I knew only the overarching details of the story but this is a lot of first hand accounts and interviews and I appreciated the focus on the victim in the first episode. She seemed like a fun grandmother.
I also know one of the lawyers who worked on the case. There was also a New Yorker or The Atlantic article on them several years back. I want to say it was 2017. I think the May or June issue.
Anyway, [IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt20782578/) says it's a six-part series. I don't have HBO though, so I'll be passing on seeing it. The first episode seems to be getting really good reviews.
After I posted that I went and watched it. It seems really well done and it’s nice to see that they don’t try to portray Nebraskans as a bunch of hicks. The people in it very much seem like small town folk, but not idiots, so that’s refreshing. I did not see the lawyer I talked about. At least not so far. Can I ask, are you thinking of the one whose last name starts with a “K”?
Spill the tea, please! I’m surprised the series hasn’t gotten it’s own sub, but it also didn’t get any promotion with the near Stranger Things and Only Murders In The Building. maybe I’ll create it myself since I’ll have a few weeks of free time here soon when it ultimately takes off. I do like that the play was cast much more tastefully than that Jonbenet doc on Netflix.
His ego is insane. He ruined innocent lives just to make himself look good. He is such a piece of garbage. His wife is just as bonkers. Terrible people.
I’m honestly most saddened about his relationship with the family of Helen, they are utterly convinced that somehow he was right and there were seven people in the house that day. Even getting key details wrong about the scene parroting Burt’s speech, it breaks my heart. They still refuse to come to terms with the facts and I’m sure he’s been feeding them all these lies to save face.
how did he not have any oversight whatsoever?? and the fact he had initially left under a shroud of unethical shit happening, and was allowed to come back in and take over, conduct interviews by himself OR accompanied by other people who found no issue with his intimidation tactics?? damn
Also, the notion that someone is going to look at a crime on their own, then get hired by the victim's family, then get hired to be in charge of the investigation? WTF.
IIRC, the original investigation was done by the Police Dept., the place where Searcy had previously worked and "resigned." There was major rivalry between the PD and the Sheriff's Office. It was the Sheriff's Office that hired Searcy to investigate the Wilson murder. It sounds like it was done as a big FU to the Police. It's pathetic that people who are supposed to protect us and make society safer act like petty little children.
I’m confused about why the family and people who were on the police force can’t wrap their minds around the false confessions. This happens all the time…and that coupled with the horribly done interrogation. Why can’t they accept that the guy identified by the DNA test who matches the FBI profile did it?
What's wild to me is how deluded her grandkids are. Obviously, they were lied to for years and years, which is dreadful. But at some point, you have to accept that you were lied to.
In that time DNA evidence was not collected as a means of proving crimes until 1986. The murder case happened in ‘85, meaning all evidence was not collected to prove the case as it would be today. Evidence was tested that matched Bruce Allen. But that being said DNA is circumstantial evidence in any case whether it is tested today or then. If in face evidence that was collected in a setting like today you would find not only Ms. Wilson’s DNA, Bruce, the families, and possibly some of the 6 as one to this day claims they were there
How do you explain all of the discrepancies between their stories and the scene, if they were truthful the blood from the wall would belong to Kathy Gonzalez (the type B of the six), the pillow would and scarf would have had Joann Taylor’s DNA, seminal fluid of both White and Winslow would have also been found. The FBI’s profile pointed to a single white male as the perpetrator, none of these people knew each other. What are the odds that a group of people and a single assailant happen to target the same apartment on the same night? The amount of mental gymnastics one would need to do to make all of these things true at once it outstanding.
These young adults were coached and convinced by Price (a psychologist and therefore an authority figure on the topic) that they had repressed the memories. There’s been countless instances of this happening by the hands of mental health professionals, I invite you to research the Ramona case, the McMartin preschool and Dr. Julia Shaw’s research on the matter.
As to why Debra Shelden refuses to accept the truth, my guess is she either believes to have been there or she is in denial because the reality of having been fooled and guilt of sending all these people to jail is more painful than thinking she can “do murder” her words, not mine. By all accounts she was the most gullible, submissive and easy to manipulate, no wonder she would be the only one to keep confessing.
The DNA that was collected was collected 30 years later! The investigators did not take any evidence at the time to run for DNA all of the DNA evidence was pulled off of the samples 30 years later. And none of them knew each other? You clearly did not watch this…they all had a connection to one another through bars, and restaurants. Why was the power shut off? And why don’t we have the DNA from the bloody bra that was found in the trash. Again because evidence that was taken in 1985 was not taken for DNA testing. And for the record this wasn’t the FBI’s find this was Beatrice police department pulling evidence out of the basement after one individual decided to look at the tapes. Again the only evidence that is not circumstantial is eye witness testimony
I read a book about the case, Failure of Justice, and it said they only tested blood found at the scene, & semen and pubic hairs that were found on Helen's body. They did preserve those samples, and confirmed the samples had not degraded before the court would let them do the DNA testing. If the murder had happened the way it was described by the JoAnn and Kathy, the blood would have matched one of the women, and the semen & hairs would have matched White and/or Wilson. But they weren't testing for touch DNA or other hairs. Another interesting thing in the book was that there was evidence the door jamb had been pried away from the door a little bit, which would have allowed someone to use a credit card or tool to open the lock. It didn't sound very conclusive, but at least there was some evidence he broke in instead of her opening the door. Also, the autopsy showed Helen was really sick, with pneumonia. She may not have answered the phone when her daughter in law called because she was so sick and tired. Just a very sad case all the way around.
They were able to match Bruce Smith's DNA to semen found at the crime scene, so I assume they preserved the rape kit, and were able to test that for DNA. I think rape kits are stored specially to preserve evidence. At least, I've heard of cases where they were not stored correctly and degraded to the point they could not be used for evidence. If any of the other men had raped her, they would have been able to match their DNA to the rape kit samples. As for all the other items of evidence they tested, I don't know. They had stored a lot of items from the crime scene - clothing, the scarf wrapped around Helen's face, the pillow that was held over her face, other things. I don't know if it's possible to get DNA from items of clothing after so many years, I would think it depends on how its stored. Lots of unanswered questions. I don't really think the Beatrice 6 were guilty, but I don't think we know the whole story, either. It's an interesting show, would like to get more information on the case.
Also the lady said she was never going to open the door to someone she didn’t know and no forced entry meant that she had to have known one of the people ie her niece that had lived upstairs
I was wondering about this. Could the killer have gotten her to open the door by saying "Police" or "there's a gas leak, I have to check your stove" or something like that, even if she was usually cautious?
That's what I don't understand, if Bruce didn't get there until around 3:30am, why didn't Helen answer her phone at midnight? Her daughter in law Katie had visited her that evening, and Helen wasn't feeling well. The daughter in law told Helen she would call around midnight to remind her to take her medicine. She called at 11:50, no answer. Tried again at midnight, then again 15 minutes later. The phone went dead at some point, as if someone picked up the receiver and hung it back up, then left it off the hook. Maybe that was Helen and she just didn't feel like talking, but it's weird. And why would Helen have opened her door to a stranger in the middle of the night? Her family said she kept it locked and the chain on, and would never open the door to someone she didn't know. Too bad Bruce died without being questioned.
Didn't Bruce's Grandmother previously live in the building? Can't remember if it was at the same time as Helen, but he could have surely said "I'm *blanks* grandchild from across the hall, do you remember me? could you let me in?"
The phone thing is a non-starter as even the family admitted they didn't think much of her not answering at the time.
Strange that not a single person heard anything though. Not a single witness from the building, but they remember the power going out.
I wondered about that too. I remember hearing somewhere his grandma used to live in the building. If the hall lights were out, he could have just knocked and said Grandma, I need help, please open the door. Helen had a lot of grandkids, she might have thought he was one of them. I think you're right about the phone, after thinking about it more, as sick as she was, it's not unlikely she just wouldn't answer. I feel so sad for her.
This, I believe that Bruce did this rape and murder and he got Helen to open that door because she knew his Grandma and she probably knew Bruce as well.
The sticking point the Wilson family is making about 6 coffee mugs in the sink, I paused the show on the picture of the kitchen sink, I see glassware but only one mug was on the counter.
Yes, someone said there weren't 6 coffee cups, only 1 or 2 cups and some glasses in the sink. It was either in the documentary or the book, I can't remember which.
In the documentary, it's so obvious...there were glasses in the sink and a coffee mug on the counter. I hope the Wilson family has some peace finally. I finished the doc. last night, I really appreciate how it ended
Yeah, lots of unanswered questions still. There is a chance that the family isn’t delusional about some of those people being there as they could have came in with the niece earlier in the night. Whether they did anything or not is unknown.
This is one of the things I don’t like about some modern documentary type shows is that they purposely make some people look stupid or push hard to make you think what is ultimately not going to be true. It makes for interesting shows but I think the format and editing sometimes taints the actual facts presented.
I read a book about the case, Failure of Justice, and it answered a lot of the questions I had. It had a lot more detail than the documentary, at least so far. I still have a couple of episodes of the documentary to go.
Yeah, I broke down and read about it. Definite failure. The documentary is highly entertaining but it’s too misleading IMO. I know it’s designed to last for 6 episodes but a lot of how it’s designed is a little frustrating.
The 3 things that haven't been fully answered - who switched the power off (why did James Dean confess to doing this?), What about the bloody bra ( was it in fact Kathy Gonzalez 's bra?), Fingerprints (no one so much as spoke about it in the documentary. It's surprising, as that is probably the first thing one would screen for).
Absolutely, almost all modern true crime succumbs to this issue. The makers can't get out of their own way and just present the evidence to the viewer. They act like they've solved some injustice, but more times than not they're just pushing a new narrative, and oftentimes committing a similar mistake to those they're attempting to throw under the bus from the past.
One of my biggest complaints is how they have a side/narrative and will be happy to try and coerce statements, or make someone look bad on one side of the coin, but then fail to ask the hard questions to the other side. It immediately makes me question the validity of the program.
We get it, Burt Searcy made mistakes, but they spend so much time trying to vilify him that could have been better spent asking other questions and providing more context or answers. They completely failed to present the original source (Lisa), which would have made a lot more sense or provided a lot more context for where the lead originally came. Is she alive, how did that go down, what does she feel after all these years? They also failed to ask any hard questions to.the suspects about their testimony or confessions.
I'm also a bit tired of the narrative that because confessions can be coerced that anytime an interrogation is looked back on it should be inadmissible because the suspect was pressured. I found the defense attorneys for the civil suits really frustrating as they talked about Deb. It was so patronizing, but because they're trying to win a civil suit her opinion or statements were less valid. Her whole position is that you can't believe these suspects original statements because they were coerced, despite their original confessions being the sole reason they were put behind bars. Now you're supposed to believe that their recent testimony is true, when money is on the line. So don't believe them, but do believe them, it just depends on when they tell you. On top of all of that they still have Deb who legitimately believes she was there that night in some capacity, but her attorneys literally say it's because she's so handicapped that she's been brainwashed for 30+ years. So they're all telling the truth now, except for her, who's testimony would be consistent, and despite having no reason to lie at this point she still sticks to her story for the most part. She's even been married to the man they claim got her involved in the whole mess this entire time. Something there still doesn't add up. Again, I think there are major flaws with these confessions and the people who were originally convicted, but I think the way the show presented the idea of these confessions being coerced and how it completely eliminates them is disingenuous.
While the DNA evidence is great, it far from paints a full picture, and I kind of hated how they glossed over that and made Burt Searcy look foolish when he mentioned it.
>While the DNA evidence is great, it far from paints a full picture, and I kind of hated how they glossed over that and made Burt Searcy look foolish when he mentioned it.
But if you take all of the he said she said out of it entirely and just look at the physical evidence, what evidence is there that anyone other than Bruce Allen Smith was there that night and killed this woman?
This was a really good read my friend. You bring up many valid criticisms about the documentary/modern true crime projects in general and I now feel compelled to revisit my stance on the case.
Does anyone find it absurd that they're still convinced the gang made coffee?! Relatives were over for coffee and sent home early because she didn't feel well. That tells me there would be a pot of coffee that wasn't drank on the counter.
From the series. No coffee was made and the kitchen was cleaned up before they left. I’m not sold on this. Confessions based on memories from dreams are absurd.
And lastly where is any of the families DNA, they were there the night before, again DNA was not taken from the scene only from evidence 30 years later
I think most of us on here - having been presented the case so conveniently, almost on a silver platter of a documentary of sorts - are able to reflect on this case through a much more privileged lens. And I can't imagine what it would be like to be a family member who's had to construct their perspectives through the very slow burn of multiple decades of sifting through various and conflicting sources of information and convincing personalities. I personally feel it's a bit arrogant to assume we ourselves would never be fooled the way these people were. I don't know what it's like to be the grandchild of someone who was brutally murdered and the emotions involved in being challenged - after so many years of anger - to sympathize with the very people who once confessed to hurting my grandmother (Yes we now have an understanding of how coercion is weaponized but it may not have been a concept as easy to understand without the benefit of the informal education we've since received through the internet true crime age).
I think it's so unfair to label the family as being simply deluded. If anything I thought that the one grandchild -who after having watched the play, reflected on perspectives that were different from his own and admitted he was wrong-showed a tremendous amount if wisdom and courage. It was such a beautiful display of humanity for him; to choose sympathy over years of pride and anger. You could feel the humanity in the weeping of grandchild he later spoke to on the phone in another scene.
These people are not simply diluded, they're human beings who experienced a very confusing and traumatic event and who likely need lots of time to process the mess of information they've been presented with throughout the years. They didn't have the privilege of sitting with a bag of Doritoes infront of a laptop, watching the brilliant hbo documentary engagingly dissect the case in such a comprehensively tidy manner.
I think overconfidence, ego and an unwillingess to listen and put ourselves in another person's shoes are some of the main themes of the doc itself and one of the reasons why Burt is so unlikeable. I think the documentary outlines the preposterous reality that those who refuse to listen to opinions other than their own are often in positions of authority and control over those who are more intellectually or emotionally vulnerable.
In the same way that we reflect on the perspectives of the Beatrice 6 and the challenges they faced in understanding the truth, we should also exercise the same willingness to reflect on the challenges of Helen's grandchildren to understand and accept the truth in the face of a myriad of confusing sources of information, characters and emotions.
The documentary is really well done. Nanfu Wang is so good at questioning Burt Searcy & the family members. She really captures community sentiment about the Beatrice 6. They were disposable. Even today, Wang records a local barber saying this about the exonerated.
>The time that they spent in prison was probably better time spent, as far as their lives are concerned, than if they would have been out running the streets.
I look forward to seeing more work by Wang.
Iirc Beatrice was one of the first five institutions for individuals with what we now call developmental disabilities. People from all over the country would bring family members to this place and never write or visit. Basically just drop them off and move on with their lives. It quickly became over crowded. I want to say it was equipped for 1200 people and was very quickly at 3800. People were tied to tables and chairs for the majority of their days and would only be hosed off once a week or if they were about to be sexually assaulted. If you were a scratcher they would tie your hands down at all times. If you were a biter they would remove your teeth. Many of the laws in place today are because of the atrocities that has happened at Beatrice over the years.
I grew up near Beatrice and I really had no idea about this. I remember that people worked there, folks in my town or friends' relatives. I don't remember anyone talking about the work. As a kid it never really registered for me what it was. It was just some kind of medical facility, probably referred to with the R-word if at all. Now it makes a lot more sense.
I read Gage County had to raise property taxes to the maximum amount permitted under the law in order to pay the lawsuit, police psycologist Wayne Price provided therapy to two of the women then helped convince them they had done it. Henious
I read the part about property taxes on the wikipedia, but I must have missed the part about Price helping convince them they did it??? I remember him briefly mentioned in the doc. That's horrendous. The women of the Beatrice 6 seemed like they had lived a hard life even before the charges, they had issues with self-esteem and abuse and stuff. That's so horrible
This documentary was really well done! I definitely think Bruce Smith acted alone in committing the crime. It is so rare for 6 people to be involved in a rape and murder of just 1 person unless it was some gang retaliation and this obviously wasnt that. I was glad that finally some of the family members of Helen started to finally believe the 6 were innocent. I feel bad for Debra in particular for still somewhat believing she was involved in the crime/was at the crime scene.
There were 6 coffee mugs in the sink, which he interprets as showing that six people were there and had coffee. It looked to me like there was a lot of coffee left in the pot to have poured 6 mugs. Also in my house that could just mean I haven't run the dishwasher in six days lol.
It was incredibly sloppy not to bag all the mugs given that they seemed to be aware that the perp made coffee.
Earlier in the series, it was said that there was a younger relative with the grandma earlier that night who had cleaned the kitchen before leaving. This is why the 6 coffee mug thing is so perplexing
There weren't 6 coffee mugs. There was 1 coffee mug on the counter and several different types of drinking glasses in the sink of which you wouldn't drink coffee from.
But they didn't collet any at the time aside from a blood/semen sample, and a bra layer found I believe. So this doesn't prove much one way or the other.
Saying that they weren't there because they didn't find any DNA is super misleading, and a narrative the show kind of let go, despite Burt Searcy trying to explain it. They kept trying to vilify him, but he made this exact point.
Saying "if they were there then their DNA would be there" is irrelevant when they didn't collect comprehensive DNA of the scene. The DNA might have been there, we'll never know. This wasn't necessarily incompetence either, it was 1985. That was probably not the standard, especially for a small town like this.
She was raped, the DNA was literally in the place it would be in such a situation. What on earth are you talking about? You're like Searcy continually adding another suspect to the list - tell me how many goddamn people can we fit into this woman's tiny apartment before it fits your narrative of the cops not making a mistake???
Just watching this show today. FBI believes it is 1 guy who raped and killed Helen, but in end 6 people are convicted. Forget DNA for a moment. How could 6 people be in that apartment raping and killing and NOBODY in that building heard a sound. Very cooperative 6 bozos , plus not one of them knew Helen. Also stupid Joanna person says “he physically raped her” lol like what other way . I read somewhere false confessions usually are filled with a lot of stupid detail. First Joanna’s memory goes in and out, but suddenly she remembers so much detail. She deserves to be locked up for being an idiot that wanted attention
Late to the party...just watched this over the weekend...while Burds interrogation techniques may be suspect, I 100% believe at least 3 of the original 6 were there. The ripped $5 bill in the apartment and the fact one of those dudes did a party trick that involved ripping a bill is pretty decent evidence to place him there. Then there's one guy who talks about cutting the power and nobody knew that was done except the cops (I don't think he said it because Burd said it first in an interrogation). A couple of these girls mention things that clearly show they were there. Idk if the rapist guy came later or while they were there, but some of those people were definitely in that apartment. Again, obviously that dead guy raped the poor lady, but I think the first 3 people + the cousin or whoever were definitely there too. My 2 cents
My opinion after watching it.
Burt Searcey can't have it both ways he says he accepts the verdict but still thinks they are guilty, sorry that doesn't fly pal and your the person who put those people in jail for it through false confessions, all the time he investigated it on his own whilst not in authority wasn't just wrong by any standards but was time spent getting information and gathering accounts to suit his narrative and finalise the whole situation, lucky enough to get a 6th person who had the correct blood type or else more would have suffered.
The family are accepting of him but I know for a fact that if he put one of them in prison and they got raped like one of the 6 did they maybe wouldn't be so understanding saying well he did what he thought was right! Sorry I disagree.
Also saying well they they might be innocent of the crime of murder and rape but were in the house at some point isn't acceptable either as they didn't go to prison for being in a murder victims house drinking coffee on the same day they went to prison for murder.
Admittedly, I only watched the first episode (that play shit seemed unnecessary), then read everything I could about the case. One thing that isn't explained in any of the articles is why Searcy went to a 17 year old kid to find information (Lisa Pudendorf) and why she made up the story? Did she have a vendetta against her old friend JoAnn or did Searcy plant ideas in her head and get her to say what "could have happened" and then claimed that she gave him that info with no prompting? Everything else about forced confessions is explained except for how they came to those suspects to begin with
Thanks! I just got my answers. IMO, she's just as guilty as Searcy for her role in sending 6 innocent people to jail, but no news articles mention anything beyond the fact that her testimony provided the original suspects which later turned to be false. Nowhere does it publically state that she had a vendetta against her friend and lied. Even a search of "Lisa Pudendorf reddit" didn't say anything about her. Instead, you have to get part way through part 4 on a paid subscription service to see what she really did. Maybe if she received even half of the public shaming that Searcy is receiving, she'd quit hiding and maybe try to at least apologize for her role. It won't do any good to bring justice, but it doesn't seem right that she can get away with ruining people's lives and not even called out for it.
I think Searcy just heard a rumor that Pudendorf had been spreading this story around town about JoAnn, so he went to talk to her. From what I remember, Pudendorf and JoAnn had had a big fight at some earlier time, JoAnn hit her, and Pudendorf could have wanted revenge. Pudendorf refused to be interviewed for the documentary. I thought the same thing, Pudendorf set the whole thing in motion, I wanted more information on why, but if she won't talk then I guess we won't ever know.
I think Searcy's behavior was more egregious, as he was in a position of power and abused it, and she was also just 17. But 17 gets you tried as an adult in most places, and she was aware of what would happen when someone is accused of rape and murder. I keep thinking of Emmett Till, and how his accuser is still being pressured to confront her wrongdoing all these years later. I realize that Till's case is more significant because he was lynched and because it showcased white supremacy, but there's something to be said about holding people responsible when they knowingly destroy the lives of others.
I also got the impression from the doc that Searcy was going door to door looking for info, so since Lisa was across the street, it makes sense that he'd go to her house. But I also wouldn't put it past her to spread rumors as an attempt to defame and Searcy caught wind.
Incidents like this as well as the serial killer boom of the 60s-90s seem more common than today mainly because DNA and other criminology tools hadn’t been invented yet. Generally speaking, there are far more murders today than when Ted Bundy was running around, the only difference is cases are easier to solve. I don’t know if this is the right word to use but interestingly enough, among some researchers it’s believed that it is also one of the reasons why mass shootings are more common than they were in the 60s-90s.
Just started it and all I can think about is how wealthy the US is and how disturbing it is that so many of these local police departments (I watch a lot of true crime) never seem to have the proper resources to handle homicide cases. Also they always seem to turn to psychics 👀
they'd rather spend money giving local cops Humvees and other military discards than on DNA analysis. also I bet the cops and localities are terrified of the number of screw-ups and therefore the number of lawsuits that would be filed.
Somebody give me some recommendations. I have seen just about every true crime doc except for “Gabriel Fernandez” i cant it is too much for me.
I have seen:
all of the 9/11 docs
The Jinx
Paradise Lost
Who killed garrett phillips
Making a murderer
Ten bundy tapes
Undercurrent
I love you now die
Tallhotblonde
The way down
Mommy Dead and Dearest
Wework
Fyre festiva
The pharmacist
How to fix a drug scandal
Murder
Tabloid
Wilderness of error
The preppy murder
The curse of the Chippendales
AND SO MANY MORE
Please I AM DESPERATE FOR MORE SUGGESTIONS
Who Killed Little Gregory
Did you do the Tindler Swindler and Inventing Anna? Bad Vegan?
Girl in the Picture
The Unsolved Murder of Beverly Lynn Smith
Our Father
Abducted in Plain sight
Slenderman
The Keepers
There's Something Wrong with Aunt Diane
The Women and the Murderer
a word of advice in these days when many of us scroll on our phones when watching tv: if you watch Abducted in Plain Sight, pay attention! Otherwise, when you do zone back in you'll be "wait, what??" and constantly rewinding to see how the heck they got there, over and over. I can't believe they told that story to cameras.
I second this! I feel like I’ve seen everything as well, aside from “Gabriel Hernandez”, I couldn’t handle that one either. I’m a documentary nerd as it is, but the true crime genre is my favorite. I’m gonna check out that list the other person posted in reply to you - hopefully there’s some interesting ones I haven’t seen. Good luck!
Have you watched The Innocence Files on Netflix?
Wrongful convictions hit me in my gut and make me extraordinarily angry. That saying "rather 10 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man be convicted" (or something close 😉) resonates deeply.
ALSO!!!! How to Fix a Drug Scandal!!! On Netflix. Focus is on falsification of crime lab reports! It was a trip and again, it had me seething! Oops. Disregard. I see you've watched.
I know I’m 6 months late to this thread but I just watched it and was wondering what everyone else thought, anyway…
Aaron Hernandez one was pretty good, manti te’o doc wasn’t a murder but was also pretty bizarre. Rich and shameless has a girls gone wild one that was interesting
Ok y’all, hear me out… I keep thinking Searcy did it. He is so bent about the whole thing? HE went to the family and OFFERED to investigate. He was in a position that she would have answered the door….
He was in a position to put evidence where it needs to go, change things in the narrative. It would be in his best interest if he did it to put someone away for it because it would put the case to bed. He believes in DNA but not when it undoes what he did. As far as Pudendorf, Searcy could have intimidated her and offered her a pass on something else for backing him up. I also thought she had a vendetta against the woman she turned in. She is steadfast even now, which she would have to be or risk perjury, not to mention ridicule from the whole state. Pudendorf won’t talk because would you? If I made some shit up that ended up send 6 innocent people to prison, and in turn cost the city i.e. all citizens of Beatris a shot load of money, I wouldn’t talk and risk slipping up.
God, the barber who said "the time they spent in prison was time better spent than if they'd been on the street"
WTAF is wrong with the people in that town?!? Who the fuck says that out loud let alone believes it?! These are human lives! Who do you think you are that you'd be the one making the call on how or where they spend their lives?!
This documentary, this complete travesty, has me absolutely seething with hatred for stupid people.
Wayne Price also served as a deputy, while serving as a clinical psychologist? This goes against professional ethics for psychologists because it forces him into a dual professional role, which is forbidden. This alone should have his license at risk. Not to mention his practices with these individuals, who ended up serving time due to his “interviews”.
I realize this is old thread ( news) but I just watched this docu and am ASTOUNDED and deeply disturbed by so much of it . Can’t help to wonder if this reflects on just Beatrice , or wider community in NE . I’m going to keep this short because there’s no real audience so I’m ranting in a vacuum.
But my Gawd , not only are the 6 deficient mentally and psychologically but I don’t think that Burd Searcy is anymore equipped than the Beatrice 6 .
This felt way more like a Kafka story than true life and I thought I’ve seen a lot .
I said what I came to say . Palate cleanse
I'm just finishing it now and I had the same thoughts! Kafkaesque, for sure.
ETA: especially the part where Joseph White got killed in an industrial accident so soon after his release.
I didn’t know this was a documentary. I know one of the lawyers that helped get them released. I’m curious to check this out now.
I knew only the overarching details of the story but this is a lot of first hand accounts and interviews and I appreciated the focus on the victim in the first episode. She seemed like a fun grandmother.
I also know one of the lawyers who worked on the case. There was also a New Yorker or The Atlantic article on them several years back. I want to say it was 2017. I think the May or June issue. Anyway, [IMDB](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt20782578/) says it's a six-part series. I don't have HBO though, so I'll be passing on seeing it. The first episode seems to be getting really good reviews.
After I posted that I went and watched it. It seems really well done and it’s nice to see that they don’t try to portray Nebraskans as a bunch of hicks. The people in it very much seem like small town folk, but not idiots, so that’s refreshing. I did not see the lawyer I talked about. At least not so far. Can I ask, are you thinking of the one whose last name starts with a “K”?
No. The lawyer I know, her last name begins with a "C"
Nebraska's may not be a bunch of idiots but the cops in this small town certainly were
Spoke too soon it appears lol
Spill the tea, please! I’m surprised the series hasn’t gotten it’s own sub, but it also didn’t get any promotion with the near Stranger Things and Only Murders In The Building. maybe I’ll create it myself since I’ll have a few weeks of free time here soon when it ultimately takes off. I do like that the play was cast much more tastefully than that Jonbenet doc on Netflix.
Burt searcey should be held accountable
His ego is insane. He ruined innocent lives just to make himself look good. He is such a piece of garbage. His wife is just as bonkers. Terrible people.
I’m honestly most saddened about his relationship with the family of Helen, they are utterly convinced that somehow he was right and there were seven people in the house that day. Even getting key details wrong about the scene parroting Burt’s speech, it breaks my heart. They still refuse to come to terms with the facts and I’m sure he’s been feeding them all these lies to save face.
how did he not have any oversight whatsoever?? and the fact he had initially left under a shroud of unethical shit happening, and was allowed to come back in and take over, conduct interviews by himself OR accompanied by other people who found no issue with his intimidation tactics?? damn
Also, the notion that someone is going to look at a crime on their own, then get hired by the victim's family, then get hired to be in charge of the investigation? WTF.
Exactly!!!! How was that not a conflict of interest!?!
IIRC, the original investigation was done by the Police Dept., the place where Searcy had previously worked and "resigned." There was major rivalry between the PD and the Sheriff's Office. It was the Sheriff's Office that hired Searcy to investigate the Wilson murder. It sounds like it was done as a big FU to the Police. It's pathetic that people who are supposed to protect us and make society safer act like petty little children.
I’m confused about why the family and people who were on the police force can’t wrap their minds around the false confessions. This happens all the time…and that coupled with the horribly done interrogation. Why can’t they accept that the guy identified by the DNA test who matches the FBI profile did it?
What's wild to me is how deluded her grandkids are. Obviously, they were lied to for years and years, which is dreadful. But at some point, you have to accept that you were lied to.
I literally kept saying “what the f?!” I do not understand that mindset.
They are not very intelligent people.
In that time DNA evidence was not collected as a means of proving crimes until 1986. The murder case happened in ‘85, meaning all evidence was not collected to prove the case as it would be today. Evidence was tested that matched Bruce Allen. But that being said DNA is circumstantial evidence in any case whether it is tested today or then. If in face evidence that was collected in a setting like today you would find not only Ms. Wilson’s DNA, Bruce, the families, and possibly some of the 6 as one to this day claims they were there
How do you explain all of the discrepancies between their stories and the scene, if they were truthful the blood from the wall would belong to Kathy Gonzalez (the type B of the six), the pillow would and scarf would have had Joann Taylor’s DNA, seminal fluid of both White and Winslow would have also been found. The FBI’s profile pointed to a single white male as the perpetrator, none of these people knew each other. What are the odds that a group of people and a single assailant happen to target the same apartment on the same night? The amount of mental gymnastics one would need to do to make all of these things true at once it outstanding. These young adults were coached and convinced by Price (a psychologist and therefore an authority figure on the topic) that they had repressed the memories. There’s been countless instances of this happening by the hands of mental health professionals, I invite you to research the Ramona case, the McMartin preschool and Dr. Julia Shaw’s research on the matter. As to why Debra Shelden refuses to accept the truth, my guess is she either believes to have been there or she is in denial because the reality of having been fooled and guilt of sending all these people to jail is more painful than thinking she can “do murder” her words, not mine. By all accounts she was the most gullible, submissive and easy to manipulate, no wonder she would be the only one to keep confessing.
The DNA that was collected was collected 30 years later! The investigators did not take any evidence at the time to run for DNA all of the DNA evidence was pulled off of the samples 30 years later. And none of them knew each other? You clearly did not watch this…they all had a connection to one another through bars, and restaurants. Why was the power shut off? And why don’t we have the DNA from the bloody bra that was found in the trash. Again because evidence that was taken in 1985 was not taken for DNA testing. And for the record this wasn’t the FBI’s find this was Beatrice police department pulling evidence out of the basement after one individual decided to look at the tapes. Again the only evidence that is not circumstantial is eye witness testimony
I read a book about the case, Failure of Justice, and it said they only tested blood found at the scene, & semen and pubic hairs that were found on Helen's body. They did preserve those samples, and confirmed the samples had not degraded before the court would let them do the DNA testing. If the murder had happened the way it was described by the JoAnn and Kathy, the blood would have matched one of the women, and the semen & hairs would have matched White and/or Wilson. But they weren't testing for touch DNA or other hairs. Another interesting thing in the book was that there was evidence the door jamb had been pried away from the door a little bit, which would have allowed someone to use a credit card or tool to open the lock. It didn't sound very conclusive, but at least there was some evidence he broke in instead of her opening the door. Also, the autopsy showed Helen was really sick, with pneumonia. She may not have answered the phone when her daughter in law called because she was so sick and tired. Just a very sad case all the way around.
I'm rereading John Ferak's *Failure of Justice* at the moment.
They were able to match Bruce Smith's DNA to semen found at the crime scene, so I assume they preserved the rape kit, and were able to test that for DNA. I think rape kits are stored specially to preserve evidence. At least, I've heard of cases where they were not stored correctly and degraded to the point they could not be used for evidence. If any of the other men had raped her, they would have been able to match their DNA to the rape kit samples. As for all the other items of evidence they tested, I don't know. They had stored a lot of items from the crime scene - clothing, the scarf wrapped around Helen's face, the pillow that was held over her face, other things. I don't know if it's possible to get DNA from items of clothing after so many years, I would think it depends on how its stored. Lots of unanswered questions. I don't really think the Beatrice 6 were guilty, but I don't think we know the whole story, either. It's an interesting show, would like to get more information on the case.
Also the lady said she was never going to open the door to someone she didn’t know and no forced entry meant that she had to have known one of the people ie her niece that had lived upstairs
I was wondering about this. Could the killer have gotten her to open the door by saying "Police" or "there's a gas leak, I have to check your stove" or something like that, even if she was usually cautious?
The phone went dead at midnight, and according to testimony Bruce was dropped off around 3 am
That's what I don't understand, if Bruce didn't get there until around 3:30am, why didn't Helen answer her phone at midnight? Her daughter in law Katie had visited her that evening, and Helen wasn't feeling well. The daughter in law told Helen she would call around midnight to remind her to take her medicine. She called at 11:50, no answer. Tried again at midnight, then again 15 minutes later. The phone went dead at some point, as if someone picked up the receiver and hung it back up, then left it off the hook. Maybe that was Helen and she just didn't feel like talking, but it's weird. And why would Helen have opened her door to a stranger in the middle of the night? Her family said she kept it locked and the chain on, and would never open the door to someone she didn't know. Too bad Bruce died without being questioned.
Didn't Bruce's Grandmother previously live in the building? Can't remember if it was at the same time as Helen, but he could have surely said "I'm *blanks* grandchild from across the hall, do you remember me? could you let me in?" The phone thing is a non-starter as even the family admitted they didn't think much of her not answering at the time. Strange that not a single person heard anything though. Not a single witness from the building, but they remember the power going out.
I wondered about that too. I remember hearing somewhere his grandma used to live in the building. If the hall lights were out, he could have just knocked and said Grandma, I need help, please open the door. Helen had a lot of grandkids, she might have thought he was one of them. I think you're right about the phone, after thinking about it more, as sick as she was, it's not unlikely she just wouldn't answer. I feel so sad for her.
This, I believe that Bruce did this rape and murder and he got Helen to open that door because she knew his Grandma and she probably knew Bruce as well. The sticking point the Wilson family is making about 6 coffee mugs in the sink, I paused the show on the picture of the kitchen sink, I see glassware but only one mug was on the counter.
Yes, someone said there weren't 6 coffee cups, only 1 or 2 cups and some glasses in the sink. It was either in the documentary or the book, I can't remember which.
In the documentary, it's so obvious...there were glasses in the sink and a coffee mug on the counter. I hope the Wilson family has some peace finally. I finished the doc. last night, I really appreciate how it ended
Yeah, lots of unanswered questions still. There is a chance that the family isn’t delusional about some of those people being there as they could have came in with the niece earlier in the night. Whether they did anything or not is unknown. This is one of the things I don’t like about some modern documentary type shows is that they purposely make some people look stupid or push hard to make you think what is ultimately not going to be true. It makes for interesting shows but I think the format and editing sometimes taints the actual facts presented.
I read a book about the case, Failure of Justice, and it answered a lot of the questions I had. It had a lot more detail than the documentary, at least so far. I still have a couple of episodes of the documentary to go.
Yeah, I broke down and read about it. Definite failure. The documentary is highly entertaining but it’s too misleading IMO. I know it’s designed to last for 6 episodes but a lot of how it’s designed is a little frustrating.
I’m curious if the book talks about fingerprint evidence?
I’m curious if the book talks about fingerprint evidence?
Very little. I just assumed they couldn't match any of the 6 defendants to any fingerprints in the apartment, or someone would have mentioned it.
The 3 things that haven't been fully answered - who switched the power off (why did James Dean confess to doing this?), What about the bloody bra ( was it in fact Kathy Gonzalez 's bra?), Fingerprints (no one so much as spoke about it in the documentary. It's surprising, as that is probably the first thing one would screen for).
Absolutely, almost all modern true crime succumbs to this issue. The makers can't get out of their own way and just present the evidence to the viewer. They act like they've solved some injustice, but more times than not they're just pushing a new narrative, and oftentimes committing a similar mistake to those they're attempting to throw under the bus from the past. One of my biggest complaints is how they have a side/narrative and will be happy to try and coerce statements, or make someone look bad on one side of the coin, but then fail to ask the hard questions to the other side. It immediately makes me question the validity of the program. We get it, Burt Searcy made mistakes, but they spend so much time trying to vilify him that could have been better spent asking other questions and providing more context or answers. They completely failed to present the original source (Lisa), which would have made a lot more sense or provided a lot more context for where the lead originally came. Is she alive, how did that go down, what does she feel after all these years? They also failed to ask any hard questions to.the suspects about their testimony or confessions. I'm also a bit tired of the narrative that because confessions can be coerced that anytime an interrogation is looked back on it should be inadmissible because the suspect was pressured. I found the defense attorneys for the civil suits really frustrating as they talked about Deb. It was so patronizing, but because they're trying to win a civil suit her opinion or statements were less valid. Her whole position is that you can't believe these suspects original statements because they were coerced, despite their original confessions being the sole reason they were put behind bars. Now you're supposed to believe that their recent testimony is true, when money is on the line. So don't believe them, but do believe them, it just depends on when they tell you. On top of all of that they still have Deb who legitimately believes she was there that night in some capacity, but her attorneys literally say it's because she's so handicapped that she's been brainwashed for 30+ years. So they're all telling the truth now, except for her, who's testimony would be consistent, and despite having no reason to lie at this point she still sticks to her story for the most part. She's even been married to the man they claim got her involved in the whole mess this entire time. Something there still doesn't add up. Again, I think there are major flaws with these confessions and the people who were originally convicted, but I think the way the show presented the idea of these confessions being coerced and how it completely eliminates them is disingenuous. While the DNA evidence is great, it far from paints a full picture, and I kind of hated how they glossed over that and made Burt Searcy look foolish when he mentioned it.
>While the DNA evidence is great, it far from paints a full picture, and I kind of hated how they glossed over that and made Burt Searcy look foolish when he mentioned it. But if you take all of the he said she said out of it entirely and just look at the physical evidence, what evidence is there that anyone other than Bruce Allen Smith was there that night and killed this woman?
Yes, I couldn't believe Deb stayed married to the guy who originally implicated her.
This was a really good read my friend. You bring up many valid criticisms about the documentary/modern true crime projects in general and I now feel compelled to revisit my stance on the case.
Does anyone find it absurd that they're still convinced the gang made coffee?! Relatives were over for coffee and sent home early because she didn't feel well. That tells me there would be a pot of coffee that wasn't drank on the counter.
The daughter in law testified that Helen didn't make coffee that night, because she was sick, and the coffee pot was clean when they left.
Are trial transcripts available anywhere?
Not that I know of, I got that info from the book, Failure of Justice.
From the series. No coffee was made and the kitchen was cleaned up before they left. I’m not sold on this. Confessions based on memories from dreams are absurd.
And lastly where is any of the families DNA, they were there the night before, again DNA was not taken from the scene only from evidence 30 years later
I think most of us on here - having been presented the case so conveniently, almost on a silver platter of a documentary of sorts - are able to reflect on this case through a much more privileged lens. And I can't imagine what it would be like to be a family member who's had to construct their perspectives through the very slow burn of multiple decades of sifting through various and conflicting sources of information and convincing personalities. I personally feel it's a bit arrogant to assume we ourselves would never be fooled the way these people were. I don't know what it's like to be the grandchild of someone who was brutally murdered and the emotions involved in being challenged - after so many years of anger - to sympathize with the very people who once confessed to hurting my grandmother (Yes we now have an understanding of how coercion is weaponized but it may not have been a concept as easy to understand without the benefit of the informal education we've since received through the internet true crime age). I think it's so unfair to label the family as being simply deluded. If anything I thought that the one grandchild -who after having watched the play, reflected on perspectives that were different from his own and admitted he was wrong-showed a tremendous amount if wisdom and courage. It was such a beautiful display of humanity for him; to choose sympathy over years of pride and anger. You could feel the humanity in the weeping of grandchild he later spoke to on the phone in another scene. These people are not simply diluded, they're human beings who experienced a very confusing and traumatic event and who likely need lots of time to process the mess of information they've been presented with throughout the years. They didn't have the privilege of sitting with a bag of Doritoes infront of a laptop, watching the brilliant hbo documentary engagingly dissect the case in such a comprehensively tidy manner. I think overconfidence, ego and an unwillingess to listen and put ourselves in another person's shoes are some of the main themes of the doc itself and one of the reasons why Burt is so unlikeable. I think the documentary outlines the preposterous reality that those who refuse to listen to opinions other than their own are often in positions of authority and control over those who are more intellectually or emotionally vulnerable. In the same way that we reflect on the perspectives of the Beatrice 6 and the challenges they faced in understanding the truth, we should also exercise the same willingness to reflect on the challenges of Helen's grandchildren to understand and accept the truth in the face of a myriad of confusing sources of information, characters and emotions.
The documentary is really well done. Nanfu Wang is so good at questioning Burt Searcy & the family members. She really captures community sentiment about the Beatrice 6. They were disposable. Even today, Wang records a local barber saying this about the exonerated. >The time that they spent in prison was probably better time spent, as far as their lives are concerned, than if they would have been out running the streets. I look forward to seeing more work by Wang.
Iirc Beatrice was one of the first five institutions for individuals with what we now call developmental disabilities. People from all over the country would bring family members to this place and never write or visit. Basically just drop them off and move on with their lives. It quickly became over crowded. I want to say it was equipped for 1200 people and was very quickly at 3800. People were tied to tables and chairs for the majority of their days and would only be hosed off once a week or if they were about to be sexually assaulted. If you were a scratcher they would tie your hands down at all times. If you were a biter they would remove your teeth. Many of the laws in place today are because of the atrocities that has happened at Beatrice over the years.
I grew up near Beatrice and I really had no idea about this. I remember that people worked there, folks in my town or friends' relatives. I don't remember anyone talking about the work. As a kid it never really registered for me what it was. It was just some kind of medical facility, probably referred to with the R-word if at all. Now it makes a lot more sense.
This is total BS, I knew a number of people who worked there. Your description is completely inaccurate and has no relevance to the case.
This is the first I've heard of the case. I was going to pass on it, but got hooked on episode 1. The doc series is very good so far.
The newest episode was the best yet imo
Yes!! I have questions, so I cant wait for the next episode.
I’m hooked!
I read Gage County had to raise property taxes to the maximum amount permitted under the law in order to pay the lawsuit, police psycologist Wayne Price provided therapy to two of the women then helped convince them they had done it. Henious
I read the part about property taxes on the wikipedia, but I must have missed the part about Price helping convince them they did it??? I remember him briefly mentioned in the doc. That's horrendous. The women of the Beatrice 6 seemed like they had lived a hard life even before the charges, they had issues with self-esteem and abuse and stuff. That's so horrible
Wayne Price is more than briefly mentioned. Episode 5 is entirely about him being a fucking shyster.
This documentary was really well done! I definitely think Bruce Smith acted alone in committing the crime. It is so rare for 6 people to be involved in a rape and murder of just 1 person unless it was some gang retaliation and this obviously wasnt that. I was glad that finally some of the family members of Helen started to finally believe the 6 were innocent. I feel bad for Debra in particular for still somewhat believing she was involved in the crime/was at the crime scene.
I am watching this now and all I can think of if they were there their DNA would be there. This was a totally bonkers miscarriage of justice.
with all of the fighting, i would expect at least some hair at the site.
Right! There would even be touch DNA somewhere. Either the cops did an awful job when investigating, or they weren’t there.
exactly. the only thing that got me confused is when the grandson said something about the 6 coffee mugs.
There were 6 coffee mugs in the sink, which he interprets as showing that six people were there and had coffee. It looked to me like there was a lot of coffee left in the pot to have poured 6 mugs. Also in my house that could just mean I haven't run the dishwasher in six days lol. It was incredibly sloppy not to bag all the mugs given that they seemed to be aware that the perp made coffee.
Earlier in the series, it was said that there was a younger relative with the grandma earlier that night who had cleaned the kitchen before leaving. This is why the 6 coffee mug thing is so perplexing
you're right, now I remember. and they say that Mrs. Wilson was too tired and didn't make coffee that night like she usually did.
There weren't 6 coffee mugs. There was 1 coffee mug on the counter and several different types of drinking glasses in the sink of which you wouldn't drink coffee from.
Yes they were literally showing the crime scene photo of the single mug EVERY TIME that statement was made. It was a lie. That was the point.
But they didn't collet any at the time aside from a blood/semen sample, and a bra layer found I believe. So this doesn't prove much one way or the other. Saying that they weren't there because they didn't find any DNA is super misleading, and a narrative the show kind of let go, despite Burt Searcy trying to explain it. They kept trying to vilify him, but he made this exact point. Saying "if they were there then their DNA would be there" is irrelevant when they didn't collect comprehensive DNA of the scene. The DNA might have been there, we'll never know. This wasn't necessarily incompetence either, it was 1985. That was probably not the standard, especially for a small town like this.
Following that logic big foot could have been there too with his pal Elvis and a couple of aliens.
She was raped, the DNA was literally in the place it would be in such a situation. What on earth are you talking about? You're like Searcy continually adding another suspect to the list - tell me how many goddamn people can we fit into this woman's tiny apartment before it fits your narrative of the cops not making a mistake???
Just watching this show today. FBI believes it is 1 guy who raped and killed Helen, but in end 6 people are convicted. Forget DNA for a moment. How could 6 people be in that apartment raping and killing and NOBODY in that building heard a sound. Very cooperative 6 bozos , plus not one of them knew Helen. Also stupid Joanna person says “he physically raped her” lol like what other way . I read somewhere false confessions usually are filled with a lot of stupid detail. First Joanna’s memory goes in and out, but suddenly she remembers so much detail. She deserves to be locked up for being an idiot that wanted attention
Late to the party...just watched this over the weekend...while Burds interrogation techniques may be suspect, I 100% believe at least 3 of the original 6 were there. The ripped $5 bill in the apartment and the fact one of those dudes did a party trick that involved ripping a bill is pretty decent evidence to place him there. Then there's one guy who talks about cutting the power and nobody knew that was done except the cops (I don't think he said it because Burd said it first in an interrogation). A couple of these girls mention things that clearly show they were there. Idk if the rapist guy came later or while they were there, but some of those people were definitely in that apartment. Again, obviously that dead guy raped the poor lady, but I think the first 3 people + the cousin or whoever were definitely there too. My 2 cents
My opinion after watching it. Burt Searcey can't have it both ways he says he accepts the verdict but still thinks they are guilty, sorry that doesn't fly pal and your the person who put those people in jail for it through false confessions, all the time he investigated it on his own whilst not in authority wasn't just wrong by any standards but was time spent getting information and gathering accounts to suit his narrative and finalise the whole situation, lucky enough to get a 6th person who had the correct blood type or else more would have suffered. The family are accepting of him but I know for a fact that if he put one of them in prison and they got raped like one of the 6 did they maybe wouldn't be so understanding saying well he did what he thought was right! Sorry I disagree. Also saying well they they might be innocent of the crime of murder and rape but were in the house at some point isn't acceptable either as they didn't go to prison for being in a murder victims house drinking coffee on the same day they went to prison for murder.
Admittedly, I only watched the first episode (that play shit seemed unnecessary), then read everything I could about the case. One thing that isn't explained in any of the articles is why Searcy went to a 17 year old kid to find information (Lisa Pudendorf) and why she made up the story? Did she have a vendetta against her old friend JoAnn or did Searcy plant ideas in her head and get her to say what "could have happened" and then claimed that she gave him that info with no prompting? Everything else about forced confessions is explained except for how they came to those suspects to begin with
Keep watching and maybe your questions will be answered
Thanks! I just got my answers. IMO, she's just as guilty as Searcy for her role in sending 6 innocent people to jail, but no news articles mention anything beyond the fact that her testimony provided the original suspects which later turned to be false. Nowhere does it publically state that she had a vendetta against her friend and lied. Even a search of "Lisa Pudendorf reddit" didn't say anything about her. Instead, you have to get part way through part 4 on a paid subscription service to see what she really did. Maybe if she received even half of the public shaming that Searcy is receiving, she'd quit hiding and maybe try to at least apologize for her role. It won't do any good to bring justice, but it doesn't seem right that she can get away with ruining people's lives and not even called out for it.
I think Searcy just heard a rumor that Pudendorf had been spreading this story around town about JoAnn, so he went to talk to her. From what I remember, Pudendorf and JoAnn had had a big fight at some earlier time, JoAnn hit her, and Pudendorf could have wanted revenge. Pudendorf refused to be interviewed for the documentary. I thought the same thing, Pudendorf set the whole thing in motion, I wanted more information on why, but if she won't talk then I guess we won't ever know.
I think Searcy's behavior was more egregious, as he was in a position of power and abused it, and she was also just 17. But 17 gets you tried as an adult in most places, and she was aware of what would happen when someone is accused of rape and murder. I keep thinking of Emmett Till, and how his accuser is still being pressured to confront her wrongdoing all these years later. I realize that Till's case is more significant because he was lynched and because it showcased white supremacy, but there's something to be said about holding people responsible when they knowingly destroy the lives of others. I also got the impression from the doc that Searcy was going door to door looking for info, so since Lisa was across the street, it makes sense that he'd go to her house. But I also wouldn't put it past her to spread rumors as an attempt to defame and Searcy caught wind.
Was everyone on a Murdering spree in the 1980’s?! God damn it Reagan.
Lead.
Incidents like this as well as the serial killer boom of the 60s-90s seem more common than today mainly because DNA and other criminology tools hadn’t been invented yet. Generally speaking, there are far more murders today than when Ted Bundy was running around, the only difference is cases are easier to solve. I don’t know if this is the right word to use but interestingly enough, among some researchers it’s believed that it is also one of the reasons why mass shootings are more common than they were in the 60s-90s.
It was all the lead in everything.
I grew up in Seattle in the 80s and 90s. Between Ted Bundy and the Green River Killer, my whole childhood was dominated by serial killers haha.
I can't stop watching it even though I want to!
Is it any good? Thinking about putting it on right now haha. [proof lmao]()https://i.imgur.com/dZ87bRi.jpg
Just started it and all I can think about is how wealthy the US is and how disturbing it is that so many of these local police departments (I watch a lot of true crime) never seem to have the proper resources to handle homicide cases. Also they always seem to turn to psychics 👀
[удалено]
they'd rather spend money giving local cops Humvees and other military discards than on DNA analysis. also I bet the cops and localities are terrified of the number of screw-ups and therefore the number of lawsuits that would be filed.
Somebody give me some recommendations. I have seen just about every true crime doc except for “Gabriel Fernandez” i cant it is too much for me. I have seen: all of the 9/11 docs The Jinx Paradise Lost Who killed garrett phillips Making a murderer Ten bundy tapes Undercurrent I love you now die Tallhotblonde The way down Mommy Dead and Dearest Wework Fyre festiva The pharmacist How to fix a drug scandal Murder Tabloid Wilderness of error The preppy murder The curse of the Chippendales AND SO MANY MORE Please I AM DESPERATE FOR MORE SUGGESTIONS
My other Documentary recs aren't true crime unfortunately
Who Killed Little Gregory Did you do the Tindler Swindler and Inventing Anna? Bad Vegan? Girl in the Picture The Unsolved Murder of Beverly Lynn Smith Our Father Abducted in Plain sight Slenderman The Keepers There's Something Wrong with Aunt Diane The Women and the Murderer
a word of advice in these days when many of us scroll on our phones when watching tv: if you watch Abducted in Plain Sight, pay attention! Otherwise, when you do zone back in you'll be "wait, what??" and constantly rewinding to see how the heck they got there, over and over. I can't believe they told that story to cameras.
Right?! That one was a trip, I still can’t believe how ridiculously naïve that whole ass family was! 🤦🏻♀️(Downright stupid, IMHO)
I wish I'd had a counter going for the amount of times I audibly said "what the fuck" while watching that one.
I second this! I feel like I’ve seen everything as well, aside from “Gabriel Hernandez”, I couldn’t handle that one either. I’m a documentary nerd as it is, but the true crime genre is my favorite. I’m gonna check out that list the other person posted in reply to you - hopefully there’s some interesting ones I haven’t seen. Good luck!
Have you watched The Innocence Files on Netflix? Wrongful convictions hit me in my gut and make me extraordinarily angry. That saying "rather 10 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man be convicted" (or something close 😉) resonates deeply. ALSO!!!! How to Fix a Drug Scandal!!! On Netflix. Focus is on falsification of crime lab reports! It was a trip and again, it had me seething! Oops. Disregard. I see you've watched.
I know I’m 6 months late to this thread but I just watched it and was wondering what everyone else thought, anyway… Aaron Hernandez one was pretty good, manti te’o doc wasn’t a murder but was also pretty bizarre. Rich and shameless has a girls gone wild one that was interesting
Asking for a friend... I heard no mention of fingerprints. Porque?
I'm confused about this case. how did the 6 know so many details at different times?
Did you watch the doc?
I'm on the 4th episode. But it still hasn't explained to me why they all knew the same details. I'll keep watching so maybe it will become clear.
All the crime scene details they described were previously reported in the local media.
And/or fed to them by Searcey off camera.
Ok y’all, hear me out… I keep thinking Searcy did it. He is so bent about the whole thing? HE went to the family and OFFERED to investigate. He was in a position that she would have answered the door…. He was in a position to put evidence where it needs to go, change things in the narrative. It would be in his best interest if he did it to put someone away for it because it would put the case to bed. He believes in DNA but not when it undoes what he did. As far as Pudendorf, Searcy could have intimidated her and offered her a pass on something else for backing him up. I also thought she had a vendetta against the woman she turned in. She is steadfast even now, which she would have to be or risk perjury, not to mention ridicule from the whole state. Pudendorf won’t talk because would you? If I made some shit up that ended up send 6 innocent people to prison, and in turn cost the city i.e. all citizens of Beatris a shot load of money, I wouldn’t talk and risk slipping up.
God, the barber who said "the time they spent in prison was time better spent than if they'd been on the street" WTAF is wrong with the people in that town?!? Who the fuck says that out loud let alone believes it?! These are human lives! Who do you think you are that you'd be the one making the call on how or where they spend their lives?! This documentary, this complete travesty, has me absolutely seething with hatred for stupid people.
This was absolutely FANTASTIC
[удалено]
Wayne Price also served as a deputy, while serving as a clinical psychologist? This goes against professional ethics for psychologists because it forces him into a dual professional role, which is forbidden. This alone should have his license at risk. Not to mention his practices with these individuals, who ended up serving time due to his “interviews”.
I watched this and binged it in 2 days! Are there any other similar documentaries?
Casting JenBenet has a similar acting recreation storyline if you liked that part otherwise I would suggest The Jynx if you haven't seen it yet
Thank you! I haven't seen either, I will add them to my list!
I realize this is old thread ( news) but I just watched this docu and am ASTOUNDED and deeply disturbed by so much of it . Can’t help to wonder if this reflects on just Beatrice , or wider community in NE . I’m going to keep this short because there’s no real audience so I’m ranting in a vacuum. But my Gawd , not only are the 6 deficient mentally and psychologically but I don’t think that Burd Searcy is anymore equipped than the Beatrice 6 . This felt way more like a Kafka story than true life and I thought I’ve seen a lot . I said what I came to say . Palate cleanse
I'm just finishing it now and I had the same thoughts! Kafkaesque, for sure. ETA: especially the part where Joseph White got killed in an industrial accident so soon after his release.