It was an interesting setup, the scenery is great, but nothing is really wrapped up. Basically, nothing is proven. It's a rather "thin" journalistic investigation of the case. The cops don't really prove their guilt, but the journalists don't really prove their innocence either. Saying you're innocent is a far cry from being innocent. And it would be in their best interest, trying to move on with their lives to say, "Oh yeah, I'm innocent." They have children. No parent wants their child to think they're capable of murder or being involved in it. Very few accused of crimes say they're guilty. There was a kid in our neighborhood, robbing everyone blind, and everyone but his negligent parents knew it, then after he was finally arrested, I heard him crying to his mother that he didn't do any of the things he'd been accused of, despite he had dragged multiple neighbor kids into a crime spree for 2 summers straight. Rarely do people admit their guilt, or they justify it in their mind.
Also, they were held based on the woman's confessions early in the investigation. Not to mention, the main guy said he wanted to commit a serious crime and to have the cops running around and not be able to pin it on them. So, them changing their stories is not concrete evidence of their innocence. It doesn't mean they had the legal means of proof to convict them, but, the journalist also do not offer much in the way of the transcripts through their interrogations. I really got the impression they just wanted to wrap it up with a quick twist, then neat and tidy bow at the end, but didn't really explore whether they were guilty or innocent. They went to prison 'cause they confessed to guilt, now you're saying they're innocent 'cause they say their innocent. The journalists don't seem to have any more integrity than the cops in this documentary. There is really not enough evidence to say whether they are guilty or innocent. They certainly seemed guilty, and 35 years later, me not influenced by the Icelandic media, how can you say that the media is the reason they went to jail? They seem guilty. Did they get a fair trial? Who knows. That's the thing, the media bends things in a narrative they want to hook you into their side. Often there are a lot of things the media leaves out of the story, and they didn't really dig that deep into their trial. Kind of like the show Making a Murderer, where the journalists are extremely one sided in defense of his innocence, but conveniently leave out lengthy history of that guy that paints a deranged man on the path towards murder or serial killer status.
So, I don't know. The journalists case of their innocence was more flimsy than the police's case of their guilt. Interesting, but a bit on the "light" crime side.
Also, they were held based on the woman's confessions early in the investigation. Not to mention, the main guy said he wanted to commit a serious crime and to have the cops running around and not be able to pin it on them. So, them changing their stories is not concrete evidence of their innocence. It doesn't mean they had the legal means of proof to convict them, but, the journalist also do not offer much in the way of the transcripts through their interrogations. I really got the impression they just wanted to wrap it up with a quick twist, then neat and tidy bow at the end, but didn't really explore whether they were guilty or innocent. They went to prison 'cause they confessed to guilt, now you're saying they're innocent 'cause they say their innocent. The journalists don't seem to have any more integrity than the cops in this documentary. There is really not enough evidence to say whether they are guilty or innocent. They certainly seemed guilty, and 35 years later, me not influenced by the Icelandic media, how can you say that the media is the reason they went to jail? They seem guilty. Did they get a fair trial? Who knows. That's the thing, the media bends things in a narrative they want to hook you into their side. Often there are a lot of things the media leaves out of the story, and they didn't really dig that deep into their trial. Kind of like the show Making a Murderer, where the journalists are extremely one sided in defense of his innocence, but conveniently leave out lengthy history of that guy that paints a deranged man on the path towards murder or serial killer status.
So, I don't know. The journalists case of their innocence was more flimsy than the police's case of their guilt. Interesting, but a bit on the "light" crime side.