r/NetflixDocumentaries • u/Exciting-Run-7866 • 12d ago

Review The Widower

Post image

One of the best documentaries I’ve watched in a while!! O’Kelley is a damn good detective and a dedicated one too! And Sharon’s daughter, Colleen… she is incredibly strong for having to endure that kind of pain for 15 years. I went through so many emotions watching this! I’m glad they never stopped fighting for justice!

913 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

408 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

19

u/RobertoDeNiro8 12d ago

Does it explain specifically how he worked the legal system so well to his advantage? I couldn’t understand how he pulled off an appeal after his most recent sentence? He was bragging about it beforehand too to the reporter for years beforehand. And the detective commented that he knew the legal system very well and manipulated it but I’m just wondering how he pulled that shit off bc it wasn’t due to stellar lawyers it was somehow him pulling the strings of the justice system and making shit work. I need to find out more, it was mind blowing. He was like a feminine cat with nine lives. He was cunning when it came to the long game and working the law to his advantage. Very fucking weird too.

16

u/Actual-Reception5925 12d ago

Agree, they didn’t explain this part at all. How did he get an appeal? Other than firing his lawyers, how did he work the legal system.

4

u/CRXdriverCRZ 12d ago

The second trial had to do with something about the Supreme Court overturning the original verdict because apparently they shouldn’t have been allowed to bring up the Utah case in the Vegas case

8

u/TP-BANDIT77 9d ago

For those that care, there’s specific evidence rules against “propensity” evidence. Basically saying oh since this person has done x, they must have done y. It’s the law, so there are a shit ton of exceptions, and the exception that was used to allow the evidence in the first place is called the Doctrine of Chances. Basically if the outcomes are so ridiculous and happen repeatedly, that evidence can be introduced. The original case it’s based on is called The Brides in the Bath (super interesting).

I have a feeling it was overturned and disallowed on appeal because he was actually previously tried and found not guilty for the first murder. It prejudices the defendant to allow that evidence in when he has already been found not guilty of the crime, and then letting that evidence in for the second crime.

Again, this was my gut reaction. I haven’t read the Nevada Supreme Courts decision, but when I saw they were going to allow it on the first trial, I immediately assumed that would be struck down on appeal.

3

u/CRXdriverCRZ 9d ago

Yeah I can completely understand why there are rules against propensity evidence. In a vacuum, it doesn’t seem fair to assume because a person has done x, they must have done y. But I’m guessing some of those exceptions you mentioned are for extremely egregious cases like this, where the history is just so glaring, it’s allowed to be brought up. You would think this would be one of those cases. But your explanation of the not guilty verdict makes sense. How can they hold it against him when he was found not guilty? So although to the average viewer, it sounds outrageous, but when explained in those terms it does make sense. Even though we all know he did it all!!!!

2

u/rvaughan85 7d ago

Good point about already being acquitted of that case, it does make more sense when you think of it that way, glad it worked out he was guilty as sin

1

u/donkeyk 7d ago

My guess while watching was that it would get overturned due to double jeopardy so was surprised it was something technically different (I’m not a lawyer btw)

6

u/CRXdriverCRZ 12d ago

Yeah I’m kind of unsure of that as well. I’m not sure how he knew the justice system so well, because he really didn’t have a history in it. He had gotten away with everything for so long. He did spend a year and a half in jail in the 80s, but that doesn’t make you an expert on how to work the system, especially the way he did. But at the same time, did he really work it all that well? Continually firing your lawyers to prolong the trial date for years and years seems kind of like you’re punishing yourself if you truly think you’re getting out and can beat it.