Rosa Peral and Netflix’s two black widows

Two versions of the same truth. In one, Rosa Peral is innocent, in the other, she is guilty. If you don’t like this version, here’s the other one. And everyone is happy. The main problem with these series, which are based on recent real events, is that their writers are often limited in saying what they want to say in order to avoid legal trouble. There are a number of things that are necessary for editing in some cases that are not necessary for a documentary. The prosecutor of the case also says this in the report. In Criminal Law, there is no need to show reason or motive, It is enough to prove the crime. For any fiction series, not delving into the motivations of the characters will leave the story incomplete or facing realism issues in the plot. The truth is that both documentary and fiction take the elements that interest them and set aside their thesis to defend their thesis. It bothers them. In this way, the series gains its freedom. give up real surnames of his heroes. change some of your characters’ real names or introduce some of your personal circumstances or even new ones that are completely fictional. As it turns out, the dogged investigator who solved the crime didn’t actually exist and was an amalgamation of all the agents involved in the case. Some actors bear a physical resemblance to their real counterparts, while others bear little resemblance. The casting choices are quite successful. Moreover, when we think about this, we are faced with a situation of metafiction. Tokyo has already killed Gandía In the Paper House.

For the followers of this story, there is also a documentary series, which is the third leg of the competition. Carles Porta titled two years ago It’s the City Watch’s fault, it has become a phenomenon TV3 and is available at: Movistar and this is what tries to present all versions of these events. Because there was a second defendant in this crime, and while we were in a defendant where both sides blamed each other, his version is not told to us even in the slightest in the documentary.

The problem with the true crime format is that the newer the events and the more sensitive they are, the more likely it is that some of the people directly involved will be offended. So, will telling this story have the same impact 25 years later? The success of the documentary genre has led many production companies to begin scouring newspaper archives in search of stories to bring to the big screen. Some well-known events that are examined from new perspectives… There have been discussions about the extent to which fiction should adapt to reality, even in facts that have nothing to do with major crimes. For example, what happened to Netflix with The Crown and their disagreements with Netflix british royal family Because of the events they told Carlos and Lady Di’s relationship. But explaining whether someone killed someone else is another thing. Especially if a person is acquitted due to lack of evidence, even if he is not as innocent as stated in the verdict. It would be a real mess. This is something he achieves masterfully. Ryan Murphy by process OJ Simpson In American Crime Story. Sometimes we choose to be inspired by real events, but by changing the identities and environments of all the heroes, we say things that could not be said if their real identities were used. However, the crime committed by the City Police had so many interesting elements that it would perhaps not be believable if told as a work of fiction.

At the time, I wasn’t following Rosa Peral’s case very closely, other than some headlines and reports about the investigation. As far as I can learn, from what two Netflix series told me. Her body Pedro RodríguezAn agent of the Barcelona City Police was found burned in the trunk of a car. May 4, 2017 around foix swamp. If he didn’t have a screw in his back from spinal surgery, the Mossos would never have identified him. It was enough to reveal his identity and establish his relationship with the other two defendants. The pieces of the puzzle will fit together and they can be convicted because of the evidence that inevitably leads them. Because if there is no direct evidence, it is because it guarantees that the accused already exists. It was enough for the Security Forces to make some reference to the type of relationship that existed between the people involved. The series avoids trying to show what crime is like and sticks to proven facts in sentencing. It even leaves a gap in Rosa’s own version, when we see the reaction of the police officer conducting the investigation after the verdict when he sees a person involved in a case among those celebrating the conviction. revenge porn reported by the agent. A shot that eliminates the doubt that perhaps there may be a much more complex background behind everything than is perceived at first glance.

The documentary resorts to the trap of implying that Rosa is being tried for her sexual promiscuity rather than whether she actually committed the crime. It’s like we’re facing a new case. Dolores Vazquez. And in this way, the defendant also becomes a victim. However, being the victim of a crime does not excuse committing murder. Peral claims that it was her ex-boyfriend Albert who killed Pedro, and that she was trapped in fear of retaliation. This explanation of insurmountable fear is contradicted by the fact that messages between the pair indicate that they were planning an escape. Port Aventura after the crime. Or that the night the body was discovered, the duo went to a party where there were more police officers, but my source for this information is the series. The prosecutor explains this very well. In processRosa’s sexual promiscuity was not prosecuted. What is relevant to the case is how she used sex to get Albert to help her. In fact, according to her account, it was Rosa who killed Pedro and called Pedro to dispose of the body. But with so little evidence available, knowing what role each person played in the crime was a pipe dream. And even more so considering in Spain Defendants have the right to lie to defend themselves. The prosecutor’s trick was that it was enough to prove that both participated. And this is coming from someone who has been trying to write forensic information for over twenty years; Cases in which a jury convicts with even the slightest suspicion are rare. Sometimes this happens, but usually few people dare to send someone to prison for 25 years unless they are very clear about it.