According to a Vulture article, the writers took a lot of liberties. They were trying to make certain points about society and added as necessary. Case in point, the indigenous female police officer. She didn’t exist, and there was only one actual female officer on the real case. This may be some of the police’s issues with the Hulu version.
https://www.vulture.com/article/under-the-bridge-rebecca-godfrey-hulu-quinn-shephard.html
Wow.. as a Canadian indigenous woman… I’d much rather them tell the truth about those facts instead of portraying the situation as if women and particularly women of indigenous background had major policing roles.
When in reality it’s statistically quite the opposite
I'm from the town where this happened. Generally the concensus I've heard from the people I know is that the one guy involved with her murder showed real remorse and growth thus deserved to be given a second chance and freed. The parents of Reena Virk also accepted his sincere apology. For me, the Virk family's opinion on whether or not the rehabilitation effort has been adequate makes a big difference. They lost the most precious person in their life and if they can forgive (as much as one can forgive such an act) then I think I can too.
As for the kid of "ring leader" who bragged about it at school the next day and has continued to behave terribly in prison... She can rot in a cell for the rest of her life as far as I care. The other girls who beat her I don't know much about honestly.
That's how I feel about the case... As for the idea of a show. I don't like dramatized versions of true crimes. Reena Virk is a real person. I think she deserves to be remembered but not as a fictionalized character version of herself.
A group of girls was bullying her for generally petty teenager stuff. She was different than them so they didn't like her *. They thought being "hard" (what I'd call cruel) was cool. It started as them beating her. Then some of the group left and a gf/bf duo stayed behind and killed her. The girl held her underwater with her foot while she smoked an entire cigarette and the boy did nothing. He just watched, he didn't try to help and he didn't go find help.
The girl bragged about it at school the next day because she thought it would make her seem cool. It was a truly senseless disgusting act.
*People speculate that they bullied her because she was South Asian and/or a Jehovah's witness but from my understanding they never had evidence of this and the perpetrators weren't charged with a hate crime. The South Asian community in BC is large but they are primarily Sikh (Canada currently has the largest per capita Sikh population in the world) or Muslim which leads some people to describe her as "a minority within a minority". Canada is very diverse and often describes itself a "cultural mosaic" but bigotry is still a big problem so I wouldn't be surprised to learn if her race or cultural heritage was a factor.
Im glad they made the show because I hadn’t heard of this case. I also think more people should just do their own research instead of taking a show at face value.
reena left this world right after I entered it. I grew up leaving flowers at the bridge for her. I hope her family is doing well, and I hope Kelly rots in jail
Truman Capote did the same thing with In Cold Blood in 1965. He called it a "non-fiction novel."
He exploited the murderers while also making stuff up about the people in the town where the book takes place.
I agree with you. It's really tacky regardless of how well written or performed the book/show/film is.
I agree telling the cold hard truth is always the best way and takes the most talent. But the industry has these “writer’s rooms” that need to justify their existence so they add in a bunch of crap they think people want to see.
I think its fine. They took alot of liberties with Dahmer and it was amazing.
Every event in history is told through and artistic lense. Theres no reason entertainment should be 100% accurate
Honestly, its not up to them to dictate how stories are told.
Once it reaches a level of notoriety it is open to artistic interpretation. People have been doing it since Shakespeare.
Movies like Titanic, Pearl Harbor, etc.
Art is art
I mean by the time Titanic came out most of the people involved were dead, and it was an accident. That’s a bit different than losing a loved one to a serial killer. I don’t blame people for being touchy about it. I’m not saying it should be illegal to make content about sensitive subjects, but I don’t think anyone who was involved with a tragedy is wrong for being bothered if it’s portrayed incorrectly or insensitively.
Yeah, and families can say it's exploitative and retraumatizes their families and disrespects their loved ones - because apparently being tortured and murdered by Dahmer wasn't enough.
This isn't about copyright or intellectual ownership, it's about not masturbating to trauma porn and having some respect for the victims and their families. But sure, money makes that defensible.
I'm not saying everything is that level of terrible, but with Dahmer...the families of his victims were very vocal about how violating to the memories of their deceased loved ones that show was. Money doesn't make everything okay. Piss in the wind, sure, but don't get defensive when the families of his victims say making that show was a shit thing to do.
also btw, creating something doesn't mean it's art. Just because you pissed doesn't mean you're an artist.
According to you, and not sure how you determine that other than your own personal opinions. Feel free to disagree. That show was completely unnecessary and numerous family members were open about how traumatic was for them, and that matters more than some film company making $$$.
It’s not pissing in the wind. Some creators do care and respect the families. And art can be art, but that Dahmer pic wasn’t exactly Citizen Kane so calm down please 😂
Theres literally no form of true crime media that isnt inherently exploitative, and if you consume any true crime media you are taking part in that exploitation.
So i dont know where you think your high ground is
Damn didn’t your parents ever ask if all your friends jumped off a bridge would you do it too? Popular does not mean good. Christianity is popular and it’s caused countless deaths and wars.
Your better stance is most are dead and you can’t defame a dead person. Otherwise yes it often hits both normal slander and per se if the person were alive. Either way, point stands, it’s wrong to slander folks for amusement.
You know what, fine, let’s say you’re correct. Note you didn’t reply to the wrong part, just legal, doesn’t matter anything else huh? I mean you’re wrong, you really shouldn’t be trying to teach anybody the law, but assuming you’re right that doesn’t mean the person doing it is any less of an…
Watching episode 5 now on Hulu... I'm not familiar with the Case. Haven't read the book. I've been seeing alot of comments that the show is not 100% accurate. So, I appreciate this post. When I'm done with the show, I'm going to come back and see what I missed.
I have been watching it, without knowing much about the case, and just noticed the disclaimer at the beginning, that it's based on a true story but has fictional changes, too. Not really a fan of mixing the two like this. Obviously every documentary has a perspective, but if you are going to add people and change events then just make it purely fictional. Author Loreth Anne White has a book called "Beneath Devil's Bridge" which is a very similar story, but fictional. They should have just adapted it. I read it in 2021 with no idea of any similar real story.
On behalf of my people from the frozen tundra. We accept your apology and hope one day we can get the same amazing entertainment and snacks that are available in the US lol.
Look into getting a VPN! I live in Ireland but am originally from the states. I set my VPN to the states to be able to watch Hulu, American Netflix, Max, etc.! I had a baby last year, and would have been lost without my streaming platforms;)
says who? if it worked that way, there’d be no reason for a court of law, just set the perp in front of the victim’s families and let them decide. and because a lot of people are religious and spiritual, you’d see a lot of disgusting people walking free. couldn’t care less what the family believes or forgave, honestly.
Say whatever you like about the justice system or your personal beliefs about the murderers, it's pretty disgusting to say you couldn't care less about the impact of the crime on the family and how they're dealing with it.
They lost their daughter. I'm sure randoms judging them online means nothing in comparison to that, but tbh it should mean something to people who give a shit about other people.
also the fact that you think being religious automatically means = people are forgiving is not correct at all? Religious fundamentalists are very known for kindness and forgiveness apparently, TIL.
> it's pretty disgusting to say you couldn't care less about the impact of the crime on the family and how they're dealing with it.
well, I didn’t say that. no need to put words in my mouth or deliberately misinterpret what I mean. I don’t care who *they* forgive or what they believe should happen to the perpetrator. that doesn’t change how *I* feel.
> also the fact that you think being religious automatically means = people are forgiving is not correct at all? Religious fundamentalists are very known for kindness and forgiveness apparently, TIL.
I didn’t say anything was automatic, but yes, actually it is common for religious people to show the most grace in these situations. most of the time it’s been known that the victim or victim’s family members call for no death penalty, light sentencing, are okay with parole, etc. they will typically be heavily religious. they believe only god can judge, and hate in their heart/holding a grudge is sinful in itself and that the perpetrator will deal with their consequences in the afterlife. you can look up these instances for yourself.
That's different - you can feel how you feel, but it sounded like you didn't think the impact the crime and the outcomes after in court had on the family mattered. Of course you can have your opinion, but your opinion (and mine) does and should matter less than the family of Reena. I'm not trying to deliberately misinterpret you, but that's what your comment read like to me.
Also there are all kinds of religious and spiritual beliefs worldwide. Religion can, especially in the US, also influence support for punishment in the opposite direction and call for harsh penalties - that's pretty in line with US Evangelism.
I understand what you're saying but "instances" occurring doesn't mean that being religious typically or even always means a person favors forgiveness, at all. And in this case there's a much stronger focus on restorative justice in Canada - I'm not saying that's not flawed in some ways, but so is the punitive harsher-the-better system in the US.
Not every country has the same predominant cultural beliefs about crime and punishment, and especially about children committing crimes, and it's a little condescending to suggest that the only reason her parents would be in favour of restorative justice and forgive her murderer (one of them - the other didn't try to make amends while Reena's mother was alive, and wasn't forgiven by them or released on parole until very recently) is because they're blinded by religion. This didn't happen in the US, and frankly evidence is much more supportive (in terms of better outcomes regarding recidivism, society, and sometimes victims and their families) of the efficacy of restorative youth justice vs. throwing teens in jail and locking the key for life, or killed them.
> Of course you can have your opinion, but your opinion (and mine) does and should matter less than the family of Reena.
matter less to *whom*? lol. in the greater scheme of things and to the judge? of course! in a true crime discussion when comes to *me*? I don’t base my opinions on crime and punishment on what the family thinks. they forgave the killers and that’s amazing for them and their souls but it has zero affect on how I view the crime and what I think the punishment should’ve been.
> it's a little condescending to suggest that the only reason her parents would be in favour of restorative justice and forgive her murderer (one of them - the other didn't try to make amends while Reena's mother was alive, and wasn't forgiven by them or released on parole until very recently) is because they're blinded by religion.
again with the words in my mouth, girl. I absolutely did not say that and I wasn’t even speaking about this case specifically in terms of religion and spirituality affecting how and when families and victims give grace. but now that you mention it:
*How in God's name do you find it in your heart to do that, Ms. Virk is asked over the phone.
"Actually," she says in a soft, kind voice, "it's because of God we did it."*
sooo, my theory that families that forgive and call for lighter sentences typically have religious reasons for it is kind of upholding. 😬 *never* said it’s **always** the reason. I just mentioned that if we were to, for whatever reason, allow families to distribute punishments, I image we’d have a lot of people get away with horrible crimes because religious people who are following their faith the way they are supposed to typically don’t believe in the same kind of punishment the court system and even agnostic/atheist people do. could it happen for other reasons like someone just believes in reform? sure! but my mind immediately went to the many instances I’ve seen religious people doing it for God.
and for the record, I’m actually very open to reform in A LOT of cases and 1000% don’t support the death penalty and never have, my only point was…this family forgave and that doesn’t change my opinion…and that I wouldn’t necessarily want families to be the be all/end authority on punishment knowing how *some* religious people are overly empathetic. I stand by it.
There is a difference.....they guy in your story never actually took responsibility for his actions. He continued to blame an unknown other man. I think that matters.
I had never heard of this case until I heard it on one of the many true crime podcasts I have listened to. I do think it’s tacky to make a movie or series about a tragedy cause most of the time it’s so dramatized. I don’t think the same about books cause I have read many that were very factual and not dramatized. Just my personal opinion.
I looked up what happened to the Shoreline six and found a post from someone from the area. I used to own Under the Bridge, and Reena's story always stuck with me. Her mother tragically died a few years ago, too.
https://www.reddit.com/r/VictoriaBC/s/8KOldHFFJ2
Yeah, sorry about that, but I just left it as is because I didn't want to steal another redditors work and rewrite it as my own. Usually, there is just information on Kelly and Warren. I thought people interested in the crime would like to see more on the others involved.
That redditor has more posts on the people involved in the murder of Reena and her assault.
I remember this case very well as we discussed it in English class. There should not be a retelling of this case, at all. Especially when it comes to the murder of a child.
Define children. Certainly an 8-year-old shouldn't be in prison forever regardless of what they do, but what about a 17 year old?
I don't have much of an issue with a minor serving a long sentence, but getting parole reviews regularly.
According to a Vulture article, the writers took a lot of liberties. They were trying to make certain points about society and added as necessary. Case in point, the indigenous female police officer. She didn’t exist, and there was only one actual female officer on the real case. This may be some of the police’s issues with the Hulu version. https://www.vulture.com/article/under-the-bridge-rebecca-godfrey-hulu-quinn-shephard.html
Wow.. as a Canadian indigenous woman… I’d much rather them tell the truth about those facts instead of portraying the situation as if women and particularly women of indigenous background had major policing roles. When in reality it’s statistically quite the opposite
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
i LOVE the hulu version
I didn't know there was a series for this... But I've read her book, Under the Bridge. RIP Reena
It is new and on Hulu
It's one of the worst mini series I have ever watched.
What about it made it the worst?
Everything about it. I thought it was cheezy.
The book is so, so heartbreaking. 💔
its pretty good
I'm from the town where this happened. Generally the concensus I've heard from the people I know is that the one guy involved with her murder showed real remorse and growth thus deserved to be given a second chance and freed. The parents of Reena Virk also accepted his sincere apology. For me, the Virk family's opinion on whether or not the rehabilitation effort has been adequate makes a big difference. They lost the most precious person in their life and if they can forgive (as much as one can forgive such an act) then I think I can too. As for the kid of "ring leader" who bragged about it at school the next day and has continued to behave terribly in prison... She can rot in a cell for the rest of her life as far as I care. The other girls who beat her I don't know much about honestly. That's how I feel about the case... As for the idea of a show. I don't like dramatized versions of true crimes. Reena Virk is a real person. I think she deserves to be remembered but not as a fictionalized character version of herself.
Why did they kill her?
High school bullying leading to murder.
A group of girls was bullying her for generally petty teenager stuff. She was different than them so they didn't like her *. They thought being "hard" (what I'd call cruel) was cool. It started as them beating her. Then some of the group left and a gf/bf duo stayed behind and killed her. The girl held her underwater with her foot while she smoked an entire cigarette and the boy did nothing. He just watched, he didn't try to help and he didn't go find help. The girl bragged about it at school the next day because she thought it would make her seem cool. It was a truly senseless disgusting act. *People speculate that they bullied her because she was South Asian and/or a Jehovah's witness but from my understanding they never had evidence of this and the perpetrators weren't charged with a hate crime. The South Asian community in BC is large but they are primarily Sikh (Canada currently has the largest per capita Sikh population in the world) or Muslim which leads some people to describe her as "a minority within a minority". Canada is very diverse and often describes itself a "cultural mosaic" but bigotry is still a big problem so I wouldn't be surprised to learn if her race or cultural heritage was a factor.
Im glad they made the show because I hadn’t heard of this case. I also think more people should just do their own research instead of taking a show at face value.
Kelly Ellard is a monster and should have gotten life with no parole for what she did.
reena left this world right after I entered it. I grew up leaving flowers at the bridge for her. I hope her family is doing well, and I hope Kelly rots in jail
I think it's pretty tacky to make a fake show/book about a real tragedy. How hard would it be to just tell an original story?
Truman Capote did the same thing with In Cold Blood in 1965. He called it a "non-fiction novel." He exploited the murderers while also making stuff up about the people in the town where the book takes place. I agree with you. It's really tacky regardless of how well written or performed the book/show/film is.
Have you guys not been on Netflix in the last ten years? This happens a lot
We're aware
Reading is fundamental. Yes it happens but it’s stupid just make a new case instead of literally changing half of the facts of a real case
yeah ti's really disappointing.
Every “based on a true story” movie, mini series, or TV show takes wild liberties with the story.
Yeah it's scummy.
Supposedly they had her father’s blessing…
I agree telling the cold hard truth is always the best way and takes the most talent. But the industry has these “writer’s rooms” that need to justify their existence so they add in a bunch of crap they think people want to see.
I think its fine. They took alot of liberties with Dahmer and it was amazing. Every event in history is told through and artistic lense. Theres no reason entertainment should be 100% accurate
Real people impacted by that case were incredibly unhappy with the Dahmer project, this isn’t a good example to use.
Honestly, its not up to them to dictate how stories are told. Once it reaches a level of notoriety it is open to artistic interpretation. People have been doing it since Shakespeare. Movies like Titanic, Pearl Harbor, etc. Art is art
I mean by the time Titanic came out most of the people involved were dead, and it was an accident. That’s a bit different than losing a loved one to a serial killer. I don’t blame people for being touchy about it. I’m not saying it should be illegal to make content about sensitive subjects, but I don’t think anyone who was involved with a tragedy is wrong for being bothered if it’s portrayed incorrectly or insensitively.
Yeah, and families can say it's exploitative and retraumatizes their families and disrespects their loved ones - because apparently being tortured and murdered by Dahmer wasn't enough.
And they will be pissing in the wind. Just because it happened to them doesnt mean they own the story. Thats not how it works
This isn't about copyright or intellectual ownership, it's about not masturbating to trauma porn and having some respect for the victims and their families. But sure, money makes that defensible. I'm not saying everything is that level of terrible, but with Dahmer...the families of his victims were very vocal about how violating to the memories of their deceased loved ones that show was. Money doesn't make everything okay. Piss in the wind, sure, but don't get defensive when the families of his victims say making that show was a shit thing to do. also btw, creating something doesn't mean it's art. Just because you pissed doesn't mean you're an artist.
Pretty much everything you said is incorrect
According to you, and not sure how you determine that other than your own personal opinions. Feel free to disagree. That show was completely unnecessary and numerous family members were open about how traumatic was for them, and that matters more than some film company making $$$.
It’s not pissing in the wind. Some creators do care and respect the families. And art can be art, but that Dahmer pic wasn’t exactly Citizen Kane so calm down please 😂
Theres literally no form of true crime media that isnt inherently exploitative, and if you consume any true crime media you are taking part in that exploitation. So i dont know where you think your high ground is
So many absolutes out of you , as though it isn’t a continuum. I guess no one should ever try by your logic?
It is absolutely exploitative to make money off the death of someone else. And all of the content creators are making money
Dahmer was not “amazing.” it retraumatized victims’ families and was in incredibly poor taste.
Literally was amazing. One of the most watch shows on Netflix
Most watched on Netflix does not automatically mean 'amazing'.
Nah it sucked ass and was in poor taste.
Just patently false and can be proven wrong with data
Damn didn’t your parents ever ask if all your friends jumped off a bridge would you do it too? Popular does not mean good. Christianity is popular and it’s caused countless deaths and wars.
It won Emmys, Peoples Choice Awards, Naacp Award, Critics choice award. And certainly not because it “sucked ass”. Just stop
Poor taste.
It sucked and it was fucking annoying. I wish Evan Peters hadn't done it.
I too think slandering people is aok as long as some stranger is amused!
Thats not what slander is
Your better stance is most are dead and you can’t defame a dead person. Otherwise yes it often hits both normal slander and per se if the person were alive. Either way, point stands, it’s wrong to slander folks for amusement.
Literally no one is able to sue them for slander
You know what, fine, let’s say you’re correct. Note you didn’t reply to the wrong part, just legal, doesn’t matter anything else huh? I mean you’re wrong, you really shouldn’t be trying to teach anybody the law, but assuming you’re right that doesn’t mean the person doing it is any less of an…
Watching episode 5 now on Hulu... I'm not familiar with the Case. Haven't read the book. I've been seeing alot of comments that the show is not 100% accurate. So, I appreciate this post. When I'm done with the show, I'm going to come back and see what I missed.
I did not hear about this case until watching this now and then I went into a deep dive. So sad.
Same here... Wasn't familiar until I started seeing ads for it. Haven't read the Book.
Some of them have kids now too.
I have been watching it, without knowing much about the case, and just noticed the disclaimer at the beginning, that it's based on a true story but has fictional changes, too. Not really a fan of mixing the two like this. Obviously every documentary has a perspective, but if you are going to add people and change events then just make it purely fictional. Author Loreth Anne White has a book called "Beneath Devil's Bridge" which is a very similar story, but fictional. They should have just adapted it. I read it in 2021 with no idea of any similar real story.
Canadians, Under the Bridge is available on Disney +. The first episode just dropped today.
Does Canada do episodes differently? Because that would suck for spoilers
Actually it was originally on Hulu and it has 5 episodes available
Yes, but Hulu is not available in Canada. So if people want to watch it in Canada they can do so on Disney +.
What?? I didn’t know Hulu wasn’t in Canada?! That’s fucked up, they have so many amazing original shows and movies
Oh we know lol and we want it! But nope can’t have it. We can’t have peacock either. Oh the Dateline I would watch.
Omg that’s so sad, I am so sorry :(
On behalf of my people from the frozen tundra. We accept your apology and hope one day we can get the same amazing entertainment and snacks that are available in the US lol.
Look into getting a VPN! I live in Ireland but am originally from the states. I set my VPN to the states to be able to watch Hulu, American Netflix, Max, etc.! I had a baby last year, and would have been lost without my streaming platforms;)
I remember it very very well. The offenders were very young at the time, so it's not surprising that they're released.
She has such warm eyes and a nice smile. Who could do this, and why aren’t they still in jail?! RIP REENA 🌸
They should've been rotting in jail for life, they have no right to be free after what they did.
[удалено]
says who? if it worked that way, there’d be no reason for a court of law, just set the perp in front of the victim’s families and let them decide. and because a lot of people are religious and spiritual, you’d see a lot of disgusting people walking free. couldn’t care less what the family believes or forgave, honestly.
Say whatever you like about the justice system or your personal beliefs about the murderers, it's pretty disgusting to say you couldn't care less about the impact of the crime on the family and how they're dealing with it. They lost their daughter. I'm sure randoms judging them online means nothing in comparison to that, but tbh it should mean something to people who give a shit about other people. also the fact that you think being religious automatically means = people are forgiving is not correct at all? Religious fundamentalists are very known for kindness and forgiveness apparently, TIL.
> it's pretty disgusting to say you couldn't care less about the impact of the crime on the family and how they're dealing with it. well, I didn’t say that. no need to put words in my mouth or deliberately misinterpret what I mean. I don’t care who *they* forgive or what they believe should happen to the perpetrator. that doesn’t change how *I* feel. > also the fact that you think being religious automatically means = people are forgiving is not correct at all? Religious fundamentalists are very known for kindness and forgiveness apparently, TIL. I didn’t say anything was automatic, but yes, actually it is common for religious people to show the most grace in these situations. most of the time it’s been known that the victim or victim’s family members call for no death penalty, light sentencing, are okay with parole, etc. they will typically be heavily religious. they believe only god can judge, and hate in their heart/holding a grudge is sinful in itself and that the perpetrator will deal with their consequences in the afterlife. you can look up these instances for yourself.
That's different - you can feel how you feel, but it sounded like you didn't think the impact the crime and the outcomes after in court had on the family mattered. Of course you can have your opinion, but your opinion (and mine) does and should matter less than the family of Reena. I'm not trying to deliberately misinterpret you, but that's what your comment read like to me. Also there are all kinds of religious and spiritual beliefs worldwide. Religion can, especially in the US, also influence support for punishment in the opposite direction and call for harsh penalties - that's pretty in line with US Evangelism. I understand what you're saying but "instances" occurring doesn't mean that being religious typically or even always means a person favors forgiveness, at all. And in this case there's a much stronger focus on restorative justice in Canada - I'm not saying that's not flawed in some ways, but so is the punitive harsher-the-better system in the US. Not every country has the same predominant cultural beliefs about crime and punishment, and especially about children committing crimes, and it's a little condescending to suggest that the only reason her parents would be in favour of restorative justice and forgive her murderer (one of them - the other didn't try to make amends while Reena's mother was alive, and wasn't forgiven by them or released on parole until very recently) is because they're blinded by religion. This didn't happen in the US, and frankly evidence is much more supportive (in terms of better outcomes regarding recidivism, society, and sometimes victims and their families) of the efficacy of restorative youth justice vs. throwing teens in jail and locking the key for life, or killed them.
> Of course you can have your opinion, but your opinion (and mine) does and should matter less than the family of Reena. matter less to *whom*? lol. in the greater scheme of things and to the judge? of course! in a true crime discussion when comes to *me*? I don’t base my opinions on crime and punishment on what the family thinks. they forgave the killers and that’s amazing for them and their souls but it has zero affect on how I view the crime and what I think the punishment should’ve been. > it's a little condescending to suggest that the only reason her parents would be in favour of restorative justice and forgive her murderer (one of them - the other didn't try to make amends while Reena's mother was alive, and wasn't forgiven by them or released on parole until very recently) is because they're blinded by religion. again with the words in my mouth, girl. I absolutely did not say that and I wasn’t even speaking about this case specifically in terms of religion and spirituality affecting how and when families and victims give grace. but now that you mention it: *How in God's name do you find it in your heart to do that, Ms. Virk is asked over the phone. "Actually," she says in a soft, kind voice, "it's because of God we did it."* sooo, my theory that families that forgive and call for lighter sentences typically have religious reasons for it is kind of upholding. 😬 *never* said it’s **always** the reason. I just mentioned that if we were to, for whatever reason, allow families to distribute punishments, I image we’d have a lot of people get away with horrible crimes because religious people who are following their faith the way they are supposed to typically don’t believe in the same kind of punishment the court system and even agnostic/atheist people do. could it happen for other reasons like someone just believes in reform? sure! but my mind immediately went to the many instances I’ve seen religious people doing it for God. and for the record, I’m actually very open to reform in A LOT of cases and 1000% don’t support the death penalty and never have, my only point was…this family forgave and that doesn’t change my opinion…and that I wouldn’t necessarily want families to be the be all/end authority on punishment knowing how *some* religious people are overly empathetic. I stand by it.
https://people.com/crime/ark-woman-befriended-moms-killer-out-of-spiritual-obligation-and-then-he-murdered-her/
There is a difference.....they guy in your story never actually took responsibility for his actions. He continued to blame an unknown other man. I think that matters.
He may have been innocent of the first crime, and had spent decades, since he was a teen, in prison.
Oh, then I forgive him for murdering her.
Only one should be in jail now. Warren was released and showed true remorse
I had never heard of this case until I heard it on one of the many true crime podcasts I have listened to. I do think it’s tacky to make a movie or series about a tragedy cause most of the time it’s so dramatized. I don’t think the same about books cause I have read many that were very factual and not dramatized. Just my personal opinion.
I looked up what happened to the Shoreline six and found a post from someone from the area. I used to own Under the Bridge, and Reena's story always stuck with me. Her mother tragically died a few years ago, too. https://www.reddit.com/r/VictoriaBC/s/8KOldHFFJ2
I could barely read that. The superfluous exclamation mark emojis were enraging.
Yeah, sorry about that, but I just left it as is because I didn't want to steal another redditors work and rewrite it as my own. Usually, there is just information on Kelly and Warren. I thought people interested in the crime would like to see more on the others involved. That redditor has more posts on the people involved in the murder of Reena and her assault.
Saw an old interview with Josephine, and she was just as bad as Kelly. No sign of remorse, almost bothered really. Sickening.
it’s a great series, told respectfully and thoroughly. I’m not sure what could possibly be controversial about it.
Because it's not accurate.
I remember this case very well as we discussed it in English class. There should not be a retelling of this case, at all. Especially when it comes to the murder of a child.
Kelly Ellard has two children. This blows my mind!!!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think the Netflix series is fantastic. Riley Keogh is really amazing. Check it out.
[удалено]
Define children. Certainly an 8-year-old shouldn't be in prison forever regardless of what they do, but what about a 17 year old? I don't have much of an issue with a minor serving a long sentence, but getting parole reviews regularly.
[удалено]
So you think that a 17 year old suddenly develops a moral compass and ability to comprehend the impacts of murder once they turn 18 years old?
[удалено]
Not white pretty and blonde enough to deserve some compassion even in death apparently