The 12th Victim

If you think that a 14-year-old girl should have attempted to prevent a murdering madman from killing people, you should excuse yourself from the planet. Clearly she is not a murderer and was not in a position to prevent murders at the age of 14 with no one intervening on her behalf at any point with this monster.

The documentary was interesting and well made. I appreciated the clips that they included that put you in that time and place. I also appreciated that they narrated some interviews that they did not have original recordings for. Well I normally think a four-part documentary is too long, in this case I found it interesting to the end.

ABOUT MY REVIEWS:

I do not include a synopsis of the film/show -- you can get that anywhere and that does not constitute a meaningful review -- but rather my thoughts and feelings on the film that hopefully will be informative to you in deciding whether to invest 90-180 minutes of your life on it.

My scale: 1-5 decreasing degrees of "terrible", with 5 being "mediocre" 6- OK. Generally held my interest OR had reasonable cast and/or cinematography, might watch it again 7 - Good. My default rating for a movie I liked enough to watch again, but didn't rise to the upper echelons 8- Very good. Would watch again and recommend to others 9- Outstanding. Would watch over and over; top 10% of my ratings 10 - A classic. (Less than 2% receive this rating). For Lifetime Movies for Chicks (LMFC), drop the above scale by 3 notches. A 6 is excellent and 7 almost unattainable.

The fable of young outlaw lovers lives on - at least in Lincoln, Nebraska.

As the story is passed on, each new generation has to put its imprint on the chronicle.

From pulp fiction to celluloid and VHS, the folktale develops from murks of desperate, illicit underage sex filled rampage to the essence of digital #metoo era.

The law is as it is interpreted. Charles was lucky enough not to be made a political exhibit of and fried fairly promptly, while luckless Caril was discerned too young and innocent to get the chair and too wicked to let go free, interpretations varying from a fire breathing termagant to a scared little orphan Annie.

Somehow, I can't make connection between Charles and James Dean, he has more like the air of James Cagney in 1937 "Angels with Dirty Faces".

Oh yeah, the Establishment has got its pound of flesh, alright.

As far as the filmmaking style went it could have been better and more focused. But the actual story is good and it's about time that Carol got fair treatment! The system convicted her before she even went down trial. She has passed numerous lie detector tests and passed all of them and never once in all the years since 1958 has she ever changed her story. Most investigators will tell you that people are lying will change their story a lot. Furthermore, I knew Carol when I worked at the same hospital with her in Lansing and she was a sweet and loving person and everyone absolutely loved her. I have seen her cry many times over what happened to her and cried for the people who lost their lives, including her own family. I hope that she will get the part in that she deserves. I love you Caril and I was very proud to call you my friend.

Interesting docuseries about a case of which I wasn't aware (not a yank or a Springsteen fan thankfully), but that clearly has a hold on the American psyche.

As well as outlining the serious issues with how the case of the 12th (or 1st) victim and only survivor of the USA's first sociopathic spree killer of the TV news-age it contextaulises, both historically and culturally, those and future difficulties Caril has faced in gaining access to proper justice.

It also touches on the USA's obsession with glamourising guns, violence and misogynist men through pulp fiction, music, TV and movies, whilst sexualising,moralising and demonising the 'women' around them, even when those 'women' are children who've just turned fourteen.

It briefly alludes to the perilous and peculiar set-up of justice in the USA where law enforcement and prosecutors are elected rather than employed on merit, and therefore under pressure to get the results a baying mob of local constituents demand of them in a country that is uncivilised enough to still have the death penality in the C21th whilst pretending to be all sorts of permutations of 'Christian'.

BTW for UK audiences the cinematographer is Peter Hutchens (not Hitchens.... that was really confusing me....).

Again I believe its noteworthy to point out that I can not remark upon the actual subject matter (other than it definitely being worthwhile of being told, in terms of human interest), but merely the mechanics and technical aspects of the film ITSELF - {which is wierd because this is only true in cases of documentary films}

Here is my biggest issue, and it's a big one - shortly into episode one, we hear 'the words' of Starkweather read to us as if its the man's voice and inflection and cadance and emphasis, HOWEVER it's not the voice of Starkweather at all, nay, it's a voice actor and that's not fair - that's not kosher - that's BAD BUSINESS - especially considering they never do tell the viewer that it's an audible recreation

Similarly, much of it is filmed in what I like to call 'Confuse-a-Vison', where they smash cut quickly between and thru still photos and images that are circa 1950s but have zero connection to the actual case - mere filler shown under the guise that the viewer might see this and feel that the film maker has all of this never before seen footage - however once again this is NOT the case

Now I'm not saying this is unacceptable, however at no time are we told about these recreations but rather left to either be cowed into believing that we're watching and listening to authentic relics of the case when simply we are not

That all being said, for me, it's a massive detractor.