What's the best documentary you've seen?

Great thread.

Most of my favourites have already been mentioned, but I'm not sure if I've seen anybody mention Fourteen Days in May.

A synopsis:

Fourteen Days in May is a documentary directed by Paul Hamann and originally shown on television by the British Broadcasting Corporation in 1987. The program recounts the final days before the execution of Edward Earl Johnson, an American prisoner convicted of rape and murder and imprisoned in the Mississippi State Penitentiary. Johnson protested his innocence and claimed that his confession had been made under duress. He was executed in Mississippi's gas chamber on May 20, 1987.

The documentary can be found on Youtube.

karma_

Funglegunk wrote: »

Don't forget the Ascent of Man and Civilisation. Both excellent docs, like being at a lecture from a kindly grandfather or something.

Ascent of man is incredible, without doubt the greatest documentary ever produced. I've watched the whole thing again recently and it stands up incredibly well, I challenge anyone to sample it and tell me you aren't fascinated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QetE6WvBFY

Da Shins Kelly

I finally got around to watching Paradise Lost. Very shocking indeed. Wasn't expecting to see actual photos of the crime scene and the bodies. An absolutely horrific crime and the reaction of the town is really very bizarre. I don't believe for a second that any of those kids had any involvement in those murders. I felt particularly sorry for the young lad who actually made the coerced confession. He did seem quite simple and easily persuaded and led. I also found his father's quiet belief and support for his son in the face of such a witch-hunt quite admirable.

To me, it seems somewhat more likely that the step-father of one of the children did it. The police made an absolute mess of the whole thing anyway.

Tipsy McSwagger

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I finally got around to watching Paradise Lost. Very shocking indeed. Wasn't expecting to see actual photos of the crime scene and the bodies. An absolutely horrific crime and the reaction of the town is really very bizarre. I don't believe for a second that any of those kids had any involvement in those murders. I felt particularly sorry for the young lad who actually made the coerced confession. He did seem quite simple and easily persuaded and led. I also found his father's quiet belief and support for his son in the face of such a witch-hunt quite admirable.

To me, it seems somewhat more likely that the step-father of one of the children did it. The police made an absolute mess of the whole thing anyway.

Your basing your view purely on a documentary? You would love Paradise Lost 2 then. It points the finger at the step father and then in PL 3 it points the finger at the other step father. As for the little simple lad Jessie Misskelley, he confessed 5 times, once alone in a room with his lawyer and his hand on a bible. All 3 had a history of violence and no alibi for the night of the murders. Guilty.

Da Shins Kelly

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Your basing your view purely on a documentary? You would love Paradise Lost 2 then. It points the finger at the step father and then in PL 3 it points the finger at the other step father. As for the little simple lad Jessie Misskelley, he confessed 5 times, once alone in a room with his lawyer and his hand on a bible. All 3 had a history of violence and no alibi for the night of the murders. Guilty.

Having a history of violence doesn't prove they killed anyone.

Jesse Misskelley made his confession after coercion and leading questions from police. He also has an IQ of 72, which should be taken into account. He made several claims in his "confession" that are inconsistent or completely unsupported by evidence. He said that the murders took place at 12 noon, which was impossible given the kids were still in school. He also gave details for which there was no evidence - claiming that one boy was choked with a stick, which was not true, claiming they had been hog-tied with rope, when it was in fact shoelaces and claiming that the other two had sex with the boys, despite the fact that there was no evidence they were raped. It doesn't stand up against the evidence or reality.

There wasn't a shred of evidence connecting any of them to the crime scene. No DNA, no witnesses. In fact, the DNA that did come to light later on pointed to the step-father and his friend who provided him with an alibi for that night. The bite marks found on one victim's body didn't match the teeth of any of the accused. Witnesses recanted their statements, many of which were pretty shaky anyway. The police f*cked the whole thing up from trampling on the crime scene, to losing records or not taking records at all. They didn't follow up on leads about two men who fled the state in the days after the murders, one of which claimed that he might have killed them during a blackout. And that's not even getting into the information they let pass by about a bloodied man in a local restaurant the night of the murders. Not even the majority of the parents of the dead children believe they did it. They were easy targets and all this Satan worshipping bull**** was just the paranoia and craziness of a small Bible belt town.

Even if you do think yourself that they did it, there is not nearly enough evidence to convict, let alone give someone the death penalty for it. A bogus confession and wild tales of satanic rituals doesn't cut it.

Tipsy McSwagger

In fact, the DNA that did come to light later on pointed to the step-father and his friend who provided him with an alibi for that night.

Oh yeah the new evidence that was going to clear the WM3. A single hair found in one of the shoelaces that was consistent with 1.5% of the population. Even if it was positively matched to the step father (which it wasnt) it can be easily explained as secondary transfer since Michael Moore was always playing at his friend Stevie's house, the shoelaces were all mixed up so no one knows who's lace was used to tie up Michael Moore so it could have been his stepsons lace. They had their chance to show all this new evidence at the court hearing set for Dec 2011 but pled guilty in August 2011 and were released and still labeled child killers.

The bite marks found on one victim's body didn't match the teeth of any of the accused.

There was no bite marks. Even die hard supporters admit this. They are convinced the injuries were from animal predation.

Witnesses recanted their statements, many of which were pretty shaky anyway.

Yes years later some did because of the money train that was backing the WM3's release. Witnesses were paid for their involvement in the PL docs and some like Michael Carson who passed a lie detector test saying Jason Baldwin confessed to him in prison were paid to recant.

The police f*cked the whole thing up from trampling on the crime scene, to losing records or not taking records at all. They didn't follow up on leads about two men who fled the state in the days after the murders, one of which claimed that he might have killed them during a blackout. And that's not even getting into the information they let pass by about a bloodied man in a local restaurant the night of the murders.

Mistakes were made alright but it is only a small city and crimes of this magnitude are unheard of.

Not even the majority of the parents of the dead children believe they did it. They were easy targets and all this Satan worshipping bull**** was just the paranoia and craziness of a small Bible belt town.

Only one does, a step father, and that is for his own motives. The parents of Michael Moore still believe the WM3 are guilty, they wrote a letter to the Oscar board stating their displeasure about PL3 being nominated for best documentary. Steve Branch's biological father was dragged out of the courtroom kicking & screaming on the day of the WM3s release. His step father Terry Hobbs also believes they are guilty. The mother of Christopher Byers went to her grave believing they were guilty. That leaves Mark Byers and Pam Hobbs. Mark Byers was blatantly accused of being the killer in PL2 but now he is the darling of the WM3 supporters since he switched sides. He switched sides because that's where all the money is. Pam Hobbs doesn't know what to believe. One day she supports the WM3s innocence and blames her husband Terry Hobbs and the next day she is at a barbecue with him. Here she is back in March at the barbecue http://www.terryhobbs.com/2012/03/day-at-park.html



This a brilliant letter written recently by Todd Moore,
http://www.terryhobbs.com/2012/06/todd-moore-sets-record-straight.html

Da Shins Kelly

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Oh yeah the new evidence that was going to clear the WM3. A single hair found in one of the shoelaces that was consistent with 1.5% of the population. Even if it was positively matched to the step father (which it wasnt) it can be easily explained as secondary transfer since Michael Moore was always playing at his friend Stevie's house, the shoelaces were all mixed up so no one knows who's lace was used to tie up Michael Moore so it could have been his stepsons lace. They had their chance to show all this new evidence at the court hearing set for Dec 2011 but pled guilty in August 2011 and were released and still labeled child killers.

They don't have to prove anyone else did it, they just have to prove they didn't. There is not sufficient evidence to prove they did it. Exoneration was on the horizon and Jason Baldwin was reluctant to even agree to the bargain because of how close exoneration was and eventually agreed in order to get Damien Echols off death row in time to be reunited with his parents who may not have lived to see him released. If the courts really believed and had sufficient evidence that they killed those children, they would not be out of prison, regardless of any media circus.

There was no bite marks. Even die hard supporters admit this. They are convinced the injuries were from animal predation.



Yes years later some did because of the money train that was backing the WM3's release. Witnesses were paid for their involvement in the PL docs and some like Michael Carson who passed a lie detector test saying Jason Baldwin confessed to him in prison were paid to recant.



Mistakes were made alright but it is only a small city and crimes of this magnitude are unheard of.




Only one does, a step father, and that is for his own motives. The parents of Michael Moore still believe the WM3 are guilty, they wrote a letter to the Oscar board stating their displeasure about PL3 being nominated for best documentary. Steve Branch's biological father was dragged out of the courtroom kicking & screaming on the day of the WM3s release. His step father Terry Hobbs also believes they are guilty. The mother of Christopher Byers went to her grave believing they were guilty. That leaves Mark Byers and Pam Hobbs. Mark Byers was blatantly accused of being the killer in PL2 but now he is the darling of the WM3 supporters since he switched sides. He switched sides because that's where all the money is. Pam Hobbs doesn't know what to believe. One day she supports the WM3s innocence and blames her husband Terry Hobbs and the next day she is at a barbecue with him. Here she is back in March at the barbecue http://www.terryhobbs.com/2012/03/day-at-park.html



This a brilliant letter written recently by Todd Moore,
http://www.terryhobbs.com/2012/06/todd-moore-sets-record-straight.html

They don't have to prove anyone else did it. They just have to show that they themselves are innocent. There is not sufficient evidence to prove they did it. Exoneration was on the horizon and Jason Baldwin was reluctant to even agree to the bargain because of how close exoneration was and eventually agreed in order to get Damien Echols off death row. It was the quickest and easiest way to freedom. If the courts really believed and had sufficient evidence that they killed those children, they would not be out of prison, regardless of any media circus. Their release, as even the prosecuting attorney himself admitted, is indicative of the fact that they could very easily have been acquitted and probably would be in a new trial. If I had spent 18 years in prison, I'd accept the easiest way out too rather than putting my faith once again in a justice system that had already shafted me in the hopes of an acquittal. The plea benefits the state of Arkansas more than anyone else - it just means that none of the defendants can sue them for wrongful conviction and imprisonment, and also relieves them of any duty to re-evaluate the evidence and start again ('oh, these guys plead guilty, so case closed!'). The state know well that if they were retried and probably acquitted it would leave them open to million dollar lawsuits. It suits them down to the ground to have this plea, and unfortunately seems to be the preferred option for the defendants as the quickest way out. The Arkansas justice system botched the case, but they don't want to admit it. The Alford Plea, in a nutshell, is basically the state admitting the convicted are probably innocent, but just don't want to admit themselves that they made a mistake. It allows the state to save face.

You can talk all you like about someone believes this, or that person believes that, or it's all about money, but the fact remains that there is no definitive evidence pointing to anyone apart from what has already been discussed as a bogus confession including details that can't be backed up by evidence and recanted witness statements. You can't put someone on death row based on that kind of evidence. It doesn't prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. Michael Carson's statement was dismissed by his own counsellor before the case even went to trial. The details he gave of what Baldwin supposedly told him are also very hazy and somewhat vague, and he also changed details in between two different statements that he made, and claimed later that he "didn't remember" exactly what Baldwin told him. You'd think that if someone divulged the gory details of a high-profile murder case to you that you'd be inclined to remember everything that was said. :rolleyes:

We can talk and disagree about this till kingdom come, and everyone has a different opinion. However in an effort not to completely derail the thread, I'll add this:

A really good documentary about animals that were lost and rehomed after Hurricane Katrina and the owners' quest to find them and be reunited. If you love animals, you'll be very emotional.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIoy0KuUes0

Tipsy McSwagger

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

They don't have to prove anyone else did it. They just have to show that they themselves are innocent. There is not sufficient evidence to prove they did it. Exoneration was on the horizon and Jason Baldwin was reluctant to even agree to the bargain because of how close exoneration was and eventually agreed in order to get Damien Echols off death row. It was the quickest and easiest way to freedom. If the courts really believed and had sufficient evidence that they killed those children, they would not be out of prison, regardless of any media circus. Their release, as even the prosecuting attorney himself admitted, is indicative of the fact that they could very easily have been acquitted and probably would be in a new trial. If I had spent 18 years in prison, I'd accept the easiest way out too rather than putting my faith once again in a justice system that had already shafted me in the hopes of an acquittal. The plea benefits the state of Arkansas more than anyone else - it just means that none of the defendants can sue them for wrongful conviction and imprisonment, and also relieves them of any duty to re-evaluate the evidence and start again ('oh, these guys plead guilty, so case closed!'). The state know well that if they were retried and probably acquitted it would leave them open to million dollar lawsuits. It suits them down to the ground to have this plea, and unfortunately seems to be the preferred option for the defendants as the quickest way out. The Arkansas justice system botched the case, but they don't want to admit it. The Alford Plea, in a nutshell, is basically the state admitting the convicted are probably innocent, but just don't want to admit themselves that they made a mistake. It allows the state to save face.

You can talk all you like about someone believes this, or that person believes that, or it's all about money, but the fact remains that there is no definitive evidence pointing to anyone apart from what has already been discussed as a bogus confession including details that can't be backed up by evidence and recanted witness statements. You can't put someone on death row based on that kind of evidence. It doesn't prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. Michael Carson's statement was dismissed by his own counsellor before the case even went to trial. The details he gave of what Baldwin supposedly told him are also very hazy and somewhat vague, and he also changed details in between two different statements that he made, and claimed later that he "didn't remember" exactly what Baldwin told him. You'd think that if someone divulged the gory details of a high-profile murder case to you that you'd be inclined to remember everything that was said. :rolleyes:

You failed to mention it was the defense that asked for the Alford Plea which the new prosecutor accepted. Why would they ask for it when they were ready to provide this shocking new evidence that would lead to a new trial? Doesn't make sense that after 18 years of saying they were innocent they would plead guilty 4 months before this sensational new evidence would prove they were stitched up. Evidence which of course still hasn't been seen to this day.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

karma_

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

You failed to mention it was the defense that asked for the Alford Plea which the new prosecutor accepted. Why would they ask for it when they were ready to provide this shocking new evidence that would lead to a new trial? Doesn't make sense that after 18 years of saying they were innocent they would plead guilty 4 months before this sensational new evidence would prove they were stitched up. Evidence which of course still hasn't been seen to this day.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

They did not plead guilt though did they. If you want to use the Alford Plea for the sake of your argument you should actually look up what it means.

Tipsy McSwagger

karma_ wrote: »

They did not plead guilt though did they. If you want to use the Alford Plea for the sake of your argument you should actually look up what it means.

They agreed to plead guilty via Alford pleas, under which they acknowledge the state has sufficient evidence to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but they do not admit they committed the crimes and can maintain their innocence.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2011/8/19/1358/58909

At the release hearing Echols says 'Your honor I am innocent of these charges but I am pleading an Alford Guilty Plea'.

Misskelley says 'I'm pleading Guilty but I am innocent.

So yes they did plead guilty but maintained their innocence.

Da Shins Kelly

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

You failed to mention it was the defense that asked for the Alford Plea which the new prosecutor accepted. Why would they ask for it when they were ready to provide this shocking new evidence that would lead to a new trial? Doesn't make sense that after 18 years of saying they were innocent they would plead guilty 4 months before this sensational new evidence would prove they were stitched up. Evidence which of course still hasn't been seen to this day.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

Well it does make sense if you're trying to get yourself out of the precarious position that is death row. If I had an opportunity to get out and continue to work to clear my name, I would. After all, all it takes for someone to get hurriedly executed is for a new gung-ho governor or some such to be elected who decides they want to stamp down on crime and criminals and next thing you know he's in the execution chamber. A chance I wouldn't be willing to take either. It was the quickest and easiest way out.

As I said already, the Alford Plea suits them as a way of getting out of jail quickly, but it wasn't something all the defendants agreed to and I believe Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin actually fell out over it because of Baldwin's reluctance to accept it and Echols' eagerness to get off death row. However, the Alford Plea suits the state of Arkansas more than anyone. It basically means they can't be sued and alleviates them of any responsibility. The reason it's so rarely granted is because it's basically the state admitting that they've possibly made a mistake and shielding themselves from million dollar lawsuits. It's probably the best deal that they were going to get given the lack of evidence pointing to anyone at all and the fact that the state of Arkansas isn't going to admit they f*cked up. There's more to it than just "oh they said they did it, so they must have!" It's a way more complex situation than that, as it has been from day one.


And here is a documentary about Bill Hicks! Great footage from his gigs and interviews with family and friends. An interesting insight into a great, but sadly short, life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIaTFag26vc

JJJJNR

Heard this was a good doco, haven't watched it myself yet.

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/89006/The_Lightbulb_Conspiracy___The_untold_story_of_Pla/

firefly08

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Well it does make sense if you're trying to get yourself out of the precarious position that is death row. If I had an opportunity to get out and continue to work to clear my name, I would. After all, all it takes for someone to get hurriedly executed is for a new gung-ho governor or some such to be elected who decides they want to stamp down on crime and criminals and next thing you know he's in the execution chamber. A chance I wouldn't be willing to take either. It was the quickest and easiest way out.

As I said already, the Alford Plea suits them as a way of getting out of jail quickly, but it wasn't something all the defendants agreed to and I believe Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin actually fell out over it because of Baldwin's reluctance to accept it and Echols' eagerness to get off death row. However, the Alford Plea suits the state of Arkansas more than anyone. It basically means they can't be sued and alleviates them of any responsibility. The reason it's so rarely granted is because it's basically the state admitting that they've possibly made a mistake and shielding themselves from million dollar lawsuits. It's probably the best deal that they were going to get given the lack of evidence pointing to anyone at all and the fact that the state of Arkansas isn't going to admit they f*cked up. There's more to it than just "oh they said they did it, so they must have!" It's a way more complex situation than that, as it has been from day one.


And here is a documentary about Bill Hicks! Great footage from his gigs and interviews with family and friends. An interesting insight into a great, but sadly short, life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIaTFag26vc

I agree that he Alford Plea does not make them look guilty. You can't blame someone for lying about that to avoid being executed.

Bottom line - the prosecutor admitted that he feared the outcome of a new trial. If all the old evidence and all the new evidence was presented, he was not confident of a conviction. That is telling - he was willing to see Echols killed and the others languish in prison, all the while believing that they would probably be acquitted if all the evidence was presented?

Someone raised the issue of why this evidence has not now come to light? It has - the PL3 documentary shows a witness claiming that the jury in the Echols/Baldwin trial considered the Miskelley confession (which we all know they did anyway). They have documentary proof of this (the notebook of a juror) and proof that it was covered up (the redacted document from the jury room). This was contrary to the law and to their oath as jurors, since Miskelley did not testify at that trial, and his confession was not presented as evidence.

Personally I have always been 50/50 on those guys, and I still am. But I am 100% sure that due process of law was not followed.

Da Shins Kelly

firefly08 wrote: »

Personally I have always been 50/50 on those guys, and I still am. But I am 100% sure that due process of law was not followed.

Agreed. Even if you are unsure about what to believe (which I accept a lot of people are, and I don't blame them), there can be no doubt that those guys did not get a fair trial.

SRFC

Any links online for Cocaine Cowboys have looked everywhere for one? thanks

Da Shins Kelly

SRFC wrote: »

Any links online for Cocaine Cowboys have looked everywhere for one? thanks

Have you tried Documentary Lovers?

SRFC

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Have you tried Documentary Lovers?

Just checked there its on there but in a different language (dubbed) :mad:


nomination of my own http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmqTiLiqlW0 High on crack street if anyones ever seen the film the fighter they'll know this one it follows drug addicts including brother of Boxing legend Irish Micky Ward this follows his brother Dickie worth a watch.

the_syco

"The Ambassador" looks like it'll be good.

Da Shins Kelly

SRFC wrote: »

Just checked there its on there but in a different language (dubbed) :mad:


nomination of my own http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmqTiLiqlW0 High on crack street if anyones ever seen the film the fighter they'll know this one it follows drug addicts including brother of Boxing legend Irish Micky Ward this follows his brother Dickie worth a watch.

It'll probably reappear at some point. These movies are always being taken down and put back up again.

Dietsquirt

Without question, 'Fog of war'

It's sensational

Ken.

SRFC wrote: »

Any links online for Cocaine Cowboys have looked everywhere for one? thanks

This maybe what your looking for. Its English with (i think) Spanish subs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_kperqs1r8

the_syco

ken wrote: »

This maybe what your looking for. Its English with (i think) Spanish subs.

With a lot of Spanish talking over the english...

unimpressed

has to be the truth behind 911 :eek:

keith16

Hi All, did a quick search and don't think it's been mentioned....

Simon Reeve has three travel documentaries where follows the tropic of Capricorn, cancer and equator around earth.

Not so much a travel documentary as a critical look at the issues facing each country he goes through.

First part of capricorn is below, I really enjoyed all of his series. He has another older one called places that don't exist where he travels to disputed lands around the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMZDsRgAiEk

Mal-Adjusted

saw "Stealing Rugby" a little while back, very good.

haydar

Love this thread! Have watched so many.

Just watching American Movie now. It's very funny but also quite sad.

Anyone have any more good suggestions along the lines of this one or similar to King of kong? Humorous Docos i suppose.

The Korean war in colour is also very good. I did not realize how bad that war was!

Lennonist

Best doc I saw was "When we were Kings" about the world title fight between Ali v Foreman.

Was watching the Beeb series of docs presented by Andrew Marr called "The History of the World". It was interesting at times but they definitely bit off more than they could chew and had a rose tinted view of British history - unsurprising I suppose.

Lennonist

Best doc I saw was "When we were Kings" about the world title fight between Ali v Foreman.

Was watching the Beeb series of docs presented by Andrew Marr called "The History of the World". It was interesting at times but they definitely bit off more than they could chew and had a rose tinted view of British history - unsurprising I suppose.

Swissarmyknife

Thought Murder on a Sunday morning was brilliant.

denisjmoc

Some of the best documentaries I've seen recently have been on TG4. There's a new 5 part mini series about executions in the civil war called starting on Thurs at 9.30. Looking forward to it!!