DGS49
Diamond Member
- Apr 12, 2012
- 16,418
- 14,362
Spoiler Alert: Don't read this if you are watching the series.
This is a four-part series set in England which combines some things that I find interesting, law, criminal justice, trial procedures, and so forth.
Basically, the story takes place in a courtroom. The prosecution has presented its case, and they have him dead to rights. He killed some petty drug dealer, and they have a mountain of evidence that incriminates him.
He has fired his defense attorney, and it is presented that he has the opportunity to make a closing statement in his own defense, although he is prohibited from introducing new evidence. He stands up and proceeds to narrate a tale that explains away all of the Prosecution's evidence, breaking the rules occasionally but getting away with it. By the time the story ends, he has explained everything and basically proven that he did not actually pull the trigger, although "we" in the audience don't know whether he is being entirely truthful in going through his narrative.
The final episode goes through three different versions of events, all of which contradict the tale he has told in court. It finally appears that his sister actually shot the bastard, but he made up his tale to divert attention away from her, and is risking a guilty verdict and a life sentence to save his sister.
But the conclusion - the jury's verdict - is presented BOTH WAYS, guilty and not guilty, and the audience has to decide which one we want to be the right one.
This is bullshit. It is all fiction, and we all know that, but the writer has an obligation to draw it to a conclusion. In this series they didn't do that. Fuck everyone involved.
This is a four-part series set in England which combines some things that I find interesting, law, criminal justice, trial procedures, and so forth.
Basically, the story takes place in a courtroom. The prosecution has presented its case, and they have him dead to rights. He killed some petty drug dealer, and they have a mountain of evidence that incriminates him.
He has fired his defense attorney, and it is presented that he has the opportunity to make a closing statement in his own defense, although he is prohibited from introducing new evidence. He stands up and proceeds to narrate a tale that explains away all of the Prosecution's evidence, breaking the rules occasionally but getting away with it. By the time the story ends, he has explained everything and basically proven that he did not actually pull the trigger, although "we" in the audience don't know whether he is being entirely truthful in going through his narrative.
The final episode goes through three different versions of events, all of which contradict the tale he has told in court. It finally appears that his sister actually shot the bastard, but he made up his tale to divert attention away from her, and is risking a guilty verdict and a life sentence to save his sister.
But the conclusion - the jury's verdict - is presented BOTH WAYS, guilty and not guilty, and the audience has to decide which one we want to be the right one.
This is bullshit. It is all fiction, and we all know that, but the writer has an obligation to draw it to a conclusion. In this series they didn't do that. Fuck everyone involved.
