IMDb रेटिंग
6.9/10
372
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंThe disappearance of the McStays haunts police for 3 years until their remains turn up in the desert. Prosecutors say evidence proves Chase Merritt killed them, Merritt says he's innocent, c... सभी पढ़ेंThe disappearance of the McStays haunts police for 3 years until their remains turn up in the desert. Prosecutors say evidence proves Chase Merritt killed them, Merritt says he's innocent, claiming they are misinterpreting the facts.The disappearance of the McStays haunts police for 3 years until their remains turn up in the desert. Prosecutors say evidence proves Chase Merritt killed them, Merritt says he's innocent, claiming they are misinterpreting the facts.
एपिसोड ब्राउज़ करें
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
Prosecutors should not have been allowed to make faces and smirk. Nor should the judge keep going to sleep. Even if they were actors they were awful. If t&<s was indeed the way the trial went then everyone was unprofessional.
I enjoyed this documentary but I still do not know who murdered the McStay family. One thing is clear to me. There was more than reasonable doubt to the guilt of Merritt. There was very poor police investigation and the prosecutors were more interested in getting a conviction than in finding the truth. The justice system is in sad shape.
Why didn't the authorities do more in depth investigation of the four other suspects. Even the brother Michael is very suspicious. How could the jury find Merritt guilty with no real evidence. The are just so many holes all over this case.
I am happy that there is a stay on executions. Perhaps some new evidence will come to light to save Merritt from a life in jail. His defence team did a fairly good job but they did make some mistakes but they were up against a brick wall.
Woe is the person that is charged with a major crime because the state has endless resources to bring to the case whereas the average person has nothing to fight with really and their life is ruined no matter what the verdict.
Why didn't the authorities do more in depth investigation of the four other suspects. Even the brother Michael is very suspicious. How could the jury find Merritt guilty with no real evidence. The are just so many holes all over this case.
I am happy that there is a stay on executions. Perhaps some new evidence will come to light to save Merritt from a life in jail. His defence team did a fairly good job but they did make some mistakes but they were up against a brick wall.
Woe is the person that is charged with a major crime because the state has endless resources to bring to the case whereas the average person has nothing to fight with really and their life is ruined no matter what the verdict.
I had seen this covered fairly thoroughly on Dateline and 20/20, but this goes well beyond what I'd previously known- I'm not sure I needed more information, but decided to give it a go.
One thing I'll say for sure, this defense team is just incompetent; you can absolutely see what they thought they were getting when they signed on for the documentary, but I have a feeling the crew 'noped' out like the lead attorney when they realized what everyone else already knew. I would have hated to see the final product with their strong confirmation bias, so I think things happened this way for a reason.
No good attorney would ever agree to an ounce of footage by a client prior to trial ending, because it's always an incredibly high risk- but it's also pretty blatant how highly they view themselves when we witness one receiving plastic surgery, and the other having to go far too in-depth regarding his presence at a wedding. Excuses are like jokes- if you have to draw me a map to explain yourself, it's not a good one. The more you protest and feign outrage, the more you are perceived as guilty, and incredibly desperate. He should have never gone to the wedding, ESPECIALLY knowing the prosecution team would be there, and you were supposedly so ill you needed to be excused from courtroom duties. You're either sick or you aren't; it doesn't matter if the pope himself performed the ceremony and you'd be suspended from puppet strings so you could dance- you can't have it both ways so pick a side and stop trying to walk a tightrope.
I do agree that there's definitely a considerable amount of questionable associates involved here, but I believe law enforcement did their job (not the original officers, who-boy did they mess up......how was it treated as a voluntary absence) but San Bernardino did a very extensive investigation into who/what/why and the right person went on trial.
Overall a good cleanup of what would likely have been an abomination of a doc series, with good evidence offered and some good peeks into an inept defense team.
One thing I'll say for sure, this defense team is just incompetent; you can absolutely see what they thought they were getting when they signed on for the documentary, but I have a feeling the crew 'noped' out like the lead attorney when they realized what everyone else already knew. I would have hated to see the final product with their strong confirmation bias, so I think things happened this way for a reason.
No good attorney would ever agree to an ounce of footage by a client prior to trial ending, because it's always an incredibly high risk- but it's also pretty blatant how highly they view themselves when we witness one receiving plastic surgery, and the other having to go far too in-depth regarding his presence at a wedding. Excuses are like jokes- if you have to draw me a map to explain yourself, it's not a good one. The more you protest and feign outrage, the more you are perceived as guilty, and incredibly desperate. He should have never gone to the wedding, ESPECIALLY knowing the prosecution team would be there, and you were supposedly so ill you needed to be excused from courtroom duties. You're either sick or you aren't; it doesn't matter if the pope himself performed the ceremony and you'd be suspended from puppet strings so you could dance- you can't have it both ways so pick a side and stop trying to walk a tightrope.
I do agree that there's definitely a considerable amount of questionable associates involved here, but I believe law enforcement did their job (not the original officers, who-boy did they mess up......how was it treated as a voluntary absence) but San Bernardino did a very extensive investigation into who/what/why and the right person went on trial.
Overall a good cleanup of what would likely have been an abomination of a doc series, with good evidence offered and some good peeks into an inept defense team.
Was it the they filmed it? Because Imes and Ambitious Blondie were so nasty and holier than thou in so many ways, that I just hated them. Even if he is a sick sociopath you might think he would be treated better by tax paid professionals.
Really well done doc, though the timelines and pertinent points are out of order, teased for dramatic purposes.
Combining earlier doc footage (never finished), then reediting with new interviews is unique, skillful and captivating.
But I am bothered (though I haven't seen the conclusion) by implications that the brother, McFadden, or Dan K had anything to do with it...Do they have any recourse to sue, because their lives have been undoubtedly adversely affected?
I believe tonight we will learn of Chase's attempt to close McStay's business account (after forging checks), the cell phone pings, etc, etc.
Yes, lack of blood in the house is unusual (maybe it was done outside), but to anyone with half a brain he is obviously guilty.
Sorry this defense team looks like total jerks, and all social media opinions - people who know nothing about it - is pure speculation and means nothing.
I do think this doc calls into question our judicial system. Chase is obviously as guilty as the day is long, but people were given access to produce this? Reminds me of OJ.
Other than a very captivating documentary, what's the point? Other than to ruin people's lives and attempt to make the defense team seem like heroes?
And oh yeah, he was found guilty by a jury of his peers.
Combining earlier doc footage (never finished), then reediting with new interviews is unique, skillful and captivating.
But I am bothered (though I haven't seen the conclusion) by implications that the brother, McFadden, or Dan K had anything to do with it...Do they have any recourse to sue, because their lives have been undoubtedly adversely affected?
I believe tonight we will learn of Chase's attempt to close McStay's business account (after forging checks), the cell phone pings, etc, etc.
Yes, lack of blood in the house is unusual (maybe it was done outside), but to anyone with half a brain he is obviously guilty.
Sorry this defense team looks like total jerks, and all social media opinions - people who know nothing about it - is pure speculation and means nothing.
I do think this doc calls into question our judicial system. Chase is obviously as guilty as the day is long, but people were given access to produce this? Reminds me of OJ.
Other than a very captivating documentary, what's the point? Other than to ruin people's lives and attempt to make the defense team seem like heroes?
And oh yeah, he was found guilty by a jury of his peers.
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How many seasons does Two Shallow Graves: The McStay Family Murders have?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Sepultados en el desierto
- उत्पादन कंपनी
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
- चलने की अवधि43 मिनट
- रंग
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें
टॉप गैप
By what name was Two Shallow Graves: The McStay Family Murders (2022) officially released in India in English?
जवाब