May 2, 2023

The Menendezes · Roman Polanski · Another Black Mass

Plus: Where do you stand on heists?

the true crime that's worth your time

It’s a bit of a grab bag today, I’ll admit it. I usually strive for an arc or a content balance, but today the news isn’t cooperating. Did I clear the budget doc a little too assiduously last week? Perhaps!

So please consider today’s issue a space to comment, respond, and discuss the items I’m floating, even more than our issues usually are. We’re all in this thing together! — EB

And speaking of making your voice heard, voting for Sarah’s May bonus review is now open! As you know, this is a reader-chosen subscriber-only issue, and at present the options are close to neck-and-neck.

Vote for May's review now!

Remember, you can always vote for multiple options if you’d like — think of it as a way to vote against the choices you prefer not to read. Whatever, it makes sense to us, and makes the polling more fun.

A new “Monster” has been named. Sadly, we’re not talking about the Cookie one — this is in reference to Ryan Murphy’s Netflix situation. As announced via teaser trailer Monday, Murphy is following his awkwardly titled Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story with the slightly less awkward Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story.

As The Hollywood Reporter notes, Murphy’s Dahmer series was intended as a one-shot outing, but after its success with viewers, the streaming giant struck a deal to turn it into an anthology series along the line of Murphy’s other word/colon outings (American Horror Story:, American Crime Story:, etc.), featuring “stories of other monstrous figures who have impacted society.”

Lyle and Erik Menendez’s impact on society is something we can discuss, I suppose: Rolling Stone argued a few years ago that “they personified the crumbling of the American Dream” (which seems like a stretch), while a lengthy BuzzFeed essay suggested that the trial was a tipping point for true crime coverage.

Both those pieces, I should note, were spurred by Law & Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders, an eight-episode dramatic adaptation of the case from NBC with a cast that was something else1. Look at this: Edie Falco, Anthony Edwards, Harry Hamlin, Lolita Davidovich, Heather Graham…that’s just me cherry-picking.

Of course, that series was on NBC, so we already have an answer to any questions about how a Murphy/Netflix adaptation might distinguish itself: while the 2017 series had to pull its punches when it came to gore, nudity, profanity, and content due to broadcast standards, the Wild West of streaming has no such rules. I’m not saying that’s justification for its existence, but it will be a market differentiator!

But even THR, which is a relentless booster for new product, seems a little over the Menendezes as a topic (bolding of subtle brow raise added):

The Menendez case was a media sensation in the early 1990s and has been extensively (or exhaustively) covered in both fictionalized and documentary form ever since. Fox and CBS both aired TV movies about the murders in 1994, and Lifetime ran Menendez: Blood Brothers in 2017. The single season of Law & Order: True Crime on NBC also focused on the case, with Edie Falco starring as defense lawyer Leslie Abramson. Several true-crime shows have also profiled the brothers; Peacock’s upcoming documentary Menendez + Menudo: Boys Betrayed features a former member of boy band Menudo, Roy Rosselló, claiming José Menendez sexually assaulted him when Rosselló was a teenager.

Netflix also says it is preparing a Menendez doc to accompany the Murphy series, a presumable attempt to capitalize on any renewed interest in the case. That doc and the Murphy series do not yet have a release date, nor is there any casting or behind-the-camera information available as of publication. — EB

Here’s how Sarah framed this item in our budget doc: “Not sure we want to stick our heads into this propeller but.” The propeller in question is Roman Polanski’s rape conviction; the news is a photo posted by Samantha Geimer, the then-13-year-old victim in the case, of herself with Polanski, a post that was immediately picked up by conservative news sites (and eventually by others). I wonder if this is a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” kind of thing — while Polanski hardly reflects conservative values, undercutting a rape case certainly appeals to that agenda, I suppose?

The photo was apparently the result of an interview Geimer did with Polanski’s wife, Emmanuelle Seigner, for French magazine Le Point. Per The Daily Beast, in the interview, “Geimer claimed that Polanski had ‘paid his debt to society’ and said she had gotten over what he did to her.”

This isn’t the first time Geimer has been in touch with her assailant, though it’s the first time the world has seen them together: when promoting her memoir in 2013 she noted that they were in touch over email. Here’s a snip of a Guardian interview from that time:

"Over all these years, our attorneys have communicated. We're not buddies. But, I mean, I have been in touch with him just a little bit by email. Just personal stuff, nothing worth talking about." She gives the impression she is protecting his privacy, and, one imagines, the fragile state of detente between them. Has she sent him the book? "No. I don't know if he'll read it. I don't believe he's seen it. He's a busy person, so I'm not sure if it's something that it's important to him to get to." The tone of this – there is no mistaking it – is the deference that creeps into interactions with the famous. It is alive, even now.

I have a lot of conflicting thoughts on this matter, from the healing power of forgiveness to the pressure on women to get along to go along, to the power of fame — and I am very mindful of the propeller Sarah warned against, a sharp blade of which is society’s (well-meaning, in some cases?) desire to deny agency to a crime victim. But I am eager to hear your thoughts, so I might better form mine. — EB

Leave a comment

Why do you think they’re avoiding the word “Bundy” in this movie’s description? When you hear about a true crime-based movie called Black Mass, you probably think of Johnny Depp in Whitey Bulger drag or Benedict Cumberbatch doing yet another awful American accent.

You think I’m exaggerating with “awful”? Well, think again:

ANYWAY. This item isn’t about that star-studded 2015 film at all! Instead, we’re talking about true crime actress Devanny Pinn’s directorial debut, which is also called Black Mass and also has roots in a real-life case.

Pinn played Casey Anthony in the reenactment portions of ID’s 2017 release Casey Anthony: An American Murder Mystery; she also played Family member/Tate murder participant Susan Atkins in 2014’s House of Manson. Her first job behind the camera, THR said when it was announced, is a movie also called Black Mass that’s “inspired by real events.”

The film’s press materials describe those events thusly:

Black Mass is set over a 24-hour period in Florida during the winter of 1978, and follows a serial killer in the days leading up to his final, unhinged rampage. The film intends to provide a disturbing and terrifying look into the warped psyche of a notorious murderer, as well as the ramifications of his violence for those who fell victim to it, and for those who survived.

“Black Mass aims to tell a famous serial killer’s story from a perspective that has not yet been done – by spending a day with the victims,” says director Devanny Pinn.

“The media has played a significant role in giving murderers publicity and lending celebrity, even at times a ‘cool factor’, to their persona. I feel it’s time to change that narrative. It’s time to shift the public’s focus to the people whose lives were prematurely taken from them and I saw Black Mass as an opportunity to approach that cinematically,” she adds.

What I’m wondering is why they’re talking around the name of the “famous serial killer” — who has got to be Ted Bundy, right? — when they talk about this film. As we know from the controversy around Ryan Murphy’s Dahmer series, when it comes to cases with widely-public documentation, its unlikely that there are intricacies around life rights to grapple with, nor can the Bundy estate protect the use of public details of his life the way estates like Elvis Presley’s or Marilyn Monroe’s might. As far as I know, he’s fair game.

I reached out to Pinn to ask why she and her colleagues are boing so cagey about the case this film is associated with — perhaps her statements about changing the narrative are related to this decision — but have not received a response. Please join me in speculating in the comments. — EB

Leave a comment

According to a survey from UK TV channel Sky History, one in eight people with an interest in true crime also believe they could rob a bank. It’s one of those dumb surveys brands use to get media coverage, and I can’t believe I’m falling for it, but the topic is too goofy to resist.

As picked up by dubious website StudyFinds:

A survey of 2,000 adults who enjoy the genre reveals that these people watch an average of 20 hours of fictional and real-life lawbreaking TV shows per month. Consequently, three in 10 respondents actually think they could solve a robbery, using the knowledge they acquired on their couch!

Additionally, 24 percent have even considered how they might go about conducting a heist themselves. More than a third (36%) believe a key skill in any robbery is being a master of disguise, while 11 percent think appearing intimidating is essential.

The study revealed that one in six (17%) view stealing from a bank as a “victimless” crime, as long as no one gets hurt, with a quarter admitting they wouldn’t report their partner to the police if they found out they committed such an offense.

Of those taking part in the U.K. survey, 36 percent admitted they would take a bag full of $20 notes if they found it outside a bank, with 40 percent of these people willing to spend the money on bills and essentials to alleviate the cost-of-living crisis.

Now I know that BE reader and contributor Dan Cassino is barfing into a drawer right now just reading this poorly summarized, seemingly methodology-less set of “results.” I am sorry, Dan! But, for entertainment purposes only, let’s think about this a bit.

First, only 24 percent of these folks “considered how they might go about conducting a heist themselves”? That number seems remarkably low, doesn’t it? Who hasn’t idly thought about how they’d do it, after all?.

Then, what about that 36 percent that said they’d “take a bag full of $20 notes if they found it outside a bank,” where presumably there are cameras galore. It’s an answer that suggests that these folks need to up their viewing beyond that 20 hours a month (ha, amateurs!) until they realize how easily they’d get caught. A lot to unpack here. — EB

Wednesday on Best Evidence: It’s my birthday month, so expect a aging-related thread.

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.