More on my documentary.

In regards to my documentary, The Thin Blue Line, there are a couple of things I would like to discuss before finishing and sharing my summary. These concepts relate to two different questions in relation to the film. I would like to talk about a scene in the movie that really got to me. Then I would like to talk about some problematic concepts I feel would benefit from some further research and discussion.

To begin, a particular scene that got to me in the film revolved around the point in time where Randall Adams, the accused in the murder of the fallen police officer Robert Wood, had his death penalty verdict overruled. In the film, the jury finds Adams guilty of the murder of Robert Woods despite what seemed to be indications that would link David Harris more heavily to the crime and the presence of investigation tactics and use of evidence against Adams that seemed to be lacking in professionalism and logic at times. As a result, Adams was given the death penalty. This verdict was appealed in the appellate courts and was affirmed, but when it went to the Supreme Court it was overturned. So, there seemed to be a chance that Adams could be made innocent. The district attorney vowed to get a retrial because he felt a cop killer should be put to death, but actually ended up asking the governor to commute the sentence down to life in prison, so a retrial actually could not take place. Now, in the film this situation caused people to question the tactics involved. Why were minds changed? Did they fear Adams would be vindicated? This particular scene in my film really filled me anger. I felt that they did feel Adams would be let free and made innocent. So, they had to make sure they kept him in jail so that in a retrial the way they investigated the situation and the different illogical methods they used to get evidence, like trying to get Adams to hold the gun or force him to sign a statement at gun point, and information, from the unreliable witnesses, would not come out. This would make them look bad and it would take away a conviction from the department, which seems to be more important to them then justice.

Image Source

The above scene did make me angry, but there were five other things in the film I felt were problematic that could be researched and wrote about further. The first involved the part in the film where it was stated by David Harris that he was coached through his statement against Randall Adams. He claims he was a scared sixteen year old kid and that this occurred. This really made me mad and made me think if there are a lot of instances other then this case where the witnesses are coached. Then, I would like to know how often because I feel that this method of attaining a conviction is quite the opposite of producing justice for all parties involved. The second involved the use of the miller couple as witnesses in the first place. They claimed that they saw Adams in the car that night right as he was pulled over by the police and they passed by. In the film we later find that Mrs. Miller lies constantly and that Mr. Miller said he would testify anything they wanted in order to get money. So, in other words, he would lie too. It made me angry that these two unreliable witnesses were in this case at all because I am sure it effected Adams chances very negatively. With that being said, I think another good point to further research would be how many times an unreliable witness has greatly affected a case. The third thing involved the fact that when Adams was in the interrogation room and he refused to sign the statement and or pick up the gun that was used in the murder the law enforcement agent pulled a gun on him in order to intimidate him. That is just very illogical police work that does not seek justice, but seems to have only one goal in mind and that is a quick conviction. I would want to research how much interrogation is done in a threatening and illogical way like this. I am sure there are others that are not as strong as Adams was here and would have cracked under the pressure, which leads to an arrest that might be the wrong one to make. The fourth thing would involve the fact that Harris bragged about the murder to his friends, had a criminal record, was on a crime spree, and knew about the stolen guns and car involved at the time this murder occurred. Yet, he is not being held accountable or even partially accountable to the level that Adams was who, I might add, had no recollection of any shooting because he seemed to not be involved. This is crazy to accept when you as a person see another person go through something that they seem to not deserve. This makes me want to research whether there are a lot of people that are falsely imprisoned and then how many have been recently and then in total throughout history. Finally, the last thing has to do with the fact that the secondary officer involved in this case seemed to change her testimony over time very conveniently. The original testimony she gave listed points that did not match up with what Harris had said, which can be exemplified by the fact that she said there was only one subject in the car not two like Harris said. With that being said, after her original testimony she went through two weeks of internal affairs investigations and changed her testimony to characteristics that described Adams. This included saying Adams had bushy hair, which he did, even though she originally stated that the hair in the suspect was just middle length hair. So, with this information, I would like to research whether internal affairs  ever tampers with cases in order to help the department win a conviction rather then seek justice.

I really enjoyed this documentary and I hope this additional information gives people great information to think about and maybe even research further. My summary draft will soon be posted in order to give a full and complete picture on this very interesting case.  

What to know about my documentary

I had decided to watch the documentary called The Thin Blue Line for my documentary project. I have since finished watching it.

To introduce some of my initial thoughts on the documentary, I found it to be very similar to the short television series Making a Murderer that we just watched. The film follows the story of Randall Adams, Dennis Harris, and the law enforcement involved on a journey that involves questionable police work and culminates in an unbelievable ending for all parties involved.

Image Source

To dive into it further, the film surprised me with the lack of police competence that was shown in regard to achieving justice. In a previous blog, for Steven Avery, I discussed how achieving a conviction seemed to be more important then getting justice for the individual and I was hoping this was the only major evidence for this happening in our world. I was wrong. In The Thin Blue Line, it seems that Randall Adams is caught in a situation with police where he is being held accountable for the death of a local police officer. The police threaten him for a statement saying that he did it, coach a known trouble maker, Dennis Harris, to take the stand against Randall, and even use witnesses testimony that has no backing and is from unreliable sources. The entire investigation against Randall Adams, which got him the death penalty reduced to life in prison, seems to be built on questionable police work. What was more surprising was that Dennis Harris stated that he had stole the gun and car involved in the crime, bragged about it to his friends, and has a criminal record. He is bad news and the police were swayed by him due to the fact that he was only sixteen years old at the time this occurred. The irony in this is Harris ended up killing someone else and is on death row for that separate case. Th entire film was filled with surprises and ended in quite the most ironic and saddest of ways. I cannot wait to elaborate more on it for you guys!

Questions I still have about this film after viewing it revolves around the police department and their practices. Why did they act the way they did? Did they know that Adams seemed to be truly innocent? Did they care about justice? Or did they just want to get a conviction? All of these questions are ones I think are worth looking at in order to understand this most unusual turn of events.

Lets talk about bias!

I think when creating something there are a number of different things that need to be considered in order to make said creation whole. Documentaries and movies alike I feel are no different. The picture itself does not make the work complete. Things such as lighting, camera angles, dialogue, voice and character usage, and music all play a huge role in making a film a complete work. It seems to make the film into a experience where people can form opinions, create reactions, and develop as human beings.

Image Source

Now, I think this point is an important one to make due to the fact that I have just watched the first episode of the television series Making a Murderer. In this film the music and the dialogue placement and usage seemed to make a large impact on me. In the film the music was one that encompassed a journey like feeling. It made me feel like the main character, Steven Avery, was on a journey. The type of journey seemed to also be revealed to me as well as I continued to view the video. I say this because the music seemed to move slower at certain times and, in my opinion created a feeling of uncertainty. I think this music was perfect for this film because it filled the role of what the film makers seemed to want for it. I think the film makers wanted to put a spotlight on Avery and force the viewers to become fixated on the character the way they wanted. It seemed they wanted viewers to see his situation as one that is arduous and long, which leads him on a journey through the criminal justice system. For example, the film begins with Avery returning home form an eighteen year prison sentence for a crime that he was not responsible for. So, already we as viewers seem to be attached to this journey that Avery is on by seeing that it will eventually lead somewhere, but we fist must see where it began. The music playing here is slow and has a feeling of uncertainty, which is done I think so we can feel how arduous Avery's road has been. Further, the slowing of pace in the music seemed to create the feeling of uncertainty that really cemented what they wanted. I feel they wanted to create an audience that felt bad for Avery and saw the uncertainty that surrounded his situation. Once they understood this their feeling seemed to be hammered in once they saw the awful journey a, from what it seems, unethical law enforcement agency can cause for a person.

Now, along with that, I think dialogue placement was very important as well. There are two instances I feel explain this properly. In the film, Steven explains what his daily routine is at the prison. When this is occurring the film is depicting the outside of a jail, so you as a viewer seem to feel how awful it must be in there due to his description. The music here, in my opinion, again creates a feeling of uncertainty in relation to what is next for Avery. The other instance where you see this in the film is when Avery is explaining how he would not lie and say he committed a crime of sexual assault that he did not commit. His voice actually stating this seems to allow the viewer yet another opportunity to personally become involved with Avery on this roller coaster of a journey through the system.

With the above information being said, it seems to me that this film creates a lot of bias toward Avery in that we as viewers should see a bad situation where an individual is being mistreated. I feel as though the film has accomplished that. I say this because I believe that, after viewing the first episode once, I myself had created a bias. I felt bad for Avery instantly. I felt, through the music, I was along for the ride on this journey with Avery through the system where he was mistreated and handled without ethics and professionalism by the law enforcement agencies sworn to protect him and treat him with the dignity and respect that is afforded to him by this country. I only saw the negatives in relation to the mistreatment of Avery and was oblivious to the fact that I might not know all of the facts related to the subject and that he has a criminal past of sorts that was discussed in the film.

My problem of an established bias was substantiated when I read an article explaining how Making a Murderer did not paint a complete picture. It was explained that evidence was left out of the film that could have swayed the opinion of viewers, which was explained seemed to be the opposite of what the film makers goals were. The article states that Avery's sweat and blood were found in the car of the murder victim, Teresa Halbach, and that this evidence was not thoroughly examined during the film. This situation shows us that things are not always what they seem and that when we watch or  read about something we should do additional research, so that we are properly informed on the issue and do not allow our first reaction bias to decide how we feel about something.  

Law enforcement or not...no one is perfect

I recently watched the first episode of Making a Murderer and it paints an interesting picture for me. I think it shows that, even in and around the field of law enforcement, no one is perfect and everyone has the ability to act imperfectly and consequently negatively affect a fellow human beings life. In relation to this notion, I found it shocking how much someones past and likability in a community can affect the way an individual is treated. I know that criminal history is used as an aggravating factor that could be used to convict someone, but other factors usually come into play I think. These things involve further investigation when points are brought up regarding the possibility of innocence and alibis, that can be proven by witnesses, that can also provide what is needed for someone to beat a case. Further, the subject of this film, Steven Avery, belonged to a family that did not function in their community as they were expected to. Then, due to this, while also incorporating Avery's past reckless behavior, you found a person who was not liked or respected as much as others in his community. The victim in his case, Penny Beerntsen, personified her community and was one of the respected individuals that Avery seemed not to be. I was shocked by these things, but the first thing I found to be problematic related to the police department and the district attorney and how they handled this case. The police department and the district attorney seemed to want Avery to be the one who would go to jail for this. I think this is explicated in the show when Michael Griesbach, the assistant district attorney, explained that when he told the old district attorney, Denis Vogel, about Avery not being guilty he received no shocked reaction, but another unexpected response. Vogel only asked him if there was anything about Gregory Allen in the files they had related to the case. This showed to Griesbach that Vogel thought Allen could be the person at fault. Griesbach further investigated this and found that there was a complaint in Avery's file about Allen committing a sexual crime on the same part of beach that Avery's victim was assaulted. Further, Vogel prosecuted this case or was involved in said prosecution. This leads Griesbach to believe that the district attorney and the police department may have known of Avery's innocence the whole time and even knew the real assailant from the start. This is awful. A man lost almost twenty years of his life due to the fact that it seems that the legal system acted in an unprofessional and unfair way in order to obtain a fast conviction.

To build on this point, while the investigation was underway, other things stood out to me that the police department did that I found to be problematic. These things involved what seemed to be the misuse of a prior mugshot to draw a sketch of an unknown subject, the misuse of what seemed to be clear evidence of an alibi for Avery, and the police telling Avery that if he admitted to the crime, that he did not commit, then he would be let out of prison right away. All three of these things show a legal system focused on captaining and sustaining a conviction as their top priority instead of focusing on justice as their main objective. In these three things we see police work that is not ethical, with the mugshot, Avery's alibi not holding firm even though witnesses and recites showed he was not close to the crime when it occurred, and police trying to get their conviction, through Avery's admittance to the crime, instead of the justice Avery deserved. This whole situation was a great example of how the world is not perfect. This involves law enforcement and the people they protect.

Image Source

This show, in my opinion, is a great example of how communication and writing can make all of the difference in a criminal case. The communication between the investigative parties in this show were severely lacking. I think this was their own doing though. They chose to not hear and or take advantage of beneficial evidence that could have avoided this entire fiasco. They seemed to not pay any attention  to evidence that supported Avery's alibi's, in relation to the recite and the many witnesses that vouched for his whereabouts. Then, throughout the video the viewer learns that the district attorney, and possibly the police department as well, knew that Gregory Allen was a threat in relation to sexual assault crimes and that he was spotted close to the scene of the crime some time before the day of the assault against Penny Beerntsen. So, with that being said, I saw a situation that could have been prevented with better communication between the parties involved. I think in order to improve the faulty communication we see here police departments and district attorney's need to work a little closer together and incorporate active writing and audio logs into their meetings. I say that because the closer relationship will allow for more thorough investigation I think and then the audio and writing logs will keep them honest. These logs would then have to be consistently reviewed to keep these parties honest. I think this needs to occur because although a person has made mistakes before and may not be an active member of a close knit community that does not give the law enforcement agencies, that protect and serve him, the right to pick on him. I think this will also be able to get law enforcement agencies to focus more on justice then conviction rates, which I think they were unable to do here. I think they saw a man who was not particularly liked in the community and has had prior problems with law enforcement, so they thought a conviction would be easy to get.

With the above information being said, my favorite part of this show was not my favorite part for its entertainment value, but rather for the controversy that surrounded it. I thought the mugshot part of this was unbelievable. The reason for this was because a point was made during the program regarding how Avery looked at the specific moment in time he had been arrested and placed in the lineup for the sexual assault case involving victim Penny Beerntsen. This was compared to the sketch, made by Chief Deputy Eugene Kusche, that was made of the unknown assailant. This sketch looked just like a mugshot of Avery from an earlier arrest, but Kusche claims he did not see this mugshot until after he made the sketch. Then, going back to my earlier comment, Avery's current mugshot was compared to the sketch and it was not even close to being the same anymore. The pictures were different. So, if they were trying to frame Avery with this sketch, believed to have been created from an old mugshot of Avery, it looks like they succeeded. In the show it is pointed out that due to the difference in mugshots, from present to past, it could be argued that the old mugshot was used to create the sketch. Then, further, it was stated that the case against Avery was made that night by members of the police department. Avery even explained that the sheriff stated that he had him now and further that the sheriff had all of the power. So, here I see a situation where an entire case was probably created against an individual with a rocky past because the police department seems to be focused on just getting a conviction, as fast as possible, instead of properly investigating the situation and trying to get justice for all parties. I think the goals of this police department were only to get a quick conviction instead of getting a conviction that yields justice for all parties and because of that I thought it was worth mentioning and the reason it was my favorite part.