VALUTAZIONE IMDb
5,5/10
1113
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Questo documentario offre la prima intervista rilasciata in carcere da Rosa Peral da quando è stata condannata per l'omicidio del fidanzato con l'aiuto di un esecutore.Questo documentario offre la prima intervista rilasciata in carcere da Rosa Peral da quando è stata condannata per l'omicidio del fidanzato con l'aiuto di un esecutore.Questo documentario offre la prima intervista rilasciata in carcere da Rosa Peral da quando è stata condannata per l'omicidio del fidanzato con l'aiuto di un esecutore.
Trama
Lo sapevi?
- QuizDepicts the events that were also the basis for In fiamme (2023).
Recensione in evidenza
The prosecutor of the case talks forever, on and on, damning Rosa. But he's a fast-talking con man. He even admits at the onset that all he had was circumstantial evidence. My gut feeling about this guy is not good. He just isn't reasonable, convincing, or credible. He drowns the jury with a flood of rushed verbiage, a blur of so-called "facts," so that they can't consider the facts one by one, carefully. Con men have been doing this for centuries.
The prosecutor makes a big deal that Rosa and Albert talked by cell phone 50 times before the murder. He claims they were conspiring to commit the murder during those calls. First, this is false. The defense attorney points out that 19 of those calls were missed calls and that Albert and Rosa talked for a total of only 28 minutes during those 31 calls. That's only 0.9 minutes a call, less than one minute per call. Second, he has no proof of what they talked about. His claim that they were conspiring to commit murder is purely speculative and is, frankly, inadmissible. He has no transcript or recording of those calls. His claim is flimsy, to say the least.
Rosa, her 2 daughters, and her mom and dad spent a warm, close, loving day together the day before the murder. They even took many cell-phone pictures of themselves, hugging and loving each other. The prosecutor, without a shred of evidence, maliciously claims this was just a fraud intended to throw the cops off the cold-blooded Rosa, who was in fact planning to kill Pedro the next day. Again, the prosecutor has no evidence or proof, just damning suspicions and speculation.
Seeing things from Rosa's point of view casts a shadow of doubt on her guilt. She explains she obeyed and cooperated with Albert because she was afraid of him, especially afraid that he would harm her children, which, she says, he threatened to do. In America a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless there is no shadow of a doubt. There is certainly one here.
The movie. Burning Body, portrays Rosa as an ultra-promiscuous, very sexy, beautiful, young, ruthless, hungry black widow, which sensationalizes the film. Sex is everywhere. This is cheap sexploitation.
The media, which covered the crime, did exactly the same thing.
In America a jury of 12 men and woman must reach a unanimous verdict. In Spain they not only have just 9 jurors, but they accept a guilty verdict from just 7 or 8 of the jurors.
Because of a shadow of a doubt, I would not have convicted Rosa Peral.
The prosecutor makes a big deal that Rosa and Albert talked by cell phone 50 times before the murder. He claims they were conspiring to commit the murder during those calls. First, this is false. The defense attorney points out that 19 of those calls were missed calls and that Albert and Rosa talked for a total of only 28 minutes during those 31 calls. That's only 0.9 minutes a call, less than one minute per call. Second, he has no proof of what they talked about. His claim that they were conspiring to commit murder is purely speculative and is, frankly, inadmissible. He has no transcript or recording of those calls. His claim is flimsy, to say the least.
Rosa, her 2 daughters, and her mom and dad spent a warm, close, loving day together the day before the murder. They even took many cell-phone pictures of themselves, hugging and loving each other. The prosecutor, without a shred of evidence, maliciously claims this was just a fraud intended to throw the cops off the cold-blooded Rosa, who was in fact planning to kill Pedro the next day. Again, the prosecutor has no evidence or proof, just damning suspicions and speculation.
Seeing things from Rosa's point of view casts a shadow of doubt on her guilt. She explains she obeyed and cooperated with Albert because she was afraid of him, especially afraid that he would harm her children, which, she says, he threatened to do. In America a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless there is no shadow of a doubt. There is certainly one here.
The movie. Burning Body, portrays Rosa as an ultra-promiscuous, very sexy, beautiful, young, ruthless, hungry black widow, which sensationalizes the film. Sex is everywhere. This is cheap sexploitation.
The media, which covered the crime, did exactly the same thing.
In America a jury of 12 men and woman must reach a unanimous verdict. In Spain they not only have just 9 jurors, but they accept a guilty verdict from just 7 or 8 of the jurors.
Because of a shadow of a doubt, I would not have convicted Rosa Peral.
- ockiemilkwood
- 21 nov 2023
- Permalink
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Rosa Peral's Tapes?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Rosa Peral's Tapes
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 20 minuti
- Colore
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
What is the Canadian French language plot outline for Il caso Rosa Peral (2023)?
Rispondi