MovieChat Forums > Unbelievable (2019) Discussion > Another famous case about people lying u...

Another famous case about people lying under police coercion

posted 5 years ago by MovieMadness (117)
9 replies | jump to latest

Coercive police technique would sometimes lead to people telling the truth, but as this excellent show shows, sometimes it would lead to lies. There was another celebrated case on this same subject. In 1997 four *grown men* in Virginia folded under relentless police questioning and confessed to rape crimes they didn't commit. Their confessions described all the sex acts, timing, planning, etc. in minute detail, and yet none of it was true. This case was covered in a 90-minute PBS documentary, which can be seen on the PBS streaming app. Look up the show "Frontline," go to Season 2010, Episode 16, "The Confessions." Those who have seen "Unbelievable" may also want to see this too.

In this case, and also the Marie Adler case depicted in "Unbelievable," a person would become so distraught and vulnerable that, in their minds, making up stories to put him or herself in extreme disadvantage would seem a better way out than enduring further pressure. A truly unimaginable tragedy indeed.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Yeap, the problem is while most of rape cases, people who lied under police coercion where men coerced to confess being rapist when they weren't... however, Netflix chooses to portray one case when a woman was coerced to confess not having being raped when she was.

It's quite interesting to compare with 'When they see us'. Both cases deal with police wrongdoing, but... while in this case Netflix supports that the lack of evidence should be dismissed and she should have been believed nonetheless, in the other series Netflix supports that the lack of evidence should be considered and they shouldn't have been charged.

The answer to this contradiction is that the basic moral element for Netflix is not 'presumption of innocence is key, evidence is required' but 'special groups should be protected'. The unexpected consequence of changing the paradigm according to Netflix is that much police wrongdoing would happen. You can check it in any non-protestant country.

[–] MovieMadness (117) 5 years ago

You gotta realize that sometimes a disadvantaged group doesn't need protection, and sometimes it DOES. In some professions women outnumber men by 8 to 1, and in the NBA black men outnumber white men by N to 1. Why don't men (and white men in the latter case) complain? That's because even with the discrepancy they DON'T FEEL DISADVANTAGED, and that they feel they have the same opportunities (provided they have the abilities) to succeed in those fields. The point is, do you truly feel "disadvantaged" by someone or a group, or do you simply feel SLIGHTED when someone or a group offer to help others but not you?

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Your argument has a very important flaw: right now western countries are multicultural societies.

What I mean?

Each culture has a different relation with the act of complaining. In protestant cultures, for example, people are not supposed to complain unless they really think it's an unfair situation. In north-east Asian cultures, people are not supposed to complain, period, unless they're in a hierarchically superior position and they're lecturing somebody. In Muslim cultures, on the contrary, complaining is regarded as part of a negotiation, you complain as much as you can if you think that could give you a better deal.

If your country is (mostly) monocultural, your argument would make sense. But if your country is multicultural, complains means nothing and gives zero information, because it'll depend more on the cultural background than on the real situation.

[–] MovieMadness (117) 5 years ago

But sometimes the cultural background IS the real situation.

Again, if someone's grievance doesn't involve you, don't feel slighted. And don't make up convoluted logic to dismiss it. Not everything good in this world has to involve you.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Again, if someone's grievance doesn't involve you, don't feel slighted. And don't make up convoluted logic to dismiss it. Not everything good in this world has to involve you.

Again, don't assign to me words I haven't said.

I haven't said or suggested that 'anything good in this world has to involve me', what I have said is that in a multicultural society with different cultural backgrounds highly represented, the level of complain is not an accurate or even valid way to measure the situation.

[–] MovieMadness (117) 5 years ago

The only complaint I see that is not valid for the situation is YOUR complaint, buddy.

Everyone who has made any complaint in the history of humankind did so because of their own PERSONAL reasons, wholly or in part.

Your complaints about this show being "political" and "special groups need protection" came from your PERSONAL feelings that you accumulated via your PERSONAL life, upbringing, and education. I didn't "assign" words to your comments; you assigned them yourself.

To make your personal beliefs valid to more people than you, you need convincing arguments, which you don't have.

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

I haven't said what you said or suggested I said.

Again, what I have said is that in a multicultural society with different cultural backgrounds highly represented, the level of complain is not an accurate or valid way to measure the situation, specially when it comes to compare people from different cultural backgrounds.

[–] Information-Police (4895) 3 years ago

If anything, white players have an advantage in the NBA. At least at one point they did, I don't follow closely anymore. But it used to be if you were a white and 7 ft tall, you'd be assured of a roster spot for a lot longer than your talent level called for.

I remember a guy, Chuck Nevins, 7'5" white guy - the original human victory cigar. Only can into a game in the closing minutes of a blow-out. 11 year NBA career!

[–] Information-Police (4895) 3 years ago

You are really mixing things up. In the Central Park 5 case you had innocent people coerced by police into confessing while evidence was disregarded.

In "Unbelievable", you had no defendent in the rape of Marie. The police weren't coercing anybody to congress to the rape. They coerced the victim to say they're was no rape.

A crime can be committed with little physical evidence left behind (although IIRC, there was actually evidence that was missed, in not sure). It doesn't mean there was no crime committed. How often does somebody get charged with false reporting when they're is nobody accused of the crime to be hurt by that alledged false report?

That's what I found to be outrageous. Or over of the outrageous things about the story.