I watched this film some time after the jon benet murder and it really does go a long way toward explaining how ppl can be unlikable but does that mean guilty..and the press and public opinons are much the same here in the film as they were about patsy
shareSo true. I thought the film was near-brilliant in how it portrayed the smugness of the masses of people who believe they can "spot a liar," how they base their presumptions of guilt or innocence on how they think people "should" react (itself based on how they think they themselves would react) if they'd lost a child like that, how bored juries get with serious and meaningful evidence at trial, etc.
If you want to scare yourself sh$%less sometime, do some reading on the psychology of the courtroom--how far off people are in their ideas about guilt and innocence, certainty about truth and falsehood, popularized myths about "spotting a liar" that get carried over into deliberations, the preference of eyewitness testimony over circumstantial evidence in the popular imagination (absolutely the reverse of what it should be), you name it. It'll make you wonder whether about half the people who've been convicted by juries of laypeople were ever actually guilty.
If you want to scare yourself sh$%less sometime, do some reading on the psychology of the courtroom--how far off people are in their ideas about guilt and innocence, certainty about truth and falsehood, popularized myths about "spotting a liar" that get carried over into deliberations, the preference of eyewitness testimony over circumstantial evidence in the popular imagination (absolutely the reverse of what it should be), you name it.
_____________
Yes, it is quite frightening and most people are simpleminded fools who think they have it all wrapped up; but wouldn't know a knife from a fork half the time. The courtroom is about games most of the time and dangerous ones at that when people's lives are at stake, or how they would pan out at any rate. It also thrives and feeds of the "victim" mentality. Lindy Chamberlain didn't kowtow to public acceptance of how they thought she should react and portray herself. She wasn't playing a victim, so they saw her as unfeeling and cold. The reality is, they had no idea of how she must've been feeling and she and her husband and boys attempted to move on with their lives, until the Northern Territory police decided to dig up as much "circumstantial" dirt they could find to save face. The whole trial was a travesty of justice, and all to pander to a lynch mob mentality and for pompous ass lawyers and judiciary to play their egocentric games with each other. Shameful!
Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:đź’©
Absolutely. You've raised one more specific manifestation, too -- what happens when people presume they know what they would've done or how they would've reacted in a similar situation (when accused of murder, when finding the body of a spouse, etc.). Jurors and spectators always think they know, but they really don't. And if you're a factually innocent defendant, you can be wrong either way. If you happen to be really emotional, that becomes evidence that you're just showing out, or maybe that you're feeling the guilt. If you're not emotional enough, it's because you're the one who did it. If you don't feel exactly the right kind and degree of emotion that each jury member thinks he/she would feel, you're in trouble. It's bad enough that this kind of irrationality is found too often in jurors. Even worse that both prosecutors and defense attorneys play on it deliberately.
That's in addition to the fact that a prosecutor's office that is determined to make almost anybody look guilty can do it.
Which is to say, a righteous prosecutor has to be really vigilant about not doing that. You can't fall into that trap of making an initial decision that Suspect X is guilty and then making every subsequent decision based on that initial decision rather than on the true-north of the totality of the evidence. When a prosecutor's job is based on convictions rather than true results, though, the incentives are in all the wrong places.
You've raised one more specific manifestation, too -- what happens when people presume they know what they would've done or how they would've reacted in a similar situation (when accused of murder, when finding the body of a spouse, etc.). Jurors and spectators always think they know, but they really don't...If you don't feel exactly the right kind and degree of emotion that each jury member thinks he/she would feel, you're in trouble. It's bad enough that this kind of irrationality is found too often in jurors. Even worse that both prosecutors and defense attorneys play on it deliberately...When a prosecutor's job is based on convictions rather than true results, though, the incentives are in all the wrong places.
________________
Well put. Everyone would react differently to a situation and I don't know if I agree with a juror system either. These jurors are from all walks of life and many may not be that bright either. The judiciary is comprised of people who have put in years of hard work and study to learn and hone skills that they are interested in. The legal system is full of it's own tricky mechanisms, deceits and can also appear to have insidious agendas. It is only masked as being an honorable and righteous institution most of the time.
Those handpicked off the street and asked to play a part in a complex game that they may not fully understand—or even care about—appears dubious to me. I know I wouldn't want some simpleminded creature who can only think in black and white terms and whatever bias, prejudices and self-entitlements they can come with, making a judgement on me. The jury are making decisions that could have drastic and tumultuous consequences for someones life, when they may not really understand any motives or evidence presented. As was the case with Lindy Chamberlain here. In this specific case at any rate, they were all proven inept.
I might add, the Chamberlains must have had useless lawyers, if they couldn't successfully make a decent argument out of some of the prosecutions absurd reasoning's, arguments and evidence placed before them. The film showed that they didn't really care either and were also admonishing the Chamberlains for being "Bloody awful witnesses". I don't think they even understood or were compassionate to the magnitude and strain that they were placed under, Michael especially towards the end. Lindy appeared more resilient. They tragically lose a child and get absolved, and then get placed back into the hot seat all for self-serving and arrogant agendas. I wonder if they were afraid of the lynch mob rioting, and an uproar if Lindy was found "innocent" of murdering her child at the time of all the ballyhoo.
Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:đź’©
True, Patsy Ramsey often came across as being combative and didn't appear to be broken up enough so somehow that made her guilty of killing her daughter. I wish people would know that she was battling ovarian cancer at the time and that likely played a part in how she behaved. She eventually died from this disease.
sharePatsy Ramsey also came across as smug and bitchy, with her husband and his constant annoying Bill Clinton-type smile-in-his eyes.
shareWhy would it take this film for you to think Patsy was maybe innocent?? There was never any evidence pointing towards Patsy, and the whole family has been cleared through DNA.
shareI find this very true with the media. You can be liked one day and a monster the next. They control your image and public persona. This movie made Australians seem like complete dumbasses, and like they thought dingos were bunnies or capable of being pets. They're not. They will do anything to survive, and that includes taking a baby. Why she left her 2 month old alone like that is beyond me. I wouldn't have done it... but hindsight is 20/20. I feel for that poor baby. They did find her clothing some years later in an area known to have dingos, if I'm not mistaken.
shareI find this very true with the media. You can be liked one day and a monster the next. They control your image and public persona.Very true. I think of the case of the Central Park Jogger back in 1989 in NYC. I was obsessed with that case and following it diligently. I was convinced those boys were guilty as sin. Turns our-- no-- they weren't. Their lives were utterly ruined as were the Chamberlains in this movie.