He SO wanted to believe everything she did was in self-defense, that it clouded his overall narrative. Simply put, he got played by her.
The self-defense argument lost water well after the second and third dead guy.
[deleted]
Probably. But then she discovered that she actually liked killing.
shareThat's not what I took away at all. I think he acknowledged the uncertainty on whether she acted in self-defense or not, and ultimately took no position on it. He did clearly think she wasn't competent, though, and that the State had no business executing her for that reason.
shareYes, she was an evil nut. But I don't think that means the taxpayers of Florida should've had to pay to keep her alive in prison until she croaked naturally.
If she had killed one of your family members in a similar unprovoked way, I think you'd feel differently too.
[deleted]
Yes, I probably would. So what?
shareI think he says at one point that he thought she killed her first victim in self-defense and that this was kind of a trigger (no pun intended) for her later killings.
I don't think she played Broomfield like a fiddle. Broomfield is clearly against the death penalty though and he made no secret about his views on executing someone who is mentally ill.
You don't know what you're talking about. It costs a LOT more to execute someone than to keep them alive in prison for the rest of their lives. All the legal actions she was involved in would not have been necessary without the death sentence. It not only cost more to kill her, but it took up more time in the courts and more legal resources. Anyone who advocates for the death penalty on practical grounds is ignorant of the facts.
"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."
I agree with this - devil's advocate is a common technique employed in the documentary genre, Nick reminded me of Louis Theroux in the way he approached his subject. I didn't at all get the idea that he believed it was self-defence, it was very clear what he was trying to do by keeping coming back to that question.
shareI don't know. I think that he remained fairly impartial in general. He certainly did his best to provoke and anger her, so that she would crack on camera and show her true insanity to the viewer ... which he succeeded in doing, especially in the last couple of interviews.
DRAGON¸.•´¸.•*´¨SWAK¸.•*¨¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨
(¸.•´ ¸.•*¨¸.•´¸.•*´¨(¸.•´ ¸.•´
You evidently didn't pay any attention. He said that he believed the first victim may have been self-defence. He never believed any of the others were. Nor did he lend any credence at all to her claims of police conspiracy to allow her to kill etc.
"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."
Totally agree! Just wrote a new post about that!
share