True East Murder


The first two episodes "True East Parts 1&2" where two young men are found guilty of killing on of two's families.

Before i watched it i seen a lot of people over social media say they definitely did it...
I'm completely baffled as to how people have come to that conclusion if they watched both parts and actually paid attention. I think the evidence is pretty clear that they did not commit the murders and they were absolutely pressured into confession through intimidation and fear.

If they couldn't get let off with an inconsistent alibi then how can they be found guilty with an inconsistent confession?

I personally thought they were guilty throughout the first episode - the second episode makes their innocence much clearer.

reply

Of all the episodes, I came away from this one with the strongest feeling that they were indeed guilty. Not once during those hidden tape recordings did the boys deny involvement--not even initially. Sebastian in particular just used very careful wording. The 911 call was beyond bizarre. And I cannot get over the notion that an Islamic terrorist organization is going to send two hitmen to a home with presumably four individuals in it with nothing but A BASEBALL BAT. We're also supposed to believe that the terrorists took a shower in their home and on their way out decided they needed a VCR and a Walkman? Please.

reply

You're right that they didn't actually deny doing it on the tapes, but they were asked to tell them about the murder and he was initially responding with "They're saying we did it" or something along those lines. He may have used careful wording but the undercover cop certainly used careful wording also. I'm not sure i believe it was done by hitmen sent by an Islamic terrorist organisation - I honestly don't have a theory as to who done it.
My main reason for defending their innocence is their confession alone. Their confession is really inconsistent to what actually happened and they both said very different things.

Then of course the part where there is clear evidence of an unknown person definitely being in the house.
Their friend and supposed ally was definitely coerced into lying about what he knew - that is fact whether they are innocent or not.

The VCR and Walkman definitely confuse me and i don't understand why someone would take that but the inaccurate confession and evidence of someone being in the house really makes me question how guilty they actually are.

reply

They could have lied about the vcr and walkman because they were worried that they might be falsely accused if there were no clear signs of a burglary. A stupid thing to do but possible.

I think that they were innocent because of the fact there was NO physical evidence of them doing it, nothing.

One thing I would disagree with what they were saying is that they were smart, a smart person doesn’t confess to a triple murder.

reply

I was pretty clear to me they did it. They want to blame the Mounted
Police and Canada for tricking them, and use these silly arguments, but
the bottom line is they got outsmarted and rather easily.

The second episode to me sealed it. Who else could have done the murder.
Who benefited? Who had the motive, means and opportunity ... only these
psychopathic kids.

Why was their 911 phone call so weird without any mention of a murder, and
the burglary that was obviously fakes with nothing missing.

Unless you are the Pakistani kid's wife I cannot imagine how you would think
this pair is innocent.

reply

I'm just going to say it. EVEN if they really are guilty, the way they were prosecuted was fuckin absurd!

reply

Agreed..

reply

How can anyone think they are innocent? the amount of detail that burns went into. a bat. doing it naked. during the movie. i mean its ridic anyone thinks they are innocent.

reply