kirstybishop-39546
A rejoint le févr. 2022
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges2
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis1
Note de kirstybishop-39546
So many reviews referring to the lead journalist's narration of the series, to her bias and guided interview tactics..
Real investigative journalism needs such structure sometimes, especially when there is so much evidence and corroboration pointing to those culpable, as are present in this case.
This is such a mess of a tragedy, a massive perversion of justice, both morally and legally. The journalists guided the interviewees with facts, and the interviewees were of free will to contest such.
I think this was expertly written and produced. Nothing bloated or exaggerated as in a lot of Netflix true crime. An extensive number of witnesses and parties involved in the case were interviewed, more so than at least I've ever seen in any recent docuseries.
The journalists did an amazing job, or rather the job that should have been done by the relevant police department at the time of the incident. They scoured through what appears to be thousands of statements, documents, and evidences that were shoddily examined initially or intentionally retracted from the initial investigation.
So many reviews claiming there is no actual proof of murder - what were you expecting? For the third and final episode to bring the deceased guilty parties behind bars? What they did was bring to light the corruption of law enforcement in Sydney at that time, which may well have impacted hundreds of other cases and people. Most importantly, they brought the case of Luna Park significantly closure to conclusion and the victims of the incident to retribution.
Most importantly, they.
Real investigative journalism needs such structure sometimes, especially when there is so much evidence and corroboration pointing to those culpable, as are present in this case.
This is such a mess of a tragedy, a massive perversion of justice, both morally and legally. The journalists guided the interviewees with facts, and the interviewees were of free will to contest such.
I think this was expertly written and produced. Nothing bloated or exaggerated as in a lot of Netflix true crime. An extensive number of witnesses and parties involved in the case were interviewed, more so than at least I've ever seen in any recent docuseries.
The journalists did an amazing job, or rather the job that should have been done by the relevant police department at the time of the incident. They scoured through what appears to be thousands of statements, documents, and evidences that were shoddily examined initially or intentionally retracted from the initial investigation.
So many reviews claiming there is no actual proof of murder - what were you expecting? For the third and final episode to bring the deceased guilty parties behind bars? What they did was bring to light the corruption of law enforcement in Sydney at that time, which may well have impacted hundreds of other cases and people. Most importantly, they brought the case of Luna Park significantly closure to conclusion and the victims of the incident to retribution.
Most importantly, they.