Were the cops really that tough on her?
There were other people doubting her take on things also.
shareThis series is based on this news piece:
https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story
MovieChat Forums > Unbelievable (2019) Discussion > Were the cops really that tough on her?
I wouldn't say anyone was particularly (or undeservedly) tough on her. The girl was messed up on the best of days, after the rape she spiraled, and for the detectives she just at some point became impossible to take seriously. I don't know that I would have been able to react any differently, if I were them, and I do think she got two decent ones on her case initially.
I mean, when the victim herself tells you she isn't sure it really happened, what more would you have the cops do? I'd have been pissed about the waste of resources, too. But I got the sense that initially they really were trying to help her.
To say that she was "assaulted" by the police, like they did towards the end of the show, was completely unfair. As was the girl suing the city - at least based on how the events are portrayed on the show. IMO.
I agree
I didn’t think the cops coerced a confession.
They’re just guilty of lazy police work as far as I could see
I wouldn't even say that. The girl kept going back and forth - those two detectives didn't leave every stone unturned, perhaps, like the two female detectives did later on, but I don't think it's fair to call them lazy. They did attempt to investigate in earnest.
Like the other commenters are saying, the girl just kept digging herself into a deeper hole. I mean, her own foster mothers didn't believe her.
Right
But in one of the last scenes in episode 8 , the original detective was looking at the crime scene photos and it appeared (to me) that he missed or overlooked some obvious red flags
I don't think that he did. I did wonder, however, why they never mentioned the rape kit on the show again, even though they showed the examination itself to us in detail. What were the findings?? Why was it not physically apparent that she was raped?
I thought the same thing
sharegood point
shareI completely agree with the analysis by exatera. In contrast to many shows that are chock full of bad people, this show is largely about people who are basically good but make some mistakes and they add up to create an ordeal for Marie. The worst people (other than the rapist) were Marie’s friends who took malicious glee in tormenting her when they found she had lied.
The first set of detectives wanted to do the right thing but naturally have to make lots of assumptions to guide their investigation. They made the wrong ones here and were too set on pressing her to be clear and confident - things she found real difficulty being. But to a point it was understandable, since they wanted to see how credible and reliable a witness she would be if they caught the guy and had to take him to trial. The real tragedy is how someone like Marie who is flaky and insecure (not at all surprising given her history and the impact the rape had on her) cannot always be their own advocate and end up getting themselves into a spiral of trouble.
FACT: The only lie she told was lying about being raped. Prove me wrong.
shareThat behaviour is standard for rape victims. Your big city Special Victims Unit's know the behaviour well. Only difference is the larger city units aren't so quick to call a woman a liar. They didn't support her. She should have received care in terms of physical and mental support. The woman who called the police to call into question the girl's story, had no right to do that and she knew the girl was in a delicate condition mentally. She should have been more supportive and understand what the girl, her own foster child, was going through. Doesn't matter if Marie was "messed up." The point is the police in effect bullied her forcing the recantation. Marie should have been supported. Not prosecuted. And that is the reason rape victims don't report. They're always afraid of being called liars. Now if real evidence had come forward that proved beyond a doubt she was lying, then and only then should action have been taken. But when the same kind of assaults are happening in other areas, these this police unit should have known about, their excuse is just that, an excuse.
shareWe are shown many instances of police incompetence throughout the show: a knife not found, a lab test not double-checked, the bureaucracy, the lack of communication, etc., right down to the end where the FBI agent nearly missed the hidden panties. So we are told in no uncertain terms what the filmmakers' "take" about the police is. There is no question this show represents some sort of indictment on the system.
To those who feel like engaging in a little victim-blaming, know that Marie's only "crime" was that she was distraught and vulnerable to the point that she felt lying to the police would end the pressure. Her only "crime" was not having a parent by her side to ease her distraught and vulnerable feelings like a normal teenager would have had. Her only "crime" was being put in system that was supposed to help her but didn't.
I just read the article. It is probably less dramatic and more objective than the show ( I have only seen two episodes). The original detectives made a mistake.
shareIt wasn't the cops fault. It was that horrid ex-foster mother who got the ball rolling. Also, Marie herself wasn't exactly a reliable witness. She was weird, flighty and impulsive and kept changing her story.
shareI've only watched Episode 1 so far, and she's already changed her story at least a half dozen times, admitted that she lied, admitted that she lied about lying, admitted that she lied about lying about lying, etc. No matter how competent and well-meaning the cops were (and they were), how the hell were they supposed to accomplish anything under those circumstances? The cops did nothing wrong.
shareFACT: The cops are rape apologists. Prove me wrong.
share