I've seen a lot of these documentaries/shows/films w.e over the years, and each one is infuriating in their own way. Most recently Making a Murderer has taken the nation by storm claiming the courts have taken yet another innocent man and framed him. All of these movies proclaiming the innocence of a convicted individual have a ton in common
- Paint the the subjects in a positive light
- portray the case against the individual as heavily biased and paper thin
- vilify the prosecution team as bloodthirsty or corrupt.
There are a lot more similarities here such as coerced confessions, questionable police tactics, potentially planted evidence. Each one of them also generally does an excellent job of swaying the viewer often using subtle and not-so-subtle techniques to win you over. Luckily the internet exists and it allows you to do some research of your own. Ultimately I feel like it generally ends with the same result- it's inconclusive. If you can take anything from watching these, you can take this- The justice system is a deeply flawed, prejudiced, and dangerous system that needs a dramatic overhaul. All of this being said I just finished up one of these three, and I'm left feeling different than all of the others- certain.
The Thin Blue Line is without question the most infuriating and compelling of the bunch here. The story is the oldest, which leaves it at a disadvantage for a multitude of reasons, so I can't speak as if I know every little detail, but what is there is beyond damning of the disaster that was the case against Randall Dale Adams. An innocent man was wronged in every conceivable way, from paying off witnesses, to a 15 minute session that framed him as- no joke- Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, etc. Meanwhile the coldblooded psychopath who straight up admitted to anybody who would listen that he committed the act, was let free, because he was too young to pay for what he had done.
The corruption goes beyond just the prosecution, the judge, and the court system here as well. The officer who was witness to the whole thing flat out lied on the stand to fit the prosecutions case. It's unbelievable that anybody with half a brain could possibly sit there, objectively hear the evidence presented, and not only convict this man, but sentence him to death. Meanwhile Mr. Harris walks off scott free, continues his crime spree, and ultimately murders someone, which lead to his execution. While I'm sure there are angles I don't know, and there is evidence or testimony I may never hear, I know this is without question the most cut and dry case of innocence. Randall Adams went on to live a peaceful and quiet life and died a few years back of a brain tumor. He was without question an innocent man without a single violent incident on his record, or from my understanding ANY crime for that matter. I would like somebody to at least point me in the direction that I can try to wrap my head around how something like this can happen, because it's terrifying that this went on and undoubtedly still does.
I mention the other 2 films (and like I said there are many others), because they are probably the 2 most prominent. IMO Steven Avery is a guilty man and he fits the bill entirely from animal cruelty, to domestic abuse, to dangerous levels of anger/violence. The WM3 are likely innocent, but I'm still not 100% on them either. At the very least when you dig a little deeper beyond these documentaries you can see where the jurors and the prosecution were coming from. From the tattered past, the various testimonies, the physical evidence, etc. you can build a compelling argument, that these individuals were guilty.
At the end of the day this is more of a review/rant about the film. It is a reminder of who he was and what he represents, because honestly I hadn't even heard of this until today. I think it's important that cases like this are brought forth more often, and hopefully something in the future changes... although I sincerely doubt it.
- Paint the the subjects in a positive light
- portray the case against the individual as heavily biased and paper thin
- vilify the prosecution team as bloodthirsty or corrupt.
There are a lot more similarities here such as coerced confessions, questionable police tactics, potentially planted evidence. Each one of them also generally does an excellent job of swaying the viewer often using subtle and not-so-subtle techniques to win you over. Luckily the internet exists and it allows you to do some research of your own. Ultimately I feel like it generally ends with the same result- it's inconclusive. If you can take anything from watching these, you can take this- The justice system is a deeply flawed, prejudiced, and dangerous system that needs a dramatic overhaul. All of this being said I just finished up one of these three, and I'm left feeling different than all of the others- certain.
The Thin Blue Line is without question the most infuriating and compelling of the bunch here. The story is the oldest, which leaves it at a disadvantage for a multitude of reasons, so I can't speak as if I know every little detail, but what is there is beyond damning of the disaster that was the case against Randall Dale Adams. An innocent man was wronged in every conceivable way, from paying off witnesses, to a 15 minute session that framed him as- no joke- Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, etc. Meanwhile the coldblooded psychopath who straight up admitted to anybody who would listen that he committed the act, was let free, because he was too young to pay for what he had done.
The corruption goes beyond just the prosecution, the judge, and the court system here as well. The officer who was witness to the whole thing flat out lied on the stand to fit the prosecutions case. It's unbelievable that anybody with half a brain could possibly sit there, objectively hear the evidence presented, and not only convict this man, but sentence him to death. Meanwhile Mr. Harris walks off scott free, continues his crime spree, and ultimately murders someone, which lead to his execution. While I'm sure there are angles I don't know, and there is evidence or testimony I may never hear, I know this is without question the most cut and dry case of innocence. Randall Adams went on to live a peaceful and quiet life and died a few years back of a brain tumor. He was without question an innocent man without a single violent incident on his record, or from my understanding ANY crime for that matter. I would like somebody to at least point me in the direction that I can try to wrap my head around how something like this can happen, because it's terrifying that this went on and undoubtedly still does.
I mention the other 2 films (and like I said there are many others), because they are probably the 2 most prominent. IMO Steven Avery is a guilty man and he fits the bill entirely from animal cruelty, to domestic abuse, to dangerous levels of anger/violence. The WM3 are likely innocent, but I'm still not 100% on them either. At the very least when you dig a little deeper beyond these documentaries you can see where the jurors and the prosecution were coming from. From the tattered past, the various testimonies, the physical evidence, etc. you can build a compelling argument, that these individuals were guilty.
At the end of the day this is more of a review/rant about the film. It is a reminder of who he was and what he represents, because honestly I hadn't even heard of this until today. I think it's important that cases like this are brought forth more often, and hopefully something in the future changes... although I sincerely doubt it.
