Yeah, well done, I came here to make the same thread.
It was very heavily inferred (so heavily you don't even need me to point it out!), that the family were involved in the killing, and the only evidence to back this up was;
1. A failed polygraph test, after she'd passed two. Polygraph tests are notoriously unreliable* and aren't used in many countries apart from America! They aren't used anywhere in the European Union. They also, to state the obvious, don't read if someone is lying, just if there are changes in the body temperature, pules, etc (and many people who are lying don't get agitated, triggering a false positive), consider; repeatedly asking the same set of questions "Did you kill your child?" (of all questions!) to a mother who has lost a child, is very bloody likely to make them agitated, angry or illicit some emotional response which will trigger a physiological response (and therefore trigger a polygraph).
2. An accusation from a person who lies so relentlessly, they made a film about him!!!
3. An accusation from the FBI woman (who is so ineptitude for her chosen profession is highlighted in very same bloody film!). How she is still even in this job so many years later is bewildering to me! Even if she was best agent in the FBI, the film makers still shouldn't have included the accusation. Police (etc) regularly become convinced of things which turn out not to be true. In order for guilt to be proven evidence needs to be put before a court and a prosecutor has to convince 12 people of the guild (or an admission made). The fact this never even went to court, let alone failed the the judicial process, is a reason these accusations should never make it into the film. There is NO evidence of it! They were a relatively poor family (financially). I guarantee you; if this family was from a nice suburban estate, and had enough financial clout to sue, none of this would have made it into the movie (or the article someone alluded to above, which I haven't read). I'm actually rather hopeful some budding lawyer fancies a bit of documentary limelight and sues the hell out of anyone who made a public accusation against this family. No matter what their previous transgressions, they are not convicted, or even accused murderers (except in this film!). It was a disgraceful move by the film makers, put in there purely so they could add a "twist" in the middle of the story, in the knowledge the family couldn't sue!
I was enjoying the "documentary" (a documentary should document facts; any wild accusations which are thrown in there by participants or witnesses should be highlighted as being just that; not portrayed , or inferred, as being factual!) until it went off the radar with the accusations against the family (especially the digging scene! Just... wow! I can't believe they put that in there!). Cashing in and also making totally unfounded accusations against a family who have lost a child is about as low as you can possibly get! I don't believe in karma, but in the case of this documentary crew, I hope it's true!
* That's not me stating an opinion. I studied Criminology at University and the vast amount of documented, peer reviewed scientific tests and documents state this (going wayyyyy back! This isn't something new, or revolutionary. Polygraph use, and dissenters, go back nearly a hundred years). Papers which support polygraph use overwhelmingly come from the United States (as you might perhaps expect), but even there they are still in the minority, and as I understand it, many states have banned polygraph testing. Interestingly, Texas is a state where polygraph testing is inadmissible as evidence. All of this obscures the fact that she PASSED the test twice (at which point you have to start wondering why she was even tested a third time!). The film does make this clear, but doesn't deviate from inferring the family killed the child and offers up the "failed polygraph" test as part of that narrative!
reply
share