What, for each of you, was the 'entry point'

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I'm not arguing a side here, I'm disputing the claim that presenting autopsy photos is inherently distasteful, and I'm only doing it in this thread because Reedus chose to make the argument here, and I don't mean any offense to anyone by doing so.


Oh come on, surely you've seen the posterboard of Steive Braches' face flashed around by Stidham and Turvey in PL2?:

HBO ParadiseLost Pt2 Revelations - YouTube

You are arguing and this is not the thread for it. This thread is for people posting their entry into the case without having to defend it.

 

[reedus23]

Since this is the thread that you chose to argue that Dana Moore would find the presentation of autopsy photos here distasteful regardless of context, it's become the thread where I contest that argument. And in that regard I'd enjoy seeing Ms. Moore come to this form to discuss the case, as I'd doubt many would be so quick to argue around the evidence in her presence, regarding what caused what injuries and otherwise.

Read it yet again kyle. I never made any assertions about how Ms. Moore reacts or whether she finds them distasteful. Maybe she can look at them and feel nothing. As a parent, if it were pictures of my child, I would be torn apart having to look at them, regardless of I discussed the fact that for whatever reason, I picture her viewing the pictures and then I cringe, not her. And my opinions regarding the facts of this case would not change one bit. They are what they are. I would respect her opinions if she thought otherwise and would consider anything she may have to offer that is not otherwise known, but my opinions are what they are and their not going to change just because someone in particular posts here. They will change because something is learned.

 

[reedus23]

You are arguing and this is not the thread for it. This thread is for people posting their entry into the case without having to defend it.

Back on topic, I have to say, I enjoyed hearing how everyone first became exposed/involved in this case. It's interesting to see that there are some johnny come lately's like myself who have only followed for a year and others who have followed since the beginning. A wide variety. Thanks to all.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Back on topic, I have to say, I enjoyed hearing how everyone first became exposed/involved in this case. It's interesting to see that there are some johnny come lately's like myself who have only followed for a year and others who have followed since the beginning. A wide variety. Thanks to all.

I agree. People all have different ways they get involved and see the evidence.

 

[missy_g]

I always get upset seeing those images. I think anyone would. I assumed that was the point. when these murders happened, they were absolutely unimaginably horrible. As a result, tempers raged and emotions ran high throughout the area and the police were under immense pressure to solve the crime as fast as possible. I assumed the footage was shown in an attempt to impress on the viewer the gravity of the situation. To help the viewer understand how the townsfolk were catapulted into this freaked out frenzy due to the hideousness of the crime. Of course, I could be wrong, but that's how I interpreted it. I hope I'm making sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You pretty much said what I was thinking!

 

[Compassionate Reader]

I always get upset seeing those images. I think anyone would. I assumed that was the point. when these murders happened, they were absolutely unimaginably horrible. As a result, tempers raged and emotions ran high throughout the area and the police were under immense pressure to solve the crime as fast as possible. I assumed the footage was shown in an attempt to impress on the viewer the gravity of the situation. To help the viewer understand how the townsfolk were catapulted into this freaked out frenzy due to the hideousness of the crime. Of course, I could be wrong, but that's how I interpreted it. I hope I'm making sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's how I always saw things, too. I'm appalled and sickened by the images, but I'm equally appalled and sickened that three young men spent their twenties and part of their thirties incarcerated for these horrendous murders when they were innocent. The fact that some people actually hear the soundtrack and see evil is, IMO, part of the problem in this case. As I've stated before, no documentary film is truly unbiased. So, attacking the film makers' methods is, IMO, pretty counterproductive. Unless someone has talked to the film makers personally, all we can do is speculate on their motive for including the horrendous images, but, if it was to capture the attention of the audience, I'd say they succeeded remarkably.

 

[kyleb]

Berlinger and Sinofsky certainly captured many people's attention with the emotional impact of flashing the boys' naked corpses across the screen and what followed. But again, that's also what prompted me to turn the movie off just a few minutes in, before ever learning anything about the case over a decade ago, as I instinctively figured people engaging in such an appeal to emotion were in no position to documenting a murder investigation. It has noting to do with their choice in music either, as again classic Metallica is my taste in music, as it has been since it was contemporary. The issue is that they were using the images and music to appeal to emotion rather than reason, and doing so with flagrant disregard for the victims.

Had they lead with what was evidenced in such images, the nature of the wounds, the lengths of the shoelaces, they'd of had me hooked, but instead I only learned about the case by happenstance last March. Surely I'm not the only to have done so either, Todd and Diane Moore would've likely done the same if it wasn't for their personal connection to the case, given what they explained in their letter to the Academy Awards committee:

We are private individuals. The directors, Bruce Sinofsky and Joe Berlinger, are aware of this because we refused to participate in their last two films. We appeared solely in the first film because the directors lied and told us their purpose would be to “protect children.” You can imagine our shock and disgust when the first film opened with gruesome and gratuitous images of the crime scene and remained exploitative and salacious until the credits rolled. It did nothing to promote child welfare. It did everything to support child killers and to benefit monetarily from a ghastly crime.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

Bruce and Joe initially went to West Memphis to film the trial of three devil-worshiping teenagers who committed three horrendous murders. I'm sure that was their approach to the parents initially. It was only after arrival in West Memphis, after becoming acquainted with the defendants and the community, that they realized that a horrible miscarriage of justice was afoot. I'm sure that was a primary motivation in their wanting to "shock" people and possibly at least a partial explanation of their use of these horrific images. I'm not saying that I agree with their decision; I'm just saying that they are film makers, wanting to "prove" their point (as do all documentary film makers).

The fact that the Moores still choose to believe the wmpd's version of the events of May 5th and 6th has, IMO, colored all of their statements since the trials. I have my own opinions as to why the Moores still believe the police, but I will keep them to myself in this case because it might anger some people if I stated them, especially since these thoughts are only my opinion, with nothing to support them. Suffice it to say that I think the Moores could have ulterior motives for continuing to "believe" the police version of the story. Those motives could have affected their post-conviction statements, including what was quoted above.

 

[kyleb]

I'm just saying that they are film makers, wanting to "prove" their point (as do all documentary film makers).

Actual documentary filmmakers make a conscious effort to objectively document facts, while Berlinger and Sinofsky had completely different designs, as the former explained in this old interview "Hopefully what the film is doing, and why I feel OK about the subjectivity, is that we're going for a higher emotional truth."

Suffice it to say that I think the Moores could have ulterior motives for continuing to "believe" the police version of the story.

I figure the Moores aren't interested in buying into anyone's "version of the story", but rather in accepting what is evidenced regarding the murder of their son, as that's certainly what I'd do in their shoes, as it is even though I'm not. That said, I'm not angered by your suspicions of ulterior motives, I'm curious as to know: what you suspect the Moores might hope to gain by continuing to support the convictions?

 

[Compassionate Reader]

No matter how "conscientious" an effort is made, even little things (like camera angles) can contain a bias. The only way to avoid any bias in camera angles is to use a static camera. However, that would not make for good cinema! (I learned that in my college Directing course. I minored in Drama.)

The American film critic Pare Lorentz defines a documentary film as "a factual film which is dramatic." Others further state that a documentary stands out from the other types of non-fiction films for providing an opinion, and a specific message, along with the facts it presents. BBM

The red text above is from the Wikipedia "definition" of a documentary film. So, the purpose of a modern documentary is to provide an opinion and a message with the "facts" presented. Of course, film makers will profess objectivity, but the proof is in the pudding, as they say.

As to the Moores, I believe they should want the truth about their son's death. I simply don't believe that the police have given them (or the public as a whole) all of the truth. The wmpd (and the State of Arkansas) manufactured a story, IMO, manipulating a mentally-challenged teenager to help them with a "false" confession. It is much easier, IMO, to accept the "truth" presented by the police than to properly investigate these murders. IMO, the much more difficult (and much more emotionally draining) course is to be sure that a proper investigation is done so that the real truth is exposed.

 

[kyleb]

Of course, film makers will profess objectivity, but the proof is in the pudding, as they say.

Berlinger professed subjectivity explicitly in what I quoted from him in my previous post, and his pudding proves full of exactly that. Also what you quoted from Wikipedia isn't rightly its definition of documentary film, but rather simply a statement from a film critic who apparently has little regard for dictionaries.

As to the Moores, I believe they should want the truth about their son's death.

Sure, but I'm still curious: what ulterior motives do you suspect the Moores might have for continuing to support the convictions?

 

[reedus23]

Meh. Some like the documentaries. Some don't. There were things about it I appreciated and other things I did not. No different than anything else produced. Who cares if there was a slant or a bias? It's an HBO production, not a final arbiter of facts.

 

[Miranda!]

As to the Moores, I believe they should want the truth about their son's death. I simply don't believe that the police have given them (or the public as a whole) all of the truth. The wmpd (and the State of Arkansas) manufactured a story, IMO, manipulating a mentally-challenged teenager to help them with a "false" confession. It is much easier, IMO, to accept the "truth" presented by the police than to properly investigate these murders. IMO, the much more difficult (and much more emotionally draining) course is to be sure that a proper investigation is done so that the real truth is exposed.

I would qualify this by adding "even if that truth ends up being as the wmpd and prosecution presented, but with a far stronger case behind it." However, they have chosen to believe the version of events as established by the DA (Davies) and the wmpd. They have that right.

Had they both 'sunk without trace' in terms of the amount of 'chatter' this case continues to cause on the internet, I would have more sympathy for them both in wanting to turn their backs on it all and walk away into their respective futures.

Or if they seriously fought to get an acknowledgment from the State that the Alford Pleas were the travesty of Justice rather than the actual trials!

It has to be incredibly difficult on all those, whose lives were directly impacted by the case, having it constantly regurgitated in the public arena, regardless of which side of the 'fence' they position themselves.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

<respectfully snipped>

It has to be incredibly difficult on all those, whose lives were directly impacted by the case, having it constantly regurgitated in the public arena, regardless of which side of the 'fence' they position themselves.

This is exactly why I keep some of my opinions (like what ulterior motives I believe the Moores might have had to accept without question the opinion of the wmpd) to myself. I would never want to unjustly cause harm to someone. If there is a person for whom there is sufficient information (IMO) to be suspect, that is something else.

As it seems to be totally acceptable to be disrespectful toward Damien, Jason and Jessie (because some believe them to be guilty), it should be just as acceptable to suspect someone else and to espouse an opinion as to their guilt. Since we have an appeals process in this country, jury verdicts aren't "gospel" by any means. They are often overturned, and they should be thoroughly investigated, as we are doing in this case.

However, IMO, since the Moores aren't suspects in this case, I don't see any reason to drag them through the mud. If additional information were to surface that caused me to suspect the Moores or one of the Moores, I would want to present that information and discuss it. So far, at least IMO, such information has not been presented.

 

[kyleb]

Or if they seriously fought to get an acknowledgment from the State that the Alford Pleas were the travesty of Justice rather than the actual trials!

Overturning the convictions would've been a travesty of justice absent some proof of some vast conspiracy to fabricate the existing bodies of evidence which implicate the convicted. The Alford plea deal on the other hand was a reasonable compromise given the unique and complex circumstances of the case.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Overturning the convictions would've been a travesty of justice absent some proof of some vast conspiracy to fabricate the existing bodies of evidence which implicate the convicted. The Alford plea deal on the other hand was a reasonable compromise given the unique and complex circumstances of the case.

No. Not if they can find the real killers and convict them. Sadly this state has their head so far in a cave they refuse to look for sunlight. They are happier manufacturing light themselves and pretending it is sunlight.

 

[LordYAM]

I do not think or believe that
the Moores aren't interested in buying into anyone's "version of the story", but rather in accepting what is evidenced regarding the murder of their son,

I believe they want closure. They want the police to have done their jobs and their son's murderer behind bars. Accepting that the police ****ed up and got the wrong guy would mean that the murderer is still out there, and that the system they trust failed miserably. There are shittons of reasons why they would have ulterior motives. Willful blindness at it's best.

 

[Salem]

Stop the bickering or I will just close the thread. It's unnecessary. Learn to scroll and roll or use the ignore feature.

Salem