Some things really gross me out. Things like people who pick their noses in public. Or who squeeze their zits in public (actually the whole zit-squeezing thing anywhere is seriously gross). Trifle, aka the most disgusting dessert ever devised in an ill-informed kitchen. But if you really want me to start puking like a demonically possessed adolescent girl, subject me to the repugnant horror that was screened on Channel 7 last night. It's a show called 'Murder Uncovered' wherein the journalists purport to know, er, stuff.
Last night's putrescent offering involved a man who has been, to my understanding, set free after being wrongfully convicted of murdering 12yo Leanne Holland in 1991. Look, I don't know if he did it or if he didn't do it. What's really got me grinding my molars is the blatantly offensive and adversarial, smug and complacent, snotty interview style of Michael Usher. I really do wonder if these so called investigative, but merely grubby tabloid, journalists watch training films of the now deceased Richard Carleton, who would remove his glasses and look around the room, thinking he was a Crown Prosecutor, and coming across as an arrogant, nasty tool.
Seriously, asking a subject, 'Hand on heart, you didn't kill her?'? What kind of an answer should this evoke? I'm thinking, 'Cross my heart and hope to die/May the rats eat me if I tell a lie.'
But what really made me want to go out and stab baby kittens with their eyes not even opened yet was trying to have the subject undergo a polygraph test. The subject, sensibly, telephoned his lawyer who advised him not to take it at this stage. Of course this is all edited to make the subject seem shady as fuck, because we all know NOBODY will ring a lawyer unless they have something to hide, right? *cough - sarcasm! - cough*
Channel 7 are trying to convince the gullible viewers that this guy they've set in their crosshairs is a guilty fucker, and oh, aren't they just the new Woodward and Bernstein? He looks uncomfortable, he refuses a polygraph... Wow, I bet he doesn't believe in Santa Claus, and doesn't like sharing his popcorn at the movies, either.
Trying to ambush a person into taking a polygraph test about which they have no prior knowledge is an utter disgrace. You lot should be ashamed of yourselves. Look up 'ashamed' in the dictionary; you might learn something. Polygraphs are NOT permissible evidence because they are NOT reliable. For all you people saying he should have undergone the polygraph because if he's got nothing to hide, blahblahblah: these tests do NOT determine truth. What they do is record physical reactions, such as heartrate. A complete sociopath could 'pass' one with flying colours. If you want the answers to questions, a similarly efficient method would entail removing the subject's wedding ring (or another piece of jewellery), tying it to a lock of their hair (unfortunately last night's subject was as bald as a billiard ball), and dangling it to see what trajectory it takes. A circle is a positive answer, and a back-and-forth trajectory is a negative answer. See how much sense that would make?
That show last night was repulsive, and it drew me in with its tractor beam of sheer badness as the anger inside me swelled at the revolting, sleazy gutter, bog-level journalism. I hope the medical kit at Channel 7 is stocked with tweezers, they're going to be needed as the splinters are removed from under the fingernails of those responsible for this shit; they really scaped the bottom of the barrel.
No comments:
Post a Comment