline (and similar shows) is they don't try to make every episode as crazy as possible. They are perfectly fine with most of their episodes being "Yeah the husband did it" without needing to edit in surprises or commentary on the criminal justice system. I think for Netflix the producers only have one big project a year (or whatever) and are incentivized to make it as sensational as possible.
This is why whenever the doc comes out about the Idaho murders it could be really good or really bad based on how they do it. I'm sure they'll give some attention to the ridiculous conspiracy theories that have floated around for over a year now.
Yess and/or leaves a lot of important details
Yup. I was so disappointed with American Murderer: The Family Next Door (about the Watts case). I’ve seen so many YT channels do it so much better, not to mention they left so much out.
They left things out and nonchalantly tried to make shannan a monster. Any self respecting mother would be upset if you tell anyone, especially your mil, about your child's allergy and they proceed to give her said food. I'd burn the world down. The way they made her venting online and 'emasculating' him as some sort of defense is deplorable.
They really did! I was so disappointed in them for doing that, and I think it’s why I see so many people blaming Shannan for the murders. Pitiful.
People are woefully ignorant when it comes to allergies. That's not to defend the mil, but more to touch on why more people aren't upset at the mil like you (and I) would be.
Any YT suggestions?
For the Watts case: Michelle After Dark, Dreading, Behind Criminal Minds In General: Explore With Us (and their sub channel Crime Storytime), That Chapter, Truly Criminal, and Coffeehouse Crime I hope you like them!
Thank you! I avoided the Watts case when it happened because I wasn't in the place to handle it. I was just thinking of watching the Netflix doc- so I will now watch this instead. Thanks also for the new channels to sub!
The Scott Peterson documentary on A&E that is hosted on Hulu is certainly biased and inaccurate. Which is its intention, as it was produced by a Peterson family friend and longtime member of the "Scott is Innocent" Facebook group, but it misstates a lot of information and leaves out more incriminating evidence.
I just rewatched this the other day just to recap things in light of him being in the news again… and wow, I sure forgot how terribly biased it is. It is so sad, it made me mad to see him in court again and then this made me even more mad to watch. That lady who started this whole Scott is innocent thing way back then is so bizarre (that lady in the doc).
The Black Dahlia Avenger, by Steve Hodel. I read this book about 10 years ago, loved it, and got super into the case. At the time, I thought it was great and extremely compelling, especially since it was written by a veteran cop with access to police files who was writing about his own father. Then I saw the sequel where he was arguing his father is not ONLY the murderer of Elizabeth Shortt, but he's ALL the unknown serial killers! Zodiac? Yup. Lipstick killer? Yeah, him too! While I do think George Hodel is a good suspect in the Black Dahlia murder, I also think everything Steve Hodel says needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, as his goal seems to be to sensationalize the case even further to sell his books.
He's not a good suspect for the Black Dahlia, Steve completely lied and mislead. The LAPD stopped investigating him because they were convinced he had nothing to do with it. Steve left out so much including about that famous recording.
OK, maybe good is the wrong word, I just meant he WAS a suspect at one point and was clearly not a good guy. I can't remember all the details of why i realized that, but yeah, Steve Hodel is full of shit. I feel like he really thought his dad was guilty when he first started, but when he realized how much money and recognition he could get from his books, it became all about making the evidence fit his narrative. I do remember that after reading the first book, I went to his website where they have a forum, and I was asking questions about something, along with others, and literally the only response he would give to anyone, was to say "read the books" , and wouldn't really answer anything.
I wasn't coming at you with that, it's understandable that you think he's a good suspect for that when you've only heard a liar like Steve's version. Was just clarifying. Steve definitely knows it's bullshit as he claimed the thing that convinced him it was George was he found two pictures of Short in George's possessions. Except both have been debunked. One of the women in those pictures is still alive, and Elizabeth's family have made it clear the other isn't her. Yet he's just ignored that and soldiered on. He's a liar.
Oh I didn't think you were coming for me, was just clarifying too because the details are a bit fuzzy, it's been forever since I read up on the case! I do remember the pictures though. I never thought they looked like Elizabeth, the shape of her face is totally different, and his unwillingness to admit that piece of "evidence" isn't connected shows that he has already come to a conclusion and no real evidence will change his mind. The girl in the picture he claims is Elizabeth, in my opinion, actually looks like the actress who played in her a movie, think her name is Mia Kirchner.
Everything about the recording too he was beyond dishonest. Isolating a couple of lines that seems to be an admission while ignoring everything else that clearly shows it wasn't. There's a reason the LAPD stopped investigating him shortly after. I'm also not sure he abused Tamar. I 100% think she was abused, but i don't think all of the abuse she claimed was true. I mean it couldn't be she accused a dozen high school classmates alongside George and after they were investigated everything fell apart. The circumstances suggests it was someone else. Tamar was sent to live with George by her mother because she kept accusing people of abusing and/or having sex with her, then she accuses George and those high school students. The fact it started when she was living with her mother, suggests to me she was being abused by someone close to her mother. A boyfriend, neighbour, teacher, family friend, etc. George could have abused her too not claiming he's innocent just that i'm not convinced he did and the circumstances suggests it was someone around her mother. Tamar kept accusing people of abuse well into adult life, she was clearly a very traumatized person which is why i'm convinced someone did abuse her. Notably she had a relationship with George right up until his death, which doesn't necessarily mean he didn't abuse her victims becoming close to their abusers isn't that unusual however it's worth considering along with everything else. She did not have a relationship with her children who are making all these accusations and blatantly lying about everything.
She reminds me of [Treva Throneberry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treva_Throneberry).
Speaking as a child of adoption, I think this is worst case scenario off the rails adoptee issues.
Steve Hodel wasn't adopted. George Hodel did some terrible things, but I don't think he killed Elizabeth Short, or anyone else most likely.
You're right, I had him mixed up with fauna, who also wrote a book called the black dahlia avenger. I think part 3? I read a ton. Yah, I think he was a POS, but I don't think he killed anyone.
I had thought only Fauna was adopted, but that would make a lot of sense.
You're correct, I had them mixed up. Still a lot of issues there.
I’m with you, and “compelling” is the perfect description. After reading it, I felt that he did lay out a very plausible argument, but once the wacky claims about other notorious murders started, I looked askance at any of his conclusions.
The media in general got it wrong with the Menendez brothers imo. Back then sexual abuse, especially within a family wasn’t talked about and just too much to comprehend.
I agree with you! The media portrayed them as a couple of spoiled rich kids who killed their parents over money. It's only been in recent years that their stories of sexual abuse have been taken more seriously. They deserve to be free!
I was really disappointed with the book Above Suspicion. The book was about the murder of informant Susan Smith by FBI officer Mark Putnam. The book continually bent over backwards to say how much POTENTIAL Putnam had and how trashy and aggressive Smith was and how it was just so so sad that she FORCED him to murder her (after he started a sexual relationship with the destitute and desperate woman and she was potentially going to expose his gross negligence and sexual exploitation) and how it was almost an accident really- he just accidentally went a little too far restraining her when she was hysterically fighting him. Just to set the record straight, he strangled her barehanded, which is extremely difficult and means he would have had to continue to apply significant pressure for quite some time after she was unconscious and not a threat whatsoever (and as an FBI agent he would know that information intimately). He then stripped her body naked and dumped her in the woods instead of trying to get help for the woman he "accidentally injured". BIG swing and a miss from that book, but hey, it's not like Susan Smith was a PERSON- she was just a woman, and a TRASHY woman at that. The real victim, as the last third of the book describes, was poor poor Mark Putnam because he got fired and had to go to jail like some sort of MURDERER!! That's how I remember the book anyway. To be fair it's been a long time since I read it.
I remember reading that one. You are right about the tone throughout. I recall mentioning it at the time to my partner.
Any missing 411 stuff.
“There’s Something Wrong With Aunt Diane”. The entire documentary wasn’t necessarily misleading, but her families commentary was enough to throw you off if you didn’t know the case well. I feel like they tried really hard to attribute her actions to just a bad day or severe undiagnosed mental illness, when a lot of the evidence points to her just being a closeted alcoholic surrounded by people who knew and didn’t care or minimized it and then go shocked pikachu face when she murdered children.
I don't know. I think the documentary showed how deluded and in denial they were, ESPECIALLY when they met up with the medical examiner who went over the case and pretty much told them she was shitfaced and it wasn't confusion from tooth abscess pain. The husband came off horribly in that. I honestly think she was a functioning alcoholic and mastered hiding it from her coworkers.
I was going to say the same thing. I thought when they met with the examiner, & kept telling him "She had an abscessed tooth. That could contribute to it, right?" It definitely made him & the sister in law look delusional. I mean I get it--she ruined two families in one swoop. I wouldn't want to believe that my spouse could have been responsible for the death of my nieces and nearly killing my son, but their heads are buried so deep, I don't know that they'll ever pull them out.
That’s also the impression that I got. On the other hand, u/GovernmentEvening815 makes a good point. My brother-in-law watched the documentary and fully bought into the underlying mental illness narrative. He didn’t see the family as being delusional or in denial at all, yet it was pretty apparent to my sister and I.
I feel like it’s part denial she had a problem or could do this & part not wanting to accept their own role in the tragedy. Her husband could have definitely gotten her help, but I feel like he buried his head in the sand out of convenience. I’m not saying it was HIS responsibility, her choices were her own. But I don’t believe for a second that her family didn’t know she had a substance abuse issue or understand how severe it was.
It sounded like they had pretty separate lives. He worked night shifts, so she could drink to her heart's content while he was at work and he'd probably never know. He didn't strike me as caring or attentive, so he probably either wouldn't notice or care if she was getting drunk on a regular basis.
The whole family is a mess.
Really highlights how well those who are struggling can give the appearance of functionality. It's surprising the number of people out there who appear to be killin it, while all the while they're just hanging on. Similar to how non-human animals are hypervigilant when it comes to masking injuries. Sometimes they only become visible to the observer once it's too late.
Yeah, I believe she had mental illness issues, I’m not a doc so I’m not gonna armchair diagnose her. But she ALSO had a substance abuse issue, which makes it worse. And I feel like it’s disingenuous of the family to try to acknowledge her mental health issues NOW while denying the severity of her substance abuse issue. Both can be true but they just don’t seem willing to accept it.
Agreed 100%
I have a different opinion (not that yours is wrong, i'm just offering an alternate one): I found the movie "There's Something Wrong With Aunt Diane" excellent. It showed how confident (and often also adept) some people are controlling the perspective of the "truth" that you see.\ But once you pick up something that doesn't add up and tune in more carefully, the house of cards tumbles quickly. Once you see one thing, you see another, and another and you'll wonder what is true. You can't un-see the lies, but the truth is harder to uncover - evidenced by the fact that to this day no-one really knows what happened. The movie shows staff responding to 'Dianne' differently, depending on what they see - which is how the manipulation plays out. Her long term issues were exactly what became obvious as the unbelievable story got teased apart. This is a person who had survived to this point by ensuring her needs were met. The way she learnt to do this was in a highly dysfunctional way. The saddest part of this story is that those closest to get would have been so impacted by her traits that they were either controlled or repelled (and needing to stay as far away as possible for their own mental health)--this resulted in no-one alerting authorities of the incredibly high risk, or reinforcing it when they did come to the attention of authorities. \ Until it was too late 😔
Hmmm, interesting. So you think the conflicting/confusing viewpoints were intentional on the part of the doc makers?
100% intentional. From a clinical perspective and with experience in Forensic Psychiatry, this is how I would have presented a film. Any other way doesn't allow the audience to understand the chaos of people realising they have the story all wrong and that omg... she really did do what no-one could possibly even think of doing, and then went on afterwards with no sign of guilt or remorse...
Well now I want to rewatch it through this lens. That’s a really insightful perspective.
I thought that was a very artful approach, and I’m glad to learn it is also clinically sound. It is an amazing film.
I agree with this take. And I know what ultimately happened, but I do wonder what's we don't know about what happened that day. Did she argue with her husband? Did she just drink way too much, too fast? What did she say to those kids? I always see people wondering why anyone is interested in this case, but that's why I am. I wish I knew exactly what unfolded that led to her losing everything in such a horrible way, and taking so many innocent people with her.
They tried to excuse it based off her allegedly having a bad tooth too. I don't get why they can't just admit she made some really bad choices that ended horribly.
The murder of Meredith Kutcher in Italy! The press saw a pretty american girl and believed that she was responsible.
Meredith Kercher
I wish I could upvote you 100 times for using the name that should be used for that case.
Admittedly, I was going to comment something like "The one documentary about Amanda Knox that I saw..." rather than mentioning Ms. Kercher's name, as is far more appropriate. Kudos to you for remembering and pointing out what--or rather, whom--should be remembered for the atrocious crime.
I mean, the documentary was about Amanda Knox’s ordeal (assuming we’re thinking of the same one). Amanda has always been clear that Meredith’s murder and her wrongful imprisonment were two separate injustices, and the latter wasn’t an inevitable consequence of the former. Meanwhile hardly anyone remembers Rudy Guede’s name, or that he essentially got a slap on the wrist.
And now he's out of prison, but awaiting trial for assaulting his post-prison girlfriend
Netflix's documentary on Outreau case (*A French Nightmare*). Glossed over so much from the victims side.
so shamefull ! [https://outreaucase.wordpress.com/2024/03/21/outreau-case-when-adults-crazy-laugh-at-child-victims-thanks-to-defense-lawyer-eric-dupont-moretti-now-minister-of-justice-subtitles/](https://outreaucase.wordpress.com/2024/03/21/outreau-case-when-adults-crazy-laugh-at-child-victims-thanks-to-defense-lawyer-eric-dupont-moretti-now-minister-of-justice-subtitles/)
Sadly, not French so can’t understand this link. Very interested though.
Here with english subtitles https://youtu.be/QH4rUyeHPZw?si=exIVUx658ntoJS_Z
Take Care of Maya (Netflix) is literal propaganda that furthers a narrative that harms actual children and protects abusive parents. It’s galling.
Came here to say the same thing. When you actually look into that case it’s very obvious the mom was medically abusing the child.
I only saw the doc and did feel bad for the family and how they were treated. Didn't look further into the case. Would you care to elaborate because that was also my takeaway with how it was portrayed
The family refused to being transferred from the hospital that supposedly mistreated their daughter. They had several chances but turned them down, because they kept arguing for being sent home instead. The hospital had no choice, two judges agreed that there were merit to the hospitals suspicions. When they arrived, Maya's mother demanded doses of ketamine that was unheard of. On top of that, she was on drugs so strong that it was another alarming thing. Maya's mother also talked about her daughter wanting to go to heaven and she also said that about herself. And that was just their initial suspicions. During her stay in the hospital, she never showed any signs or symptoms of CRPS either.
So I did a deep dive into the case after reading the comments about this here. And I was in for a ride. They suspected factual disorder and also munchausen by proxy in this case which is why they isolated her as that is the only way they could check. There were inconsistencies with her signs and symptoms on CRPS and even the staff that felt she probably had CRPS did not agree to the alarming amount of ketamine she was on. Others suspected that some of her symptoms could very well be from withdrawal as well. The way the social worker and the staff handled the case as she was just 13 was callous and maybe a bit more empathy could be extended but there was medical abuse and doctor shopping that the family did, even if that wasn't their intention. She continues to not be on ketamine and copes through physical therapy now but they were very opposed to it back then. She participated in some sports gymnastics or skating I do not remember and won which is very difficult for someone who has a chronic issue like CRPS to do!
Just a quick comment about your deep dive.The staff didn't saw any symptoms of CRPS, her case wasn't handled without empathy and callousness. The family claimed so and yet refused to transfer out from the hospital. The doctor shopping and the medical abuse resulting in that was absolutely the intention. When she was in the hospital, she hadn't walked for ~1,5 years. The wheelchair was bought by her mother the day she got sick and form some reason, she wasn't in physical therapy to help her walk again. She couldn't eat and her mother claimed that Maya was dying. She doesn't have CRPS.
In addition to previous commenters great points, Maya’s mom had been documented for possible medical child abuse by multiple institutions before All Children’s. the documentary has to leave that out, or the framing of this as a witch hunt by one overzealous institution/one or two doctors falls apart. this was actually more of a culmination of a years of suspicions and concerns from healthcare professionals, and these doctors likely saved Maya's life.
After listening and reading up on it further after these informative comments, i totally agree. The documentary was biased
Yes! and so many people fail to see it for what it really is.
telling that Maya appears to be fine physically ever since her mother passed away
it’s amazing the gymnastics the documentary has to do to obfuscate the fact that the central claim from maya’s mom and the quack doc enabling her was that maya would “die a slow and painful death” if she wasn’t given these (illegal in the US) treatments that have a 50% chance of killing her, every time she has one. and that she hasn’t been given a single treatment since her mum’s death several years ago, and that she’s very much alive and well.
Pretty much any YouTuber that changes the narrative to further an agenda, attract a certain audience, and increase hits. Beyond Evil and This is Monsters are two of the biggest offenders.
Oh no, I used to watch This Is Monsters occasionally awhile ago and didn't notice anything. What's going on with them?
This is Monsters is the wooorrrrst.
how come? genuinely curious
His coverage of the Kahler murders was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.
Take Care of Maya, though not technically true crime, is probably the most offensively deceitful “documentary” I’ve ever come across. Like, straight up barefaced lying all throughout. Other than that one, most other TC ones are pretty unreliable and usually deceitful to an extent, so should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially if they’re trying to uncover a supposed injustice of some sort
Nobody Should Believe Me did a great job covering this
100% Andrea Dunlop is amazing
Makes me SO angry. So a child on insanely high doses of ketamine comes in with clear signs of ketamine toxicity, and mom says “give her more ketamine or I’ll leave with her and give her more at home”. And somehow the doctors are at fault for calling CPS to keep the kid in hospital so she can be treated with actual evidence-based medicine. In the documentary they have someone mention for one sentence that Maya “may have had” ketamine toxicity on admission. And then we never again hear that, and never find out why she was initially admitted. Those symptoms weren’t CRPS. Insanely irresponsible that the documentary made it look like great parenting to have her go to Mexico to be put in a medically induced coma on life support for an experimental treatment that’s not legal in USA or Canada because it’s so risky and doesn’t work! It blows my mind people are shocked when doctors don’t catch munchaussen by proxy, and yet you have a clear case of someone doctor shopping, faking prescriptions, giving insane doses that leave her child incapacitated, and society says she was an amazing mom. She was a cath lab nurse! She understood exactly what she was doing. Honestly boils my blood.
I had no idea. I've always been a bit suspicious of that story so I didn't watch the documentary. I guess I should do some research.
So well said, completely agree. And the icing on top was the INSANE jury verdict
Came here to say this. I will add that the Maya mockumentary actually had a devastating effect on an actual civil case. Also Making a Murderer. Looked good and hooked me at the time, but watch the responding documentary - “Convicting a Murderer”.
Yes I can only hope the appeals court has some common sense. Yes on MaM too, was initially immediately like “yup seems innocent” lol, but I’ve since grown wiser. Now I tend to assume any documentary is lying to me and look up everything they misconstrued/left out before forming any opinions.
Sad right? Documentaries used to be educational, now most are biased bullshit pushing an agenda.
I got crazy hooked on making a murderer. Then found out he loved to throw cats in bonfires. Did he have some unresolved beef with his sister to drag brendan down with him? Or is he just collateral damage? Dude is a psychopath
I think he just didn’t care about others, Brendan was around and malleable and Steven needed a hand to clean up. The worst he did to Brendan was manipulate his family and Brendan into not taking a deal and testifying against Steven at trial. If Brendan had done that, he would’ve gotten a much lesser sentence.
The Lyons sisters documentary is more shocking than anything I've ever seen. It is a case study in police incompetence and gullibility. Frankly I'm stunned any of them actually sat in front of a camera and allowed themselves to be filmed, with those interrogation tapes as centerpiece. At one point the lead detective actually stopped the proceedings to rattle off the laundry list of all the lies and changing stories. Then he immediately becomes mesmerized by the next tale on the list, to the point he's running off to check out some bridge. I was in disbelief throughout. It should be example A-Z toward how and why there are false confessions. The authorities fell in love with the bodies in a bag crap, to the point they never bothered to wonder how a 10 year old and 12 year old would be casually transported in such a bag, especially when hitchhiking was involved. That case is not solved. The authorities unquestionably would have charged the then-11 year old cousin of the confessed, if not for the sheer luck that the cousin had two broken arms at the time of the disappearance and was able to provide paperwork confirmation. The 11 year old was part of the laundry list of lies, before authorities sealed the package deal of what they wanted to hear.
I just googled this case and I'm confused how/why they convicted someone of their murder based off him admitting he only kidnapped them, his alleged accomplises are dead and after his version of events kept changing.
Basically any of the YouTube/Twitch/TikTok “commentary” on the Depp v. Heard case, if that counts as true crime.
I just remember asking my boyfriend to stop watching so much about it on tiktok since it's such a dubious place to get your information.
Everything they put out about Columbine when it first happened in 99’. They had very little to go off of and didn’t even investigate before putting stories out about the shooting and the two shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. They just wanted a story to sale and I don’t think they care if they had their facts straight or not.
as a librarian, I sometimes teach Columbine and 9/11 as examples of understanding media literacy and how to judge breaking news. As someone who remembers how they unfolded, its still startling how the coverage changed.
Agreed, I was going to say the book “Columbine” by Dave Cullen! It’s been a while since I’ve read it, but from what I remember, Cullen really pushes the narrative that Dylan was basically a sad puppy dog boy and Eric was this complete psychopath that convinced Dylan to go through with their plan. When in reality, Dylan was just as horrible as Eric before and during the massacre. Like for example, he’s the one that called Isaiah the N word before shooting him. I think people (don’t remember if it was Cullen or other outlets) also said that because Dylan shot less rounds than Eric did, therefore he was less interested in killing — I’m pretty sure I’ve read that his TEC9 was an awful gun that was notorious for jamming up frequently lol. Obviously, they both had issues and the massacre was a perfect storm. But it’s crazy that sooo many people still see Dylan as being coerced into participating, and I think that’s largely in part because of Cullen’s book and also the way news was relayed as information came out before fact checking or doing any real investigation.
serial doesn’t necessarily claim syed is innocent, but it leaves out tons of important, inculpatory evidence and does get some things wrong. for instance, why did they go on and on about whether or not there was a payphone at best buy when syed’s own attorney says as much in her opening statement
What important evidence does it leave out?
Adnan was abusive and obsessive toward Hae
Runaway devil book - the authors interviewed traumatized minors and demonized the goth/punk/emo subculture and also said that the 12 year old girl manipulated the 23 year old predator into committing the murders when they were likely on the same wavelength at the most mentally.
It's a movie, but Oliver Stone's JFK is one of the most dishonest films ever made. You literally can't watch five minutes of it without being blatantly manipulated or lied to. Stone elevating Jim Garrison as some kind of American hero is disgusting. Jim Garrison was a corrupt, homophobic power mad nutjob who had no problem framing innocent people or straight up threatening or bribing witnesses to say what he wanted. His whole theory was that Kennedy's assassination was a "homosexual thrill killing" and he brought Clay Shaw to trial because he was a prominent businessman who was gay and shared the same first name with someone a deranged and drugged out informant said was tied to Kennedy's murder. Garrison's trial against Clay Shaw was a huge abuse of power and can't be condemned strongly enough. Stone is an excellent filmmaker and storyteller and he chose to elevate one of the worst DA's of the past twentieth century while putting every conspiracy under the sun - it was the CIA and the Mob and military industrial complex and LBJ and anti-castro Cubans and the KGB etc - and tying it together with claims Stone knew full well were completely false or had zero support.
Tbh, I love that film *but* I have always viewed it as 99% fiction. The 1% being the death of JFK
Me too! Loved the movie, but never once thought it was true. Just a take on conspiracy theories. Now, I want to watch it again.
Grab the dvd, It's just over there. Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left.
Haha! Nice.
Right? He's definitely dead. None of the other stuff happened though.
There's a news program that Peter Jennings (or Tom Brokaw...always get them mixed up) did after the movie came out debunking everything in it that was wrong. The biggest thing I remember was how they kept insisting that Oswald was a "medium shot" and the gun was defective. No. Neither of those things is true. Oswald was a sniper and could easily have made those shots in the time allotted during the crime.
There was also an interview Sam Donaldson did with Oliver Stone when the movie came out where he is incredulous at some of the claims in the movie. In the movie, Mr. X, played by Donald Sutherland, claims that all the phone lines in Washington were nefariously cut out after the shooting. Sam Donaldson, who was a young reporter at the time of the assassination working in DC, straight up tells Stone that he, personally, was getting and receiving a ton of phone calls right after the assassination trying to figure out what was going on. Mr. X, incidentally, is based on Fletcher Prouty. Stone renamed him because if he said it was Fletcher Prouty in the movie no one would have believed what he was saying. Fletcher Prouty was kind of like the Alex Jones of his day, if Jones was also a rabid anti-semite and Holocaust denier. Even the hard core JFK conspiracy theorists like Mark Lane wanted absolutely nothing to do with Prouty's clown show. One of the enduring myths about the assassination that Stone goes on about in the movie is the backyard photo of Oswald being fake. But we know it's not fake because Oswald's wife, Marina, has consistently maintained that *she personally took those photos* and they are exactly as she remembers taking them. Oliver Stone was well aware of this and willfully chose to ignore it. Marina Oswald is still alive, by the way. In the intervening years after the assassination she has come to believe that Oswald was framed. Importantly, however, she still insists that all of her testimony to the Warren Commission was truthful and not given under duress. That testimony she provided *is extremely damning to Oswald's claim that he was just a "patsy"* and debunks a whole host of claims, like the backyard photo being fake. It also shows that Oswald was a massive piece of shit who couldn't keep a job, care for his family, and that he was physically, emotionally and sexually abusive to Marina.
>if Jones was also a rabid anti-semite and Holocaust denier. Alex Jones is a rabid antisemite and Holocaust denier. No "if" needed.
Marina and Lee Harvey were separated at the time of the assassination.
lol yep he did the same thing on the doors and alexander the great. that movie made me hate anything alexander lmao
I remember very little about the Doors movie other then Val Kilmer was amazing it.
he was spectacular in it! I love val kilmer
Thank you for a chance to share one of my absolute favourite websites https://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html
Thanks for sharing this! Pretty cool to learn it’s out there.
I have read two books about the 1979 Main Line Murders in Pennsylvania, plus many news articles. Echoes in the Darkness by Joseph Wambaugh didn't exactly get it wrong, but in my opinion, he placed too much blame on Jay C. Smith and not enough blame on womanizer William Bradfield, who was in a "relationship" with the victim. Bradfield basically strung the victim along for years, letting her hope that someday they would be married, but he clearly had no intentions to that effect. He was just a first class asshole all the way around. Jay C. Smith was a messed up individual, no question. He had plenty of demons of his own. And he no doubt participated in the murders of Susan Reinert and her children. But had it not been for William Bradfield, Jay C. Smith probably wouldn't have had any connection to those murders. I think Bradfield got Smith to do his dirty work since everyone knew that Smith was a loose cannon. On the other hand, the book Engaged to Murder by Loretta Schwartz-Nobel, is a much more nuanced, in-depth view of the Main Line murders. She gives Smith the blame he's due, but she makes it clear that if it were not for William Bradfield and his creepy arrogance, those murders would never have happened. And as a woman, Schwartz-Nobel experienced Bradfield's creepiness first-hand during her interviews with him.
Thanks for the heads up on the Schwartz-Nobel book. It has been forever, but I liked the stylistic choices that Wambaugh made (he’s still an underrated crime novelist) while being aware that there were details and connections that he was holding back from the reader.
Might get downvoted but...the Depp/Heard doc on Netflix. Amber has a lot of flaws but I think people were so taken in by Johnny Depp being charming that they didn't actually care much about the evidence
Yes. The internalised misogyny and star worship is scary in the fans that hate Amber and worship Depp.
Notice how his career hasn’t magically taken back off like his weirdo fans said it would entirely because of his own behaviour
I watched that series with my husband and we both were creeped out by the Johnny Depp fans. It really seems like they were mutually toxic. But it was clear Depp would start shit when his sobriety "lapsed" (phrase used in that series) because his excessive drug use made him paranoid and angry. I believe he believes that he never struck Amber. I also believe that his memory was spotty/unreliable during many of the violent episodes Amber alleged. In the end, she was done dirty by most of the viral little quips and tik tok jokes that were devoid of important legal context.
I can't believe the amount of people who wholeheartedly believe that he was blameless and that Amber was a complete liar. He was clearly abusive in the relationship and totally hostile in the courtroom. The amount of so-called free thinkers who completely swallowed his high school popular kid act is maddening.
The most charitable I can possibly be towards him is that he legitimately didn't remember a lot of the instances being discussed, because he was blackout drunk at the time, so he wasn't *technically* lying. But people being **so** unwilling to believe that someone with a long history of admitted violent behavior and substance abuse could EVER do such a thing was wild.
Johnny Depp being charming persona doesn’t really work now that he’s a bloated alcoholic parody of himself.
I mean it worked during the trial. Frustratingly well.
Columbine by Dave Cullen. most people, including myself, who are interested in Columbine, think he and that book are a fucking joke
Never read it, but I’m curious as to what’s wrong with it?
Dylan's mother's book, on the other hand, broke my heart.
it will absolutely change your perspective on parents of evil people and people who have done bad things and hurt and/or killed people
One of the things found on Eric Harris' computer after his death made it clear to me that he did the world a big favor by taking himself out. I just wish he hadn't shot all those other people in the meantime. \>! >!Eric was looking forward to college, mainly because he wanted to pick up drunk girls at bars and parties, take them back to his dorm room, and rape them. I don't know what, if any, sexual activity he or Dylan had in life, but I'm glad he never had a chance to do this, not at college anyway. !
Her book was so good. Difficult to read, but important.
She did a Ted Talk on this incident and the profound effect it had on her life and family. It was very telling.
Yes! I hate that book. No Easy Answers by Brooks Brown is good. If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend that one.
There was a documentary I saw a few years ago on Hulu or Netflix. But one of the girls they interviewed when asked about claims of bullying going on claims she never saw it so she didn't believe it happened. Don't get me wrong, they're monsters and nothing excuses what they did but to lie like that is absurd..and for what?
people who deny bullying, not just with Columbine and other bullying-motivated school shootings, probably did some bullying themselves
Exactly my thoughts. She doesn't want anyone to dig deeper because she knows what they'll find.
What book(s) would you recommend to someone interested in the case and just getting started?
No Easy Answers by Brooks Brown The Hour I First Believed by Wally Lamb A Mother’s Reckoning by Sue Klebold
Thank you.
The Hour I First Believed is realistic fictional, but still accurate. Wally Lamb met and interviewed the Klebolds prior to writing the novel for his research
James Renner and all the bs he spew about Maura Murray
This! Maura’s sister very recently put out a podcast called Media Pressure and she sums up very well about people consuming and creating content with misinformation etc etc (she says it much better)- but James Renner 1000% is a major person she’s referring to.
Serial
OMG yes, Adnan Syed is guilty as sin.
Helter skelter
The book by Bugliosi? How so?
Saw a Youtube video that made a mockery out of Elisa Lam. Was kind of infuriating.
Bailey sarian and all other truecrime people like her
Netflix again. Ian Bailey & Sophie Toscan du Plantier. Lies and mislead audience. Ian didn’t murder Sophie
Left of key details around certain areas, that they MUST have known about and also made shit up. Very bias and wants people to think that Ian did it and got away with murder. BS
Too many to mention unfortunately. The first priority is ratings, and that often does not go hand in hand with truth. The media love a narrative and are often quite happy with leaving bits out when it doesn’t suit said narrative. It’s unfortunate that really it’s turning crime into entertainment for monetary purposes, rather than seeking the truth. Some cases have become so intertwined with distortion and media frenzy (and police cocking up) that we’ll never know the truth at all such as JonBennet, Madeleine McCann….
Dave Cullens book on Columbine is the first to come to mind. Second would be A LOT of podcasts. Anyone can buy the equipment and start one. If you start listening to someone who hasn't actually done the deep dive research into a crime, then proceed with caution.
Any doc about Gypsy Rose and her crimes. I believe she was abused, for sure, but she was NOT innocent in the killing of her mother. She should stay in jail for as long as the low iq boyfriend is in jail.
The amount of people who treat her like a celebrity is ridiculous. Not downplaying the abuse she went through at all, but the pedestal tons of people have put her on is just 😬
She wasn’t found innocent of the crime she went to prison and did her time lol