Could Pamela Smart actually be innocent??

[Disney1fan2002]

Some of you may not know who I am talking about, but Pam Smart was tried and convicted on charges that she manipulated her teenage lover into killing her husband in 1990.

It was one of the 1st sensational trials on TV. Everyone had an opinion and it was all based on what they heard on the news every night. I admit, I was one of them. She was a cold hearted witch.

I came across a documentary on HBO yesterday called CAPTIVATED: The Trials Of Pamela Smart. It pulled me in. Now I have to wonder....it made me realize how much the media can influence public opinion.

So much was left out of that trial. Things we the viewer would never be made aware of. Makes you wonder if the prosecution was determined to make her the monster because it made for good TV.

I don't know. Before I saw this documentary, I would say without hesitation she was guilty. Now that I have seen it, I have to think about it. It is scary to think a criminal trial can be a "production" complete with script and actors.

 

[lorimay]

OK you have totally peaked my interest, I am going to watch.
Never in a million years would think of her as innocent!

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Interesting. Would be worth a watch, I guess.

But how sensationalistic is this particular show, in this day and age? You have to wonder...

I always felt so sorry for her poor husband.

 

[Magpie]

I don't know the Pamela Smart story (maybe it didn't make the news in my neck of the woods?).

But, I definitely think that the media influences public opinion, and different agencies will manipulate the media for different purposes. Just by way of example, look at the McDonald's Coffee case. McDonald's corporate PR folks utterly trashed that poor woman in the media, turning her into an object of scorn and ridicule. Their campaign against her was so effective, that to this day people STILL use her as an example of frivolous lawsuits.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

The thing is, the media is a powerful tool that can be used for good or evil. There's no overarching "agenda" - just a whole lot of individuals and groups with different messages they want to convey to the public, and media is the medium by which they get that message out. Sometimes that message is true(ish), and sometimes it isn't.

 

[Disney1fan2002]

Again, I'm not saying she is innocent, but I have to wonder. Pea-n-me, I had to think about that myself. How much of the documentary was "produced".

The thing that grabbed me, was the tearful testimony from William Flynn, her lover. He was on the stand crying saying he never would have killed Greg, he didn't want to kill Greg. Tears flowing. They interviewed a jail mate of Flynn's. He witnessed him smoking something in his cell. Flynn told him it helps with the tears. He said he was a virgin when he was with Pam But people have come forward to say he was not a virgin, he was well known with the girls. Him being a virgin makes her seem more of a monster, doesn't it?

 

[Disney1fan2002]

I don't know the Pamela Smart story (maybe it didn't make the news in my neck of the woods?).

But, I definitely think that the media influences public opinion, and different agencies will manipulate the media for different purposes. Just by way of example, look at the McDonald's Coffee case. McDonald's corporate PR folks utterly trashed that poor woman in the media, turning her into an object of scorn and ridicule. Their campaign against her was so effective, that to this day people STILL use her as an example of frivolous lawsuits.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

The thing is, the media is a powerful tool that can be used for good or evil. There's no overarching "agenda" - just a whole lot of individuals and groups with different messages they want to convey to the public, and media is the medium by which they get that message out. Sometimes that message is true(ish), and sometimes it isn't.

EXACTLY!!! If the public were allowed to see the pictures of her "burns"...there is no way they would have called this frivolous.

 

[Magpie]

EXACTLY!!! If the public were allowed to see the pictures of her "burns"...there is no way they would have called this frivolous.

Eeep! You know, just describing the injury accurately would've been plenty for me. I don't think anyone wants to see the burn damage, and I'm actually glad the media didn't publish the photos (for her sake, too).

 

[sunshinehighway]

No. I don't think she's innocent. If I remember the jury convicted her largely based on recorded conversations between her and the teenage girl involved in the murder. I think at one point she said something like "if you tell the truth, we'll all go to jail".
I think the media thing goes both ways in influencing public opinion but the jury. The media likes a good wrongly convicted and railroaded by the system story.
Look at that Netflix one Steve Avery. Yeah the police didn't handle the teenager right and his conviction was recently overturned based on that. The story told in the netflix series paints a nice, clear picture of a conspiracy to convict Avery because of his lawsuit but it leaves out important things from the trial to do that.
It's odd and sad to see people watch something like that and think they know the whole story. People don't bother to question what they are told before forming an opinion. Once that opinion is formed, it doesn't matter if it's based in fact or distortions because, in general, people don't like to admit they don't know what they think they know.

 

[DisneyMommyMichelle]

Hmmm....It really does bring to mind more questions but at the same time, you could think isn't this also just more sensationalism?

 

[Praying Colonel]

The government has a duty to provide evidence to the defense. It has no duty to provide evidence to the public.

IMHO she's guilty as hell. However, I will say that I believe the media generally does a really bad job of getting news stories about legal matters complete and correct.

 

[Deb in IA]

There was a movie that was loosely based on this case, "To Die For", with Nicole Kidman and a young Joaquin Phoenix and Casey Affleck, that definitely implicated her role in the murder.

 

[ASchwa]

There was a movie that was loosely based on this case, "To Die For", with Nicole Kidman and a young Joaquin Phoenix and Casey Affleck, that definitely implicated her role in the murder.

A movie that came out in 1995 helped convict Pamela Smart in 1991? That is what you are implying. Smart was given a trial, the media was all over this case, but in the end it was 12 jurors that agreed she was guilty, no movie or tv show influenced them.

 

[Deb in IA]

A movie that came out in 1995 helped convict Pamela Smart in 1991? That is what you are implying. Smart was given a trial, the media was all over this case, but in the end it was 12 jurors that agreed she was guilty, no movie or tv show influenced them.

No, I'm saying the movie, even though it was a fictionalized account, made it pretty clear she was guilty, and may have affected the court of public opinion. I did not say it had any influence in the trial.

 

[Arielle22]

I remember that case. I remember the evidence being very compelling. I never thought she was innocent and still don't. Why is it better to paint the 15 year old boy who she molested (which is what she would be charged with today) as a monster because he might not have been a virgin and wanted to cry when telling his story? She also made sure to play up to the jury in the way she dressed and acted, I remember seeing her crying on the stand.

All producers want is to bring in big numbers for their documentaries and shows. None are really interested in putting all the facts out there.

 

[ASchwa]

No, I'm saying the movie, even though it was a fictionalized account, made it pretty clear she was guilty, and may have affected the court of public opinion. I did not say it had any influence in the trial.

If you base your opinion on a movie, that admits that it is a fictionalized account of true events, a movie in which a writer wrote what he imagined happened, used different names and even different jobs, the only thing that was similar was the seduction of a teenage boy and that the main character got him to kill her husband, I have no words. There are 2 movies about Betty Broderick, one which was totally sympathetic to her, and one that showed her in the worst way. The truth is that Betty Broderick killed her ex husband and his wife and she was convicted of that. There were 3 movies about Amy Fisher and a few more movies were influenced by that story. Again, Amy Fisher shot someone and was convicted for it. The court of public opinion did not convict Smart, her actions convicted her. All three claimed to be a victim, did any of them have a right to kill, in Amy Fisher's case attempted to kill, anyone? I don't know if you saw this movie about Pamela Smart that starred Helen Hunt, but that one uses all the correct names and claims to be based on trial transcripts. Let's just say that Smart looks even worse than the character in "To Die For".

 

[wenrob]

I don't think I've ever seen a documentary that wasn't slanted in exactly the way the producer wants you to see it. They're just as sensationalized as any media outlet IMO. I can watch a story on Dateline and be absolutely convinced a person is guilty then turn around and watch the same story on 48hrs and be absolutely convinced that same person is innocent. At least the ones where there's no clear cut evidence.

I've always thought Pam Smart was guilty and still do.

 

[usnuzuloose]

Oh great another one to go back and research. So many trials coming up that are good to watch.

 

[Deb in IA]

If you base your opinion on a movie, that admits that it is a fictionalized account of true events, a movie in which a writer wrote what he imagined happened, used different names and even different jobs, the only thing that was similar was the seduction of a teenage boy and that the main character got him to kill her husband, I have no words. There are 2 movies about Betty Broderick, one which was totally sympathetic to her, and one that showed her in the worst way. The truth is that Betty Broderick killed her ex husband and his wife and she was convicted of that. There were 3 movies about Amy Fisher and a few more movies were influenced by that story. Again, Amy Fisher shot someone and was convicted for it. The court of public opinion did not convict Smart, her actions convicted her. All three claimed to be a victim, did any of them have a right to kill, in Amy Fisher's case attempted to kill, anyone? I don't know if you saw this movie about Pamela Smart that starred Helen Hunt, but that one uses all the correct names and claims to be based on trial transcripts. Let's just say that Smart looks even worse than the character in "To Die For".

I'm not sure why the venom here.

The opening post and a prior poster, Magpie, I believe, wrote about the media's influence on public opinion.
I mentioned that a movie loosely based on this case also cast guilt on the wife, as another example of the influence of media/popular culture.

 

[Disney1fan2002]

I think the documentary was more focused on whether or not she got a fair trial. Not so much or guilt or innocence. I am going to watch it again. Like I said, back when this happened, I was with everyone else. Now, watching this documentary, it just makes me go hhhmmmm.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I'm not sure why the venom here.

The opening post and a prior poster, Magpie, I believe, wrote about the media's influence on public opinion.
I mentioned that a movie loosely based on this case also cast guilt on the wife, as another example of the influence of media/popular culture.

I don't think it's venom more like complete disbelief because your post seems to make a big leap. Personally I can't imagine any normal, rational adult watching a movie like To Die For and believing it accurately portrays the real case. I don't even remember the movie being advertised as "based on Pam Smart". Yeah people knew it was but it wasn't like it was advertised as a true story or anything like that.