4 ms·
I agree, but I give them credit for attempting to do what they ultimately did not pull off: to find a smoking gun that changes a murder case, in near-real-time,
by subpixel 10y ago
I agree, but I give them credit for attempting to do what they ultimately did not pull off: to find a smoking gun that changes a murder case, in near-real-time, for an audience of millions.
As a listener, this meant I honestly felt like I had wasted a huge amount of time on the show.
But I was rooting for them right up to the point at which I began cursing them.
- jonknee 10y agoThe fact that he now has a new trial should be enough to make up for that. The "smoking gun" was that there was no real case against him, but he was convicted and in jail.
- 7Z7 10y ago>As a listener, this meant I honestly felt like I had wasted a huge amount of time on the show. That seems like such a weird conclusion to me.
- subpixel 10y agoThe show was packaged up and delivered as titillating entertainment. A first-person radio whodunnit for the post-radio age. So, many weeks later, when the final word was "gosh maybe we'll never know!", I felt like I'd clicked on a series of those "What happened next will shock you!" headlines. A compelling story reaching the same conclusion probably could have been handled in a single episode.
- madeofpalk 10y ago> So, many weeks later, when the final word was "gosh maybe we'll never know!" But... that's the point. The finally episode spells this out very explicitly - although they can't say either way whether he did it or not, they found they don't have sufficient proof they he did commit the crime he was convicted for, and therefore does not deserve to be in jail.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- rhizome 10y agoWhat both series were good at pointing out was the nature of a fair trial, and how each case fell short.