Assurance sur la mort

This movie was agony! I tried to give it a chance because I love Patrick Duffy, but this movie was such a slow pace. Too many gaps in the movie. Loses your attention! By the time you piece everything together you realize... It doesn't make a damn lick of sense! Senseless, ridiculous! Unnecessary. Only watch if you have incurable insomnia!

I'm born and raised in New Orleans. I remember when Jim Giesick and Sam Corey of Texas committed this crime. Corey was a mail order preacher and Texas underworld figure who chose a young girl for Jim to marry and murder to collect the life insurance. While they were on the way to a Florida honeymoon, they stopped in New Orleans where Jim took the girl for a walk and Corey ran over her, making it look like a hit and run accident. My biggest problem with this film is the fact that it's set in Phoenix instead of New Orleans. I don't understand the filmmaker's reasons for this inaccuracy. Would someone make a film about the Civil war and then have it set in Asia?

John Dillmann was a highly-decorated, veteran Homicide Detective for the New Orleans Police Department. This movie, based on Dillmann's true crime book of the same name, details one of his more interesting cases. It actually happened in much the way it is depicted here, except that it actually happened in New Orleans, Louisiana, and not Phoenix, Arizona. It should be noted that Dillmann in real life is a lot more professional than he's depicted in this movie.

This incident was first reported as a 'routine' hit-and-run fatality accident in East New Orleans, and due to pressure from the victim's family, the case got bumped over to the Homicide Division. The victim, by the way, was a very pretty girl visiting New Orleans on her honeymoon! Dillmann got the case and, after speaking with the girl's family and checking the incident report, quickly realized that something far more sinister had actually transpired. The book is excellent; I wish the movie was as high quality an item.

I rate it 7 out of 10.

Many years ago I worked with Jim before he married at a Sears store and he was a very pleasant and friendly person.He got along well with others and had a good sense of humor. I was very surprised to hear what happened in New Orleans and hadn't heard any more about the case since that time, I am glad to hear he is out and getting another chance to have a better life.I didn't know that a book was written or a movie was made about him so I can't say one way or the other if it is correct. All we can go by is what we read or hear on the news etc., and sometimes that isn't correct.So you have to draw your own conclusions as to what really transpired. I agree that he has paid his debt to society and wish him the best in the future.

I cannot believe the interest in a case that is over 30 years old and a book that had one publishing; then declared not completely true. Even the subsequent movie had disclaimers saying such. The last comment indicated that the author of that comment considered this book to be the absolute truth in this matter and not glorified by the police officer to make his book sell. Surely, you can see thorough the facade.

This is an easy book to read. It is an easy book to want to completely believe. It's a book. It's not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! If you weren't there in person, you cannot make such comments just because you read this book and choose to believe it's every word.

Yes, this was horrific. But the last person making comments is not aware of Louisiana's First Offenders law. All First Offenders received a pardon automatically. Period, end of discussion. That law has since been changed, but it certainly applied to this case. So who's scamming whom? Who's the liar? Why? The computer store owner had a convicted child molester and registered sex offender working for him and still make Giesick out to be the monster. If Giesick were doing the things spoken of, the papers would be saying these things, not you. And the computer store owner lost his legal case against Giesick because he, himself committed perjury. Let's move on in life and find more pleasant things to occupy our thoughts.

Also, it's obvious that the majority of the folks that know of this case do not share this opinion of Giesick. If you do share this opinion of Giesick you obviously have never met the man or taken the time to know him. You obviously are easily duped if you can read a book about total strangers and have such a painful and distraught thought process. Counseling can cure these illnesses.

I agree with the earlier good comments about Giesick. I read the book. I met Giesick and formed my own opinions of him. He neither lied, cheated, conned, scammed, or duped me. I suggest you take the time to meet him and take into account the really good things that God has accomplished through him since this incidence took place.

If my memory serves me right, there was an article in one of the Lousiana papers with a picture of Patricia's parents meeting with Giesick after his release. They were quoted as forgiving him for what he had done. If they showed such compassion, I'm sure I can too. Many people that know him now have said how much they like him. I'm sure that they would like you, too. They would like you even with the damning remarks on their Christian compassion.

And Pflugerville is in the Austin area.