********* SPOILERS **********
I thought this film was acceptable.
Since the date-time information that the DVD served as digital backup of was easy to procure by other means, what was the importance of the DVD? The receipts for the articles - the knife, mask, shoes, clothes, dog, etc., or testimony from any of the counter-persons involved could corroborate the times of purchase. But, even added to the the DVD, would this have been a legal defense? Even with the buddy's testimony that this was planned beforehand, wouldn't that have been insufficient evidence by evidentiary standards? Because in the end we know it wasn't enough for the truth. Substantial plot flaw, I thought. And in the end, the assistant D.A. was a better investigator than the investigative reporter.
There were other parts of the movie involving the prison stay were a bit unbelievable and unnecessary, but the the DVD was the worst.
I thought this film was acceptable.
Since the date-time information that the DVD served as digital backup of was easy to procure by other means, what was the importance of the DVD? The receipts for the articles - the knife, mask, shoes, clothes, dog, etc., or testimony from any of the counter-persons involved could corroborate the times of purchase. But, even added to the the DVD, would this have been a legal defense? Even with the buddy's testimony that this was planned beforehand, wouldn't that have been insufficient evidence by evidentiary standards? Because in the end we know it wasn't enough for the truth. Substantial plot flaw, I thought. And in the end, the assistant D.A. was a better investigator than the investigative reporter.
There were other parts of the movie involving the prison stay were a bit unbelievable and unnecessary, but the the DVD was the worst.