2 recensioni
A surprisingly good documentary and highly recommended. I was expecting this to be much more "filler than thriller", but it's well paced and contains much illuminating information. (There are a few very blurred photos of the crime scene, but there is no gory detail, so it isn't a harrowing watch.)
The makers did a great job in convincing several of the (now retired) police officers involved in the case to share their thoughts.
Perhaps the most surprising thing is that this programme does provide a potential answer to the question: "Who killed Billie-Jo?" (I won't say more as I don't want to give a spoiler, even though I think stating the potential answer would not actually spoil anyone's enjoyment of this programme.)
What comes across strongly here is that the police officers -- at least the ones who appear here -- were of only average intelligence and were incapable of questioning their own "gut feel" and "common sense" about the person who was tried three times for this murder. It makes you wonder what sort of training detectives received in the past; hopefully any current training is much much improved. Serving officers must be frequently reminded how important it is not to "rush to diagnose", not to assume certainty where there is only possibility. And not to unquestioningly accept witness statements, including recollected timings.
The makers did a great job in convincing several of the (now retired) police officers involved in the case to share their thoughts.
Perhaps the most surprising thing is that this programme does provide a potential answer to the question: "Who killed Billie-Jo?" (I won't say more as I don't want to give a spoiler, even though I think stating the potential answer would not actually spoil anyone's enjoyment of this programme.)
What comes across strongly here is that the police officers -- at least the ones who appear here -- were of only average intelligence and were incapable of questioning their own "gut feel" and "common sense" about the person who was tried three times for this murder. It makes you wonder what sort of training detectives received in the past; hopefully any current training is much much improved. Serving officers must be frequently reminded how important it is not to "rush to diagnose", not to assume certainty where there is only possibility. And not to unquestioningly accept witness statements, including recollected timings.
Perhaps the most surprising thing is that this programme does provide a potential answer to the question: "Who killed Billie-Jo?" (I won't say more as I don't want to give a spoiler, even though I think stating the potential answer would not actually spoil anyone's enjoyment of this programme.)
What comes across strongly here is that the police officers -- at least the ones who appear here -- were of only average intelligence and were incapable of questioning their own "gut feel" and "common sense" about the person who was tried three times for this murder. It makes you wonder what sort of training detectives received in the past; hopefully any current training is much much improved. Serving officers must be frequently reminded how important it is not to "rush to diagnose", not to assume certainty where there is only possibility. And not to unquestioningly accept witness statements, including recollected timings.
What comes across strongly here is that the police officers -- at least the ones who appear here -- were of only average intelligence and were incapable of questioning their own "gut feel" and "common sense" about the person who was tried three times for this murder. It makes you wonder what sort of training detectives received in the past; hopefully any current training is much much improved. Serving officers must be frequently reminded how important it is not to "rush to diagnose", not to assume certainty where there is only possibility. And not to unquestioningly accept witness statements, including recollected timings.
- chinnigeorgina
- 20 ott 2024
- Permalink