Okey doke. Eat it up.
So, did they actually say she did it, or just leave it hanging?
I’m all for cold cases being revisited, but you’d think the tv show would be secondary to the case being solved.
1 Like
Think “The Stairs”, or something similar,… then go the exact opposite of that to the 60 Minutes thing selectively nailing Lindy Chamberlain 40 years ago with all it’s “evidence”, and you’ve arrived.
2 episodes into 4 episode story. Who knows what they finish with. Probably legally think they can’t come out and accuse her of anything. The lawyer who is helping Bradley Murdoch is trying to get some appeal. Not sure what the legal terminology is for it.
1 Like
Invention?
I understand there’s dramatisation etc that channel 7 put into it. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about stuff that was in the police report. If you watched you would’ve seen even the police had trouble believing her to the point that they interviewed her again because they had doubts over her story. She cracked it and left without clearing anything up. All I’m saying is there’s of lot of this story that doesn’t make sense.
I must admit, a good show I watched that reopened a case was the one called The Jinx ‘ Description
A groundbreaking six-part documentary directed and produced by Andrew Jarecki and produced and shot by Marc Smerling (the Oscar nominees behind `Capturing the Friedmans’). The story delves into the strange history of real estate heir Robert Durst, long suspected in the still-unsolved 1982 disappearance of his wife as well as the subsequent murders of family friend Susan Berman and neighbour Morris Black. It features an extended, revealing interview with Durst himself,’
2 Likes
I’m starting to think you didn’t follow along with this from the start when it happened?
will have to check it out!
1 Like
I’m starting to think you’re Peter Falconio hiding in the NT desert.
Soooo, …?? 
I’m not sure what your problem is. You think it’s stupid people discussing it yet you’ve commented more than anyone else.
No I didn’t follow it from the start. I was 16 and wouldn’t have given a ■■■■ at the time. What’s your point? Most of the stuff that’s come out wasn’t released to the jury and wasn’t released to the public.
1 Like
Channel 7 juicing bullshit in a blender for “clicks”
I never said that, I know how it works.
That’s what I figured. If you had, you’d know it’s pretty clear what went down, … and also, I just thought people that hadn’t followed because of their age, would be the target audience given the recent popularity of cold case Murder podcasts etc,… and 7 looked around, realised all the good ones had been dome already, so decided on this one when they found some angle to run with.
Commercial TV 101. That’s fine. Enjoy.
1 Like
the flip side being, that it can also be a good starting point. It’s not the be all and end all to convict someone and never should, but you could find just as many cases that were solved cos of "off"reactions, or over the top reactions, or so on and so on.
but yes in isolation shouldn’t be used to determine one way or another, tis merely one piece of the puzzle.