Reeva · Dersh · Europol
Plus another bite at the "Candy" apple
the true crime that's worth your time
You’d think a shorter month wouldn’t lead to a longer list of stories in the Best Evidence budget; think again! Sweeping out our budget doc and lighting some sage is Eve’s gig, but I’m going to pre-Kondo the joint today as we head into May.
And!
Y’all paid subscribers have a bonus coming for April! I’ll be ranking all the ripped-from-the-headlines episodes of Law & Order: Mothership. For just $5 a month, you can read that; you can wade into the comments and zero-star my choices; you can read all the other bonus reviews and paywalled content; and you can help us pay our contributors!
Thanks so much for considering it! And now, Grand Frere is watching you… — SDB
SECURITY BREACH [The New Yorker] // “Criminals presumed that a new kind of phone network couldn’t be infiltrated by cops. Big mistake.” A broad-ranging, super-process-y read from Ed Caesar covering the history of the wiretap, “hardened” phones used by European organized crime, the physical logistics of transporting cocaine into and through the Netherlands, corruption in Montenegro, and the legality of “eavesdropping” on encrypted conversations…with a dash of “so there” when a source threatens Caesar:
In February, a Montenegrin trafficker agreed to discuss how the bust of Sky E.C.C. had affected the criminal fraternity in Montenegro. (The conditions of our interview were that I could not name him or quote him.) … The trafficker chain-smoked Parliaments, and he had a giant frame, elephant-gray skin, and dark circles under his eyes. He wore a T-shirt emblazoned with the face of Vladimir Putin, of whom he was a fan. By contrast, he hated the E.U., Americans, and gay people — groups that he freely lumped together. Occasionally, his son arrived to empty the ashtray.
…
What about cocaine? Was trade still brisk? The trafficker turned away from me and said, in so many words, that he was going to beat me up and leave me in a ditch somewhere. Then he turned to me again, and, since he threatened to break my bones, I feel no guilt about quoting him. “You shouldn’t ask such fucking questions,” the trafficker said, in Serbian. “In Montenegro, it’s bad for your health.”
Tart, flavorful, pace-y, everything you want in a NYer piece.
‘Only Murders In The Building’: Michael Cyril Creighton Upped To Series Regular For Season 3 [Yahoo!] // This item’s a bit older, but I’m throwing it in here because I’m interested to hear what my fellow OMITB fans think. On the one hand, I love MCC and always like that he’s getting paid, but on the other hand, sometimes a dab’ll do ya with his whole vibe, and on a show that already walks a fine line between “sharply observed satire of a certain section of the 212” and “twee,” more of Creighton’s Howard could tip the balance the wrong way. Thoughts?
A Warning Sign for Journalists in Alan Dershowitz’s Failed Lawsuit Against CNN [The New Republic] // That lead graphic…[chef’s kiss]. Matt Ford’s explainer on why, even though Dersh “lost” his defamation case against the news network, the central precedent that protects journalists may also have lost is solid too.
Basically, Dershowitz claimed CNN had Frankenbitten (?) his theoretical defense of former president Donald Trump in Trump’s first impeachment trial by leaving key context out of his remarks to the Senate. Dershowitz sued the net for defamation; here’s Ford on what such cases historically face:
It is not easy to win a defamation case in the United States. Generally speaking, a plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” That standard can typically only be met if the defendant published false information about the plaintiff and either knew it was false when they published it or acted with “reckless disregard for the truth” while publishing it. The federal courts, starting with the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan, have typically recognized this as a high threshold to clear for First Amendment reasons.
Ford goes on to unpack (2019 Trump appointee) Judge Raag Singhal’s ruling. A dense but digestible report for civilians, and particularly relevant given the libel-litigious atmosphere of late.
Closing out this section with a handful of upcoming docuseries, in case you’ve got budget docs of your own you’d like to add them to!
My Name Is Reeva — here’s more from Television Business International:
“UK broadcaster Channel 4 and Australia’s SBS have both picked up true crime documentary series My Name is Reeva: I Was Murdered by Oscar Pistorius.Channel 4 has taken linear and SVOD rights to the Keshet International-distributed doc, which is now streaming on its All4 platform, while SBS is due to premiere the series today.
Produced by WB Productions in partnership with Cactus Tree Entertainment, Bloodrose Productions and Global City Group, the 3 x 60-minute series tells the true story of Reeva Steenkamp’s life and her murder at the hands of her then-boyfriend Oscar Pistorius on Valentine’s Day in 2013.The show features exclusive access to Steenkamp’s parents as they endure a victim offender dialogue (VOD) with their daughter’s murderer, a condition of Pistorius’ recent request for early parole.”
This sounds compelling, but also rather grim; anyone seen it/planning to “fly to England” to watch?Accomplice to Murder with Vinnie Politan — Not sure the title works, given the implication that subjects and/or viewers are host Politan’s accomplices (and the subsequent conclusion on the part of this prospective viewer that a serial doc on Politan lamming it sounds way more compelling), but in any event, the ten-part docuseries bows May 7 at 8 PM. Drafting off Court TV’s recent bump in viewership via Paltrow trial coverage, Accomplice “looks beyond the usual suspects to tell the gripping stories of everyday people caught up in a world of deception and manipulation as they become accomplices to murder. Court TV lead anchor Vinnie Politan hosts and travels across the country to speak with the accomplices – the convicted, the condemned as well as the exonerated – who provide a unique window into cases whose verdicts might not be as clear-cut as initially thought.”
The Curious Case of Natalia Grace — The rhyming is not great IMO, but the subject sounds fascinating…and if this write-up from ShowbizJunkies.com is accurate, I may have to update my Sarsgaard BET-CRP; evidently the Sarsgaard-led Orphan is based on the case. Here’s more from Investigation Discovery’s press email: “Initially assumed to be a 6-year-old Ukrainian orphan with spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia, a rare bone growth disorder that can result in skeletal abnormalities as well as issues with hearing and vision, Natalia was adopted by Kristine and Michael Barnett in 2010.
However, the happy family dynamic soured when allegations against Natalia were brought by the Barnetts who alleged Natalia was an adult masquerading as a child with intent to harm their family.”
The miniseries airs on three consecutive nights starting May 29; you know how I love an imposter con, so I’m probably going to check it out. Here’s the trailer:
The crime
Candy Montgomery took an axe / and gave Betty Gore 41 whacks. But was it justified?
The story
Love & Death, which premiered on HBO Max today, is the second prestige miniseries to ask that question; the first, Candy, starred Jessica Biel in the title role, but this one is perhaps the more anticipated, with Elizabeth Olsen as Candy, Lily Rabe as her victim, Jesse Plemons as Betty’s husband/Candy’s lover, and various other acting lights in supporting parts.
We went into Love & Death in some depth in tomorrow’s episode of Extra Extra Hot Great, but the tl;dr version is that I don’t know whether to recommend the series. It’s for sure too long — I’ve seen all three of the episodes that dropped today, and while it’s rightly proud of its production design, it liiiiingers on it to make sure you see how faithful it is. It also montages sequences and then also runs them in real time, and it’s not boring, exactly, but from a “worth your time” standpoint it’s maybe too meditative.
But it’s doing a few interesting things, albeit too slowly for my and my esteemed EEHG colleagues’ taste (another esteemed colleague, Mark Blankenship, liked the property’s “subtle” take on the story better than we did, although I don’t know if I entirely agree, at least when it comes to the music cues). For one, the acting is extraordinary. I thought Biel did well in the 2022 iteration, but Olsen is equally expert, via a different route, at performing the human embodiment of the “we’ll never really know” at the center of the case, if that makes sense. Jesse Plemons makes credible decisions as blandly hesitant Allan Gore.
For another, although I don’t entirely care for the way it does it and I don’t think it’s entirely intentional, Love & Death got me thinking about “perfect victims” and the way the story — and all the other stories like it — frames a “protagonist.” As the great Alan Sepinwall explains in his review for Rolling Stone,
[another] significant change from the Hulu version is that Candy felt equal empathy for both killer and victim. Love & Death, on the other hand, is entirely in Candy’s corner, and barely even considers the inner life, or the sadness of the death, of poor Betty Gore. The Lynskey version is clearly depressed and isolated, but the Lily Rabe version is simply presented as an insufferable shrew who chased Allan into adultery. (Even when they have sex, it’s terrible, like when we see her barking orders at him as they try to conceive another child: “If you can squirt rather than drip, that helps too! But slower! Deeper! And squirt!”) The sequence where Allan — off on a business trip and increasingly panicked that Betty isn’t answering the phone — has to goad his neighbors into breaking into the house is shorter and less harrowing than the Candy version, as if Kelley and company are reluctant to make us appreciate just how terrible this all was.
Rabe’s Betty landed in a more complex way for me than it seems to have for Alan, but that’s likely down to Rabe, whose portrayal of a high-strung woman who tires even herself but can’t stop clenching is compassionate and relatable. Melanie Lynskey’s version of Betty got to the same place via a different route — more soggy than shrill — but I agree with Alan that Candy took more of an interest in Betty, and from there in the “values” we assign within these narratives to flawed or off-putting victims. I have no problem with centering the killer if it’s not a position that’s defaulted to; Candy’s choice there felt considered in a way L&D’s doesn’t, but even the default has things to tell us about the genre generally — and specifically how many hundreds and thousands of stories in the genre have retailed a Madonna/whore or uptight bitch/Cool Girl dichotomy as “motive” without investigating the misogyny that created the constructs.
So I don’t not recommend Love & Death; it’s well done. It’s also far too slow, so I’d wait until the whole series has dropped, then start at the beginning of Episode 2 and see how you go. As a “three-quarters of your attention while crafting” prospect, it’s great. — SDB
Tomorrow on Best Evidence: budget sweep, budget sweep / does whatever a budget-sweep does / clears a doc, any size / discusses thieves, s…omething “flies” / look out! here comes the budget sweeeeeeep
What is this thing? This should help. Follow Best Evidence @bestevidencefyi on Instagram, email us at editorial at bestevidence dot fyi, or call or text us any time at 919-75-CRIME.