I just basically wanted to know if this incident showed Boston's law enforcement and government how racist they really are? Didn't even have enough evidence. They just wanted to please the caucasian citizens of Boston because of the false lead given and in the 80's, they were just looking for an excuse to be more hands on anyway and got it approved by the government officials. If it wasn't for ONE caucasian male coming forward with some truth, they would have never looked elsewhere and I believe the search for this mysterious black male would become more dangerous for black men in Boston. Sad.
2 Reviews
Another true crime show with some good moments and a lot of padding
On_The_Mark28 July 2022
This is another true crime show in the same format as shows like Snapped and Ice Cold Blood and many others out there. The "gimmick" for this one is the 80s had the most "deadly" crimes of any decade. This of course isn't remotely true, the 80s had no more "deadly" crime than any other decade and the fact they have a show with the same name but for the 90s kind of counteracts against this claim.
That said, it has the same "slow motion" recreations going on in the background while someone talks that a lot of the other true crime shows have. The narrator is good for this show and that's a big plus because a lot of these shows get terrible narrators. The big problem of course, as with shows like Snapped, is the show is a 30 minutes show stretched out to an hour (actually 21 minutes stretched out to 42). Lots and lots of padding. Lots of unnecessary background stuff and points of the investigation that go nowhere. Every show does 12-13 minutes on the victim's background to start the show and most of it isn't necessary at all. It's annoying. Forensic Files is the only show that does this right - 30 minutes, boom, here's the facts.
The crimes are interesting but are hurt by dumb issues that someone running the show should not have allowed. One is some people involved in the case are laughing or smiling the whole time as they're talking about a terrible crime. The prosecutor of a terrible crime in the midwest where a family was butchered, he's practically cracking up as he speaks. This is an awful incident yet it seems really funny to him. Is this funny to you, idiot? I hated that guy and found it hard to watch. There are a few other people "interviewed" in these episodes who seem to think it's fun and hilarious to talk about a terrible crime.
Another problem and shows like Snapped do the same thing - they have people being "interviewed" about the case who give all kinds of details and are very passionate about the case - who have literally zero to do with it. The "Forensic Psychologist" who talks about a crime that clearly happened before she was born, but as if she was part of the case. Then she offers tidbit like "he was cross dressing. He knew she wouldn't like it and tried to keep it from her. This is not something she'd be happy about." Ya think? Thanks for that psychologist insight that us stupid people would never have realized on our own. Clearly people like this were given the facts of the just before they started taping and she talks as if she was very involved in the whole thing. It's irritating. This lady was in a couple episodes and clearly was put there because she's attractive and they needed another interviewee and no other reason (she adds zero to the actual show).
Another annoying thing they have in every episode is someone comes on screen and talks about the case but they don't tell you who this person is or what their connection to the case is until well into the episode. I'm watching going "I guess that was the bus driver? Be nice if they let us know."
Some of the episodes are even a little hard to follow. The Hari Krishna one was all over the place, I lost track of who was who and the fact it was so boring didn't help. Honestly, your episode is probably going to be as good as the crime is interesting. And if the show was produced better, it would be more interesting. Others have the actual killer and at the beginning they don't want us to know he's the eventual killer and the way he's talking, he's giving us the details of what he told the police (which were lies) but passing it off to us as fact at the beginning. Then later you find he's the killer and wonder what question was he responding to with his earlier statements in the episode. It's dishonest editing and I get they're trying to tell a story without giving away the killer but still, it's just odd.
Overall, I just watch these while I'm on the treadmill. This is not something I'd watch when just watching TV. I wanted to like the show better but again, make it 30 minutes, not an hour. Dump the people who weren't involved in the incident. I mean, the "neighbor" is fine for a few seconds but it appears they were even giving her things to talk about. And NONE of these shows ever need a "Forensic Psychologist" ever. Adds zero to the show (do not forget this particular one is very attractive of course). Stop people from smiling or laughing as they're talking. There is nothing funny here.
It does have its interesting aspects, if the show was only 30 minutes it'd be a very good show. Incidentally the Rebecca Shaffer episode was the best one and well done.
That said, it has the same "slow motion" recreations going on in the background while someone talks that a lot of the other true crime shows have. The narrator is good for this show and that's a big plus because a lot of these shows get terrible narrators. The big problem of course, as with shows like Snapped, is the show is a 30 minutes show stretched out to an hour (actually 21 minutes stretched out to 42). Lots and lots of padding. Lots of unnecessary background stuff and points of the investigation that go nowhere. Every show does 12-13 minutes on the victim's background to start the show and most of it isn't necessary at all. It's annoying. Forensic Files is the only show that does this right - 30 minutes, boom, here's the facts.
The crimes are interesting but are hurt by dumb issues that someone running the show should not have allowed. One is some people involved in the case are laughing or smiling the whole time as they're talking about a terrible crime. The prosecutor of a terrible crime in the midwest where a family was butchered, he's practically cracking up as he speaks. This is an awful incident yet it seems really funny to him. Is this funny to you, idiot? I hated that guy and found it hard to watch. There are a few other people "interviewed" in these episodes who seem to think it's fun and hilarious to talk about a terrible crime.
Another problem and shows like Snapped do the same thing - they have people being "interviewed" about the case who give all kinds of details and are very passionate about the case - who have literally zero to do with it. The "Forensic Psychologist" who talks about a crime that clearly happened before she was born, but as if she was part of the case. Then she offers tidbit like "he was cross dressing. He knew she wouldn't like it and tried to keep it from her. This is not something she'd be happy about." Ya think? Thanks for that psychologist insight that us stupid people would never have realized on our own. Clearly people like this were given the facts of the just before they started taping and she talks as if she was very involved in the whole thing. It's irritating. This lady was in a couple episodes and clearly was put there because she's attractive and they needed another interviewee and no other reason (she adds zero to the actual show).
Another annoying thing they have in every episode is someone comes on screen and talks about the case but they don't tell you who this person is or what their connection to the case is until well into the episode. I'm watching going "I guess that was the bus driver? Be nice if they let us know."
Some of the episodes are even a little hard to follow. The Hari Krishna one was all over the place, I lost track of who was who and the fact it was so boring didn't help. Honestly, your episode is probably going to be as good as the crime is interesting. And if the show was produced better, it would be more interesting. Others have the actual killer and at the beginning they don't want us to know he's the eventual killer and the way he's talking, he's giving us the details of what he told the police (which were lies) but passing it off to us as fact at the beginning. Then later you find he's the killer and wonder what question was he responding to with his earlier statements in the episode. It's dishonest editing and I get they're trying to tell a story without giving away the killer but still, it's just odd.
Overall, I just watch these while I'm on the treadmill. This is not something I'd watch when just watching TV. I wanted to like the show better but again, make it 30 minutes, not an hour. Dump the people who weren't involved in the incident. I mean, the "neighbor" is fine for a few seconds but it appears they were even giving her things to talk about. And NONE of these shows ever need a "Forensic Psychologist" ever. Adds zero to the show (do not forget this particular one is very attractive of course). Stop people from smiling or laughing as they're talking. There is nothing funny here.
It does have its interesting aspects, if the show was only 30 minutes it'd be a very good show. Incidentally the Rebecca Shaffer episode was the best one and well done.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
