The Ruse
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — General Discussion
Cheeky — 3 months ago(December 06, 2025 03:23 AM)
New episode on tonight about a missing father and a coerced confession
If anyone thinks it couldn't happen, they should give it a watch
If we take the time to see with the heart and not with the mind, we shall see that we are surrounded completely by angels ~ Carlos Santana -
bitchsurn — 3 months ago(December 07, 2025 11:49 PM)
I enjoy watching dateline on a regular basis, but I will say that I do not think that one always gets the complete story from a one or two hour synopsis of the case. That typed, I generally enjoy the narrators and the presentation.
As far as The Ruse, if they hadn't have set the viewer up to know that the father had not actually been murdered, from the Dateline presentation, to begin with I certainly would have thought the son was guilty of killing him. From the police videos he did look guilty. And by that, I am referring to all the police video, not just the interview video.
As far as interview techniques, I am not sure how I feel about that. There have been other datelines (at least two) where interview techniques and confessions have been questioned. Watching that guy being interviewed, he sure seemed to act goofy. However, post interview, he seemed more lucid and his explanation for the way he came off during the interview was the sleep deprivation that was forced upon him by law enforcement. I think if I have learned anything from watching dateline as long as I have it would be: call a lawyer the minute you believe that law enforcement is trying to make a case against you. Maybe I'd go so far as to say: don't go into a police interview without a lawyer. However, although in principle that may be the correct answer, I can also see how a factually innocent person might just want to explain to the cops in the interview what he or she did and didn't know concerning the case, and being factually innocent, would initially not see any reason for a lawyer. After all, asking for a lawyer from the get-go probably makes one appear guilty.
On an aside, I have watched enough Datelines that I do NOT trust lie detector tests and I don't think taking one would be a good idea for anyone. And by this, I mean for anyone who is factually innocent. -
Cheeky — 3 months ago(December 08, 2025 12:05 AM)
I agree about asking for a lawyer
You ask if you're under arrest, if the answer is no, then leave. If the answer is yes, ask for a lawyer
Cops deal with the worst of the worst, but they shouldn't tell cruel lies and question someone for that many hours
He was worried about his father and instead of helping, the cops suspected the worst and ended up costing the city a lot of money
I don't see that Perez looked bad. I think the cops jumped to conclusions
If we take the time to see with the heart and not with the mind, we shall see that we are surrounded completely by angels ~ Carlos Santana -
bitchsurn — 3 months ago(December 08, 2025 12:25 AM)
Well, from the perspective of law enforcement and that of a citizen who wants to be protected by law enforcement, I can see why the cops would observe certain signs and form gut feelings based on intuition. I just watched this episode last night, and I don't remember all the pertinent details from start to finish, but I recall that the video of the first investigator (the female officer who was not law enforcement) and from that, I could see how the son looked a bit suspicious.
And then the police officers that were interviewed as part of the episode stated that they smelled a strong odor of bleach and that they saw what appeared to be blood . . . I can see how their instincts would have pointed them to a crime having been committed.
How hard should LE have gone after the son? In retrospect, since no crime had been committed, they went too hard.
I vaguely recall a short discussion we had about the Gacy documentary and also the docudrama. I suppose comparing the two cases might be a bit of apples to oranges (but not completely) and they went after Gacy pretty hard before making the arrest, and no one would ever fault LE for that.
On a total aside: do you recall the Dateline about the black soccer coach who was accused and put on trial for the murder of his ex-girlfriend's son in upstate New York? (Potsdam, I think was the town?) -
Cheeky — 3 months ago(December 08, 2025 01:57 AM)
Going after someone is one thing, but to tell him his dog was going to a shelter and will get euthanized is a bullshit tactic
The blood was easily explained by his father testing his blood and the blood getting on the floor
The tactics they used are the kind that illicit false confessions. That's not good police work, it's extremely poor
Yes, I remember that case. He lied about everything. He got away with murder
She messed up by bringing him around her kids. Single mom's need to keep their boyfriends away from their kids and especially don't leave them alone with them
If we take the time to see with the heart and not with the mind, we shall see that we are surrounded completely by angels ~ Carlos Santana -
bitchsurn — 3 months ago(December 08, 2025 03:24 AM)
I'll play the devil's advocate:
the explanation of finger sticks explaining the blood evidence did turn out to be valid, but if you put yourself in the shoes of law enforcement . . . I can see how they wouldn't have taken that at face value.
As far as the tactics, I agree with you that I am not crazy about all that LE purportedly does to "solve" cases; however, what if it would have turned out that the son did indisputably kill the father, and they managed to find Brian Kohberger type evidence to back it up? And if the way they got there was by telling their suspect lies in the interview to trick him into confessing?
Okay, I know that is a hypothetical and we don't go by hypotheticals.
But in the minds of LE the son looked bad, and given what Dateline showed us, I can understand why.
Which is probably why they went at him so hard, because they wanted to get as much out of him before he, as they say, "lawyered up."
Don't get me wrong: I agree with you, and innocent people do get wrongly convicted, and that is horrible. I cannot imagine being on the wrong end of that deal. However, I can see a bit of where LE was coming from. And I can also see the need to get a lawyer early on in the process.
On an aside and back to that other dateline I referenced earlier (I think it may have been titled Rear Window), based on a lot of circumstantial evidence, it sure did seem as if: who else could have did it except Nick Hillary? And it appeared as if that is what the prosecution based their case on–who else could have done it. And sometimes that works. But, if you remember, the defense opted for a judge trial versus a jury trial, and evidently the judge wanted more than who else could have done it. -
Cheeky — 3 months ago(December 08, 2025 03:39 AM)
I think it's too bad no one saw Hillary jump out the window
Too bad the judge let him walk. Hillary didn't like Garrett. He let himself in the apartment during the night after they broke up and Tandy saw him standing in her bedroom. Talk about creepy stalker
He injured his ankle and said it was from moving furniture. Yeah, right. He followed Garrett as soon as he left school. Coincidence that's when Garrett was murdered?
Tandy thinks he did it. I think she's right
Also, I don't think Perez looked bad, I think the cops were cynical. Maybe because I've seen several cases of coerced confessions and I think it's disgusting that innocent people end up in prison because of these tactics
If we take the time to see with the heart and not with the mind, we shall see that we are surrounded completely by angels ~ Carlos Santana -
bitchsurn — 3 months ago(December 08, 2025 03:52 AM)
Okay, but I'll play devil's advocate again which may be how the judge saw it.
Hillary and Garrett did not like each other (it sounded as if that was the reason for the breakup with Tandy), and that may have constituted the motive. However, simply not liking someone is not enough to base a murder conviction on.
As far as following Garrett, they only had video that he followed him as far as (I think) the corner where they both turned left.
They had no forensic evidence.
I would have to rewatch it (I have actually watched it a few
times in the past because I find it so riveting), but I thought some of Tandy's stalking claims turned out to be bogus or unsubstantiated? Maybe not. As I said, I'd have to rewatch.
No one testified to seeing Hillary enter or exit the apartment. There was no forensic evidence related to Hillary's injury at the area of egress from the apartment.
As far as the explanation for the ankle injury, I found that rather dubious, but the judge wasn't
going to convict based upon that.
The alibi his assistant coach provided probably seemed credible, even if his daughter's didn't.
I think the whole town thought he did it, and I can understand why.
I was left leaning on the side of "he did it" also.
But reasonable doubt? -
Cheeky — 3 months ago(December 08, 2025 05:20 AM)
Yes, he was the only one with motive and he said the break up was amicable, which wasn't true
It looked suspicious that he didn't leave the school parking lot until Garrett did
Not leaving DNA suggests the killer wore gloves
If we take the time to see with the heart and not with the mind, we shall see that we are surrounded completely by angels ~ Carlos Santana