True Crime Media Alert

[sdreid]

The Highway of Tears Case(s) was covered on 48 Hours Mystery last night. Hopefully they will rerun it and I can give a more timely notice.

[sdreid]

I'm not on satellite or cable anymore so my exposure to true-crime shows is much reduced but my wallet is much fatter.

[sdreid]

The Highway of Tears Case(s) was covered on 48 Hours Mystery last night. Hopefully they will rerun it and I can give a more timely notice.

Highway of Tears is sort of like Boston Strangler. Is it one serial killer, more than one serial killer, a serial and a bunch of single murders, serial killers with single murders or just a cluster of single murders?

[sdreid]

There was recently a program about the Lindbergh Case on PBS. Hopefully it will be rebroadcast soon.

[Magpie]

There was recently a program about the Lindbergh Case on PBS. Hopefully it will be rebroadcast soon.

My wife saw it (I was working). She said it was quite well made, but she didn't feel it had presented much information one way or t'other.

[sdreid]

I agree with your wife Magpie - it was well made and, although I realize they only had an hour, did leave things out like Isador Fisch and J.J. Faulkner so they could include new "revelations". For once, I do agree with John Douglas on a case.

[Magpie]

BBC Radio Scotland is broadcasting a four part documentary called "A History Of Murder In Scotland", hosted by Billy Kay

The first episode aired on March 4

[sdreid]

Did you get to see the whole series Magpie?

[Magpie]

Did you get to see the whole series Magpie?

Oops--haven't checked for updates. Thanks for the reminder!

I'll report back.

[curious]

I'm not on satellite or cable anymore so my exposure to true-crime shows is much reduced but my wallet is much fatter.

Just curious -- are you using a roku box? I've been talking about turning off my dish tv for a couple of years now.

Thanks,

curious

[sdreid]

No, I'm just watching over-the-air when I watch which isn't that often.

[Magpie]

In the middle of watching "West Of Memphis", the Peter Jackson produced documentary of the WM3 case.

So far (I'm about a third through--it's a long docco), it's both fascinating (from a forensics point of view) and frustrating movie. Less dramatic and FAR less speculative than the "Paradise Lost" series, but they pull no punches when it comes to showing that the prosecution of the WM3 was not entirely a matter of prejudice and ignorance, but was actually based on deliberate lies.

Now I can understand why the Arkansas courts tried so hard to block a new trial--several careers would have lain in tatters is the full scale of corruption and ineptitude had gotten an airing in a court.

Anyhoo, back for part two...

[RivkahChaya]

In the middle of watching "West Of Memphis", the Peter Jackson produced documentary of the WM3 case.

So far (I'm about a third through--it's a long docco), it's both fascinating (from a forensics point of view) and frustrating movie. Less dramatic and FAR less speculative than the "Paradise Lost" series, but they pull no punches when it comes to showing that the prosecution of the WM3 was not entirely a matter of prejudice and ignorance, but was actually based on deliberate lies.

Now I can understand why the Arkansas courts tried so hard to block a new trial--several careers would have lain in tatters is the full scale of corruption and ineptitude had gotten an airing in a court.

Anyhoo, back for part two...

Paradise Lost is much better. My problem with Jackson's doc is that he has no problem laying blame squarely at the feet of the stepfather of one of the boys-- Terry Hobbs, stepfather of Steve Branch. He (Jackson) seems oblivious to the irony that his "case," to use the term loosely, is mostly rumor and innuendo. Hobbs' DNA on the kids' shoelaces is one of the things that got the WM3 off, but what the fact that that DNA exculpates the WM3 because they would have to have touched the shoelaces, and their DNA was absent entirely, the presence of Hobbs' DNA on his stepsons' shoes, or the shoes of his friends is less problematic.

I admit that before Jackson's doc, it didn't look good for Hobbs, but Jackson's film is the cinematic equivalent of tar, feathers, and running him out of town on a rail. For a filmmaker who claims to take the part of the downtrodden and falsely accused, like the WM3 to begin with. Accusing someone with little evidence, and making it look like more than it is through the magic of cinema is the same old story, from the other side.

Even the boys (now men) who were the WM3 said "Stop!" When Paradise Lost meandered from its original purpose, and in documenting the town, focussed on the obvious odd expressions of grief by one of the fathers, then, and this is the big deal insinuated that his oddness somehow suggested guilt. That father is shown in the final installment of Paradise, looking very old, and sad, saying that not just three, but six lives were lost, after he has finally reconciled with the WM3.

The rigged trial is an important story. So is the poor investigation. Terry Hobbs did lie about the last time he saw his stepson, although in isolation, it could be an innocent mistake. The police didn't follow up on a report of a bloody man who stumbled into a restaurant and washed up. The police should have checked up on that regardless, but by the time it came in, they apparently had a profile that the boys had been killed by a white person known to them, and the report from the restaurant was that the person who came in to wash up was black. That report was a mistake. It was a white person in gloves and sunglasses and a hat who looked dark because his face was dirty-- something about his hat style may have "read" black, I don't know. But the description got corrected later.

The poor investigation is its own movie. Terry Hobbs is a side issue. Until he is actually arrested, making a movie about his guilt is no different from falsely accusing the WM3 in the first place.

[Magpie]

Paradise Lost is much better. My problem with Jackson's doc is that he has no problem laying blame squarely at the feet of the stepfather of one of the boys-- Terry Hobbs, stepfather of Steve Branch. He (Jackson) seems oblivious to the irony that his "case," to use the term loosely, is mostly rumor and innuendo. Hobbs' DNA on the kids' shoelaces is one of the things that got the WM3 off, but what the fact that that DNA exculpates the WM3 because they would have to have touched the shoelaces, and their DNA was absent entirely, the presence of Hobbs' DNA on his stepsons' shoes, or the shoes of his friends is less problematic.

Yep, I have to agree. The second third of the movie is concerned almost entirely with trashing Hobbs, much of which was just demonization rather than anything substantive. It did bring up three interesting and valid points though:

1) His hitherto unremarked history of violent behaviour
2) The fact that his alibi witness not only seems to be wavering, but that Hobbs appears to be putting pressure on him.
3) It shows that the police did a woefully inadequate job of investigating Hobbs at the time (and I think that if they were going to talk about Hobbs at all, this is what they should have focused on)

The final third of the movie is a maudlin hodgepodge of the WM3's final reckoning/post freedom activities, which may be interesting for some but for me didn't do anything to add to our knowledge of the case. The very end, showing what an ignorant, mealy-mouthed jackass the new prosecutor is did underline the ongoing tragedy of the case--that as far as the State is concerned, they have three guilty verdicts and therefore no reason to investigate any further. Nobody can say the police/prosecutor/judge did anything wrong, and despite vocal evidence to the contrary, the public believes that investigators did right by the victims.

It's unfortunate: The first third was riveting, and I think had they continued along those lines they would have had a bona fide winner on their hands.

[sdreid]

I have only seen the first Paradise Lost.