.gif)
Spoilers all the way down ...
First, I didn't know that Andrew Jarecki and his team had been working on this project for ten years (starting in 2006 with their research for All Good Things, which was initially supposed to be a documentary).
Here's Slate's overall timeline of the events in Bob's three murder cases.
Jarecki discusses the origin of the interviews with Daniel Fienberg at Hitfix. He talks about the intentions behind doing the show, and the way they decided to structure it (in terms of number of episodes, their pacing, and the reasons behind his decision to incorporate himself into the film):
We began cutting sort of episode one and episode one was really fascinating and Bob doesn’t even sit down until the end of episode one.
So we said, "Well that’s the pace of the thing. The pace of the thing is obviously we need to know enough about this person before we meet him and then we need to absorb these chapters of his life.
And this is a guy who’s been accused of three murders over 30 years. There’s no zipping through these things because we investigate. So for us, we needed to go and understand what had happened in every one of these situations. The audience needs to understand them in a way that’s not the kind of glossy way that you get in a a traditional television environment.
This Gawker timeline of the interviews shows us that the way Team Jarecki presented the events of the documentary (particularly Bob's first visit to his brother's house) don't match the order they happened in.
David Poland has some reasonable follow-up questions about what would be useful to know about the production process.
The film-makers say they didn't go to the police before their final (probably their second) interview with Bob because they didn't want to be seen as 'working for the police' when they spoke to him.
The film-makers' lawyer, Victor Kovner, talked to the Village Voice about the implications surround the production company's research and decisions.
Kovner says the facts are clear. "The final interview was conducted in April of 2012," he says. "The washroom confession — or the talking to himself after the video, as the audio kept going — was not discovered until June 2014 and was made available to law enforcement shortly after."
Kovner also dismisses the notion that there was any deal struck between law enforcement and filmmakers to schedule the arrest for maximum publicity. Rather, he says, the authorities operated independently, though they may well have factored in the possibility that the airing of the final episode would force Durst's hand.
"It came as a shock to the producers and to me that he was arrested on the morning before the airing of the final program," Kovner says. "The probability of flight risk was evident and law enforcement obviously knew that."
Kovner says the relationship between the filmmakers and new law enforcement efforts is "complicated."
A professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard University gives his opinion on the legal standing of Bob's closing statements at Bloomberg News. He raises points about:
* the chain of custody on the recording
* whether it's been tampered with
* whether Bob's state of mind was distressed (post-interview) when he made his comments
* whether he should have had an expectation of privacy
* whether, as evidence, the recording would be probative or prejudicial. (Probative: the jury is likely to glean useful information from the statement that would help prove guilt or innocence; Prejudicial: the jury is more likely to form an irrational prejudice the basis of the evidence)
* whether the structure of Bob's statement (as a soliloquy) means the material is hypothetical or trying out various possibilities. In particular, the identity of the participants in the soliloquy matter in determining Bob's intended meaning
And for the hell of it, Daniel Kanemoto's fan credits for the Walking Dead using The Eels' Fresh Blood:
No comments:
Post a Comment