Get Smart

[Primetimer]

Captivated: The Trials Of Pamela Smart suggests that a case tried in the media is something less than To Die For.

Read the story

[Kat]

I couldn't stand the symbolic (?) use of the old televisions. But I did find the subject compelling. The part where most of the interview subjects had to catch themselves to refresh their memories about the details? Crazy. But Jesus, Pam Smart just comes off as guilty. It'll be interesting to see what happens next year with Billy Flynn up for parole.

[BindsTheTuna]

I would be more inclined to believe Pam (How much did I hate that she used to call her self Pame, which was supposed to rhyme with Tammy? A LOT.) if she hadn't been caught on tape basically confessing her role to Cecelia Pierce. Also, someone left the door to the bulkhead unlocked, and told them when Gregg would be home.

I saw an interview a while ago with Billy Flynn that really stuck with me. It must've been the 10th anniversary or something, because he was still very young. The interviewer asked him what he would say to Pam if he had the chance, and he started to tear up and said, "I just want to know if she ever really loved me." Gut punch.

[Narla]

I thought the doc raised some interesting questions and it did make me question a number of things about the original narrative. It's not like Pam's version of events is impossible to believe, certainly. But I also thought it was pretty lighthanded about the part where she was an adult woman -- teacher or not, she was in a position of authority in the school -- who was having an affair with a teenaged boy. That's just messed up.

But then, so was the trial.

[Tetraneutron]

Wait, which were the Law and Orders about the Pamela Smart case beside the first one, from season 2 of the Mothership?

[BindsTheTuna]

I know Criminal Intent did one. (Kid kills dad because dad schtupped teacher.)

But that was maybe more Mary Kay Letourneau than Pam(e) Smart.

[Genius]

I watched and wasn't convinced by the argument - sorry, but I just wasn't. Yes, every sensational, media-crazed trial does deserve a look back with context and perspective on how the media may have affected the trial. But it doesn't *always* mean the media completely made it impossible for justice to be accomplished. In order to believe Pamela's claims of innocence, we have to believe that her husband cheated with a one-night stand (was there evidence?), that Pam reacted by succumbing to the charms of a 15 year old, then broke it off with said 15 year old; that four teenagers would conspire unprovoked to kill the perceived romantic rival of one of them, that Pamela "pretended to know things about the murder" to get information from Cecelia Pierce, and that even though the wire-tap recordings were mostly inaudible, it was only up to her to produce $15,000 to contest them. That's a lot to swallow.

Plus, even though Pam's case was supposedly one of the first media-obsessed tabloid trials, hasn't the notion of "being found guilty by the media totally skewed the jury" become not only clichby now, but disproved by the trials of O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman? If the media had already convicted them, how were they acquitted? I just don't buy the idea that the media convicts, so the jury follows.

Sorry, Pamela, but I wasn't swayed by this documentary's weak argument.

[Kat]

 

In order to believe Pamela's claims of innocence, we have to believe that her husband cheated with a one-night stand (was there evidence?), that Pam reacted by succumbing to the charms of a 15 year old, then broke it off with said 15 year old; that four teenagers would conspire unprovoked to kill the perceived romantic rival of one of them, that Pamela "pretended to know things about the murder" to get information from Cecelia Pierce, and that even though the wire-tap recordings were mostly inaudible, it was only up to her to produce $15,000 to contest them. That's a lot to swallow.

These are all good points, Genius. Again, I don't think that Pamela Smart is innocent by any means, but I do think that there's ample evidence that everyone involved in this case - family/friends of the victim and the accused folks; the police; the attorneys and judges; the journalists and the film makers were all affected by the environment that they themselves created about this case. And that was the fascinating part of this documentary.

[Patrizio]

I'm with you. The jailhouse witness who did drugs with the boys before the trial was not believable at all. Too many small details about the case rang true with me. Just b/c there was media saturation does'nt mean she is'nt guilty as hell. Plus, I understood that she had an affair with the prison guard and he subsequently sold the photos to the Enquire. I feel that she was an immature, manipulative woman who sucked these kids in b/c she wanted to be rid of the husband and get some money and sympathy out of it. I just feel bad for the husband's family, and to a much lesser degree those boys who lives have been so messed up b/c of that woman's influence.

[movingtargetgal]

In the early 1990's I worked in a  residential facility for adolescent girls in New Hampshire.  Many of the girls became pen pals with Pam.  By just writing to these girls, Pam was able to manipulate them into sending her money, their parent's credit and phone card numbers and other gifts.  She was able to send the facility into chaos by pitting the girls against each other, the staff and their parents.  The staff finally gathered up all of Pam's letters and I was able to read many of them.   My fellow staff members and I were blown away by how manipulative her letters were.  They were basically a form letter that had a paragraph or two that were personalize the girl to whom she was writing. In each letter Pam played the victim card so well she almost had us feeling sorry for her.  She had a "gift" for knowing what each girl wanted to hear and to make them feel as if they were her best friend.  Finally, after a month of her being the house pen pal, the Program Director decided to stop Pam's letters from getting to the girls.  The damage she was able to do by writing letters while sitting in a prison cell was frightening.  I have no problem believing Pam was able to manipulate those teenage boys into committing murder.

[Genius]

movingtargetgal, that is totally fascinating and I completely believe it! Why do sociopaths always seem to be such experts of extreme influence??

[imjagain]

I forgot I recorded this, finally watched it.

This show didn't changed my mind. Pam was and is guilty.

The idea that this older "mature" woman, that had her stuff together (in the eyes of these kids) could manipulate these kids is very realistic. The teens came from very poor families. Pam must have had a lot of power over them. Throw in sex with a 15 year old boy and that is all you need.

I didn't care about the drugs. I don't know if I believed the jail mate or not... I was a little curious who was paying for all the drugs these boys were doing in jail. I'm sure drugs cost just as much in jail.

Pam will never admit she planned it.

I did laugh at the end when she was talking about her getting out would make a great movie.

[movingtargetgal]

Billy Flynn and Patrick Randall were paroled earlier today. 

[Morbs]

Late to the game, finally caught a rerun the other day, but what an unconvincing unnecessary doc.

[movingtargetgal]

Pam has yet another tv show about her.  It's on ID Discovery.