I have read her material on other cases and don't always agree, however, in this case I think she has an accurate grasp on the whole saga.
When I first posted about this case, I said that a series about a guilty man wouldn't sell. Twist the facts, omit other facts and stretch it out over 10 episodes until it becomes marketable. This, imo, is exactly what they did.
I have read elsewhere (will try to find the link) the author says that by stacking the deck in Avery's favour, the filmakers mirrored the entity they were trying to discredit. Why shouldn't they, and the rest of the media, be held to a standard as high as those investigating cases when it comes to reporting on them? Why should they be allowed to disperse false information to the viewing public? Why should they be allowed to destroy lives with falsehoods and open wounds for Teresa's family?
Millions of people watched that series, but only a fraction of them did any further research. It is true that the everyday person sitting in their lounge room watching Netflix would not know how investigations work, or how Defense Attorneys represent a guilty client or how the television industry works. This is not an insult. It is the truth.
Just because someone has read the case files, doesn't mean that they understand them. You only need to look at the misinformation being spread about the report that has November 3rd as the day the Rav 4 was found. Even a pro Avery supporter on this message board has tried to explain it but they refuse to accept it.
Anyways guilty or innocent may not be important to you, but it is to me. They both received a fair trial, their attorneys were competent and a jury of their peers concluded they were guilty based on the evidence and testimony of experts. The appeals court has also reviewed the evidence and agrees. The system worked just fine in this case.
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
I do think a great deal of confirmation bias, on both sides of the fence, I might add, plays a role with regard to people's views of this case.
And yes, I agree that the media glommed onto this case. Not, imnsho, bc they questioned the legal process, rather, that it sells stories, resulting in more eyes on their pages. This is esp so with regard to the tabloids
*cough*mirror*cough*.
I must admit, I was more focused upon her psychological characterization of SA. If anything, and to my mind, it shows that the woman is quite obviously not trained in anything to do with criminal psychology.
That is, while I would agree that SA is quite far from perfect, in fact, quite the opposite, from all that I have read and seen, I am of the opinion that his Hare PCL-R scores would not be elevated enough to classify the man as a psychopath. Moreover, she seems to have little-to-no understanding of IQ scores and how those might factor into the man's criminal behavior.
For example, while many who feel this man is innocent, make the assertion that he would not burn the body, then hide the RAV4 in plain sight. I would beg to differ. In over simplistic terms, his low IQ could easily explain why he might do just that. That is, he would not have the level of foresight that most "
normal" people would have. In other words, what might be logical to you and I, would not even enter his mind.
There are other things, as well. Again, the primary issue I have with regard to what this woman opines, is that the forensic psychology aspects are just plain wrong.
