I thought this would be an interesting way to kill 90 minutes and see how the Mr Big sting works.
Instead, we get a poorly-shot example of blind devotion to one's family. While that is understandable, don't try to free your murdering brother by trying to paint others as bad people and crying "conspiracy" conspiracy!"
The filmmaker seems to have skipped over a couple of VERY critical facts about this sting:
- Her brother was convicted after a trial lasting six months. The confession was only a small part of it.
- His trial has been appealed twice, and both times a higher court saw no reason that the trial was anything less than fair. He is guilty.
- During his confession to the murderers to Mr Big, she fails to tell us that the two murderers told details of how they did the murders that were not known to the public, nor in fact known to "Mr Big."
- Her only contact with the RCMP was a hastily recorded phone call to an officer who she blindsided with questions he obviously could not or would not answer and certainly could not respond to without permission of superiors. This ambush was patently unfair of her, especially when the only footage she actually used was the officer quite understandably going "uh ..." and "um ..." and she didn't use any footage of him telling her many many times exactly why he could not release the information she was asking for.
- Every other "expert" in the documentary has a HUGE vested interest in getting hired in the future to testify against the prosecution. They are what are called "professional experts" and they make a living giving testimony geared toward the side that hires them.
By the way, courts have clamped down a LOT of these people who make a living as "professional experts" in court. They are now legally OBLIGATED to swear an oath that they will only provide testimony to help the court, and cannot lie or omit information that may be used to help only one side. So every single one of these "experts" that she interviews just make her look naive as well as uninformed.
The biggest single issue with this documentary is that she didn't do the slightest bit of research on WHY the Supreme Court of Canada has accepted these kinds of testimony. If she had, she would know that the Supreme Court gives the police VERY LITTLE LATITUDE in how they can carry out these stings and how much weight a court or a jury can put on "jailhouse confessions." Basically, it must be a "double-blind" situation, in which NEITHER the officer playing Mr Big nor the supervising officer are allowed access to ANY evidence from the case. The supervising officer and the Mr Big officer cannot be from the same area as the murders, and Mr Big is not allowed to lead questions in any way. He/she is not allowed to make any comments that indicate they know anything about the murder.
You can actually see that in the police tapes. Mr Big doesn't ask any leading questions, even as innocuous as "So she struggled a lot?' They instead ask, "So, what happened next?" and "What did you do next?"
Basically, this was a one-sided poorly-done documentary naively shot about an evil and cold- blooded murderer who should spend the rest of his life in jail. Her despicable brother is NOT the poster child for the wrongfully accused.
