This series shows why it is important that the legal system is run by professionals with the highest level of competence and integrity. The documentary focuses on a scandal that erupted after an investigation involving paedophilia in one family in Outreau, France. The children in this family were one hundred percent victims of this horrible crime. Unfortunately, their mother, apart from being an enabler of abuse, was a pathological liar, and this led to many innocent people being accused of this crime. When word of this got out, it sparked a scandal in France, and many of the accused were cleared of any wrong-doing. Perhaps prematurely (which the documentary does not address). Three people who were cleared were subsequently charged and convicted of crimes against children. The trail itself was a sham....child victims were subjected to hours of testimony in public court, which is not something that is good for them, or conducive to the interest of justice. The defence lawyers were permitted to ruin the character of children. If a child is required to testify about such a matter, it should happen behind closed doors, with no cross-examination. My conclusion is that such investigations should not be reported to the public until a verdict is reached.
13 Reviews
Injustice
dorothyboboprg20 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
While the subject is gut wrenching and heinous, the trial was interesting. I didn't know who or what to believe.
The step father who sniffed his stepdaughters' crotches after their showers to "make sure they were clean" is child abuse in itself! He got no sentence, although his wife later divorced him...
These children WERE traumatized. The parents let them down, the community let them down, the lawyers and the courts let them down.
Will there be a follow-up later when these children are adults? There's a reason why there shouldn't be a statute of limitations in regards to child abuse cases.
The step father who sniffed his stepdaughters' crotches after their showers to "make sure they were clean" is child abuse in itself! He got no sentence, although his wife later divorced him...
These children WERE traumatized. The parents let them down, the community let them down, the lawyers and the courts let them down.
Will there be a follow-up later when these children are adults? There's a reason why there shouldn't be a statute of limitations in regards to child abuse cases.
French law? Hmm?
ryancannon-3185917 March 2024
Pretty bad stuff here. It's grim. But the way the French legal system operates here is a complete disgrace. Perhaps another example of why English common law is the fairest way. Adversarial, in the correct way, is obviously better than the inquisitorial concept as played out in this documentary. France always has some good ideas, but ultimately the Anglosphere knows best.
I have to write more? I love France. Baguettes, wine and pain du chocolat. Moule mariner and Truffaut. Alain Delon? Yep. Tres classique. At the end of the day, good concept, bad delivery. The French legal system. Liberty? Non. Just my opinion.
I have to write more? I love France. Baguettes, wine and pain du chocolat. Moule mariner and Truffaut. Alain Delon? Yep. Tres classique. At the end of the day, good concept, bad delivery. The French legal system. Liberty? Non. Just my opinion.
Grim documentary, exposing the French judicial system
paul-allaer20 March 2024
As Episode 1 of "The Outreau Case: A French Nightmare" (2024 release; 4 episodes of about 45 min.) opens, we are reminded of the vast scope of this tragedy: 18 kids having endured sexual crimes allegedly committed by 17 adults in the norther France suburb of Outreasu, near Bologne-sur-Mer. We then go back in time to "February 22, 2001", when an investigation is opened and we hear from the Examining Magistrate how it all started... At this point we are 10 minutes into Episode 1.
Couple of comments: let me admit that I had never heard of this case before. It shook all of France, and we understand why as the events unfold in Episode 1 and later on. The crimes truly shock the conscience. Unless the crimes were not committed? This documentary mini-series exposes the French judicial system. Without spoiling anything, there are things happening in the trial that will leave you incredulous. If not infuriated. Even though these 4 episodes fly by quickly, I must admit that it makes for overall grim viewing, so you have been warned!
"The Outreau Case: A French Nightmare" recently started streaming on Netflix. If you are interested in true crime documentaries and can put up with the overall grim nature of this particular mini-series, I'd readily suggest you check this out, and draw your own conclusion.
Couple of comments: let me admit that I had never heard of this case before. It shook all of France, and we understand why as the events unfold in Episode 1 and later on. The crimes truly shock the conscience. Unless the crimes were not committed? This documentary mini-series exposes the French judicial system. Without spoiling anything, there are things happening in the trial that will leave you incredulous. If not infuriated. Even though these 4 episodes fly by quickly, I must admit that it makes for overall grim viewing, so you have been warned!
"The Outreau Case: A French Nightmare" recently started streaming on Netflix. If you are interested in true crime documentaries and can put up with the overall grim nature of this particular mini-series, I'd readily suggest you check this out, and draw your own conclusion.
A thrilling and shocking story
rikvanagt18 March 2024
This series has everything you would watch a true crime documentary for. Unbelievably horrible crimes, a failing judicial system, false confessions, media frenzies etc. It strikes the right balance between the accusers and the accused and shows the views of all parties involved. It asks a very tough question: should you believe traumatized children without any hessitation?
At some times it was hard to follow because of all the names, but in the end, it was a thrilling watch with some unexpected outcomes.
All other reviews here show a subjective view on the series, which is understandable with this topic. If people can't help but express their emotions in the review, you know it's a good documentary.
At some times it was hard to follow because of all the names, but in the end, it was a thrilling watch with some unexpected outcomes.
All other reviews here show a subjective view on the series, which is understandable with this topic. If people can't help but express their emotions in the review, you know it's a good documentary.
Anti child, anti survivor
ranaway6719 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
Perhaps not all the accused were indeed guilty but the docuseries makes light of the lives and hardships endured by the victim children. The series thoroughly explores the feelings and lives of the accused-but not of the victims. In fact, we only hear from one of the then-child victims and nearly all the interviews are with the accused adults or their advocates. The perception that viewers get is that the French public is outraged by the miscarriage of justice and not interested in finding out what really happened to these children. We watch as lawyers interrogate and rip apart abused children with no explanation of the ways that trauma may be remembered by young children. It felt irresponsible and unethical.
The oliphant in the room
bolo8919 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
In this documentary - which is a missed opportunity on a very important topic - there is an oliphant in the room. It is called trauma. In this case, as the documentary shows, everything is about the unability of the juridical narrative to describe/grasp the nature of trauma.
Trauma stirres society and confuses things. The presented juridical narrative desperately tries to rationalize something that is not possible to explain in the given framework of the justice system. The problem is that the documentary doesn't even try to step out of this framework. The regisseurs don't even try to experiment with a different one, which is counscious of the nature of trauma.
When Sigmund Freud discovered in the end of he 19th century how many children - mostly women - were sexually abused in their childhood by their fathers and other male family members, he published his findings as a huge scientific discovery. Hysteria - as they called a certain group of psychosomatic symptons before - was a result of past traumatic events that affected probably thousands of children, and not only in low class families.
Freud was shocked by the idea that this can happen in many families, and shortly after he took his claims back about the nature of hysteria being rooted in sexual abuse. As Judith Herman writes in her excellent book Trauma and healing, besides the personal aspects, it was historically not the right moment for him to undertake this revolutionary unveiling of the nature of structural intrafamilial sexual abuse.
But intrafamilial sexual abuse has remained there with us, it has not disappeared - even if nobody talked about it for a while, except only during the world wars, regarding veterans' mental health. There has been a new (neuro)scientific evolution in trauma-research sinds the 90s. Bessel van der Kolk, Judith Herman and others explain us how exactly the body keeps the score, containing all the memories of trauma and violence, especially those of early childhood.
They describe how we take the unspeakable with us as a 'parallel' system of memories - part of us being frozen in the past, while our other self constantly suffering in the present. Traumatic memories are not the same like 'normal' ones: they are pictures, sounds, smells - pieces of mozaik which only can be put together by working on it with a good therapist and having a supportive social network.
The documentary just doesn't analyze the meaning of trauma and traumatic rememberance or traumatic memories, the fact that traumas structure the way people are able to remember/recall things, that certain things are broken and lost, while deeply engraved in the mind and the body of someone. They should have taken the fact that trauma structures the memories of the victims, as the starting point. Why didn't they ask a trauma specialist to give the explanation of many things in this case?
All the (elite) people - prosecutors, judges, lawyers, even psychologists! - working in the justice system who were interviewd for this film don't seem to understand the nature of trauma. They are clearly not able to interpret the events in a trauma-conscious way. Without knowing and analysing the nature of trauma it is not possible to understand what happened here.
That is why all the people are not able to tell the 'story' in a meaningful way, they are blind for the fact that remembering or recalling traumatic events is not 'lying' or 'manipulating' but it is a hard and difficult process, which can take long years. The judge Burgeaud even makes a comment on this at a certain point where he refers to the fact that there are certain things that cannot be expressed through language, 'you can't say anything more about this'.
The makers also didn't try to understand the other childrens' way of thinking and acting, besides the Delay-children who were clearly victims. Even if not all children were traumatized, the way they acted had many reasons. How was their life? Why did they want attention? In which way were they pressured by their environment? They tried to get answers for this at a certain point by deconstructing how foster parents contacted each other and kept in touch, checking their information, but you only tried to show their attitudes and motives via the narratives of these lawyers and judges. This just does not seem to be sufficient.
There are many sociological reasons why these children behaved like this. Their environment, networks, social status is all important. This would be a key to understand this story.
The viewer would need much more explanation on the nature of these mechanisms, instead we can only get the narratives of the people of the establishment, who declare that the 'story of the children didn't add up', so 'the juridical system failed'.
All you can think while watching is: when will they ask a psychologist or a trauma therapist about what happened here? But this never happens and this is a huge missed opportunity. Becasue there is another way of explaining these events in a much more critical and socially sensitive narrative. Showing the unspeakable by not questioning the way we think and talk about it - does it lead us anywhere?
Trauma stirres society and confuses things. The presented juridical narrative desperately tries to rationalize something that is not possible to explain in the given framework of the justice system. The problem is that the documentary doesn't even try to step out of this framework. The regisseurs don't even try to experiment with a different one, which is counscious of the nature of trauma.
When Sigmund Freud discovered in the end of he 19th century how many children - mostly women - were sexually abused in their childhood by their fathers and other male family members, he published his findings as a huge scientific discovery. Hysteria - as they called a certain group of psychosomatic symptons before - was a result of past traumatic events that affected probably thousands of children, and not only in low class families.
Freud was shocked by the idea that this can happen in many families, and shortly after he took his claims back about the nature of hysteria being rooted in sexual abuse. As Judith Herman writes in her excellent book Trauma and healing, besides the personal aspects, it was historically not the right moment for him to undertake this revolutionary unveiling of the nature of structural intrafamilial sexual abuse.
But intrafamilial sexual abuse has remained there with us, it has not disappeared - even if nobody talked about it for a while, except only during the world wars, regarding veterans' mental health. There has been a new (neuro)scientific evolution in trauma-research sinds the 90s. Bessel van der Kolk, Judith Herman and others explain us how exactly the body keeps the score, containing all the memories of trauma and violence, especially those of early childhood.
They describe how we take the unspeakable with us as a 'parallel' system of memories - part of us being frozen in the past, while our other self constantly suffering in the present. Traumatic memories are not the same like 'normal' ones: they are pictures, sounds, smells - pieces of mozaik which only can be put together by working on it with a good therapist and having a supportive social network.
The documentary just doesn't analyze the meaning of trauma and traumatic rememberance or traumatic memories, the fact that traumas structure the way people are able to remember/recall things, that certain things are broken and lost, while deeply engraved in the mind and the body of someone. They should have taken the fact that trauma structures the memories of the victims, as the starting point. Why didn't they ask a trauma specialist to give the explanation of many things in this case?
All the (elite) people - prosecutors, judges, lawyers, even psychologists! - working in the justice system who were interviewd for this film don't seem to understand the nature of trauma. They are clearly not able to interpret the events in a trauma-conscious way. Without knowing and analysing the nature of trauma it is not possible to understand what happened here.
That is why all the people are not able to tell the 'story' in a meaningful way, they are blind for the fact that remembering or recalling traumatic events is not 'lying' or 'manipulating' but it is a hard and difficult process, which can take long years. The judge Burgeaud even makes a comment on this at a certain point where he refers to the fact that there are certain things that cannot be expressed through language, 'you can't say anything more about this'.
The makers also didn't try to understand the other childrens' way of thinking and acting, besides the Delay-children who were clearly victims. Even if not all children were traumatized, the way they acted had many reasons. How was their life? Why did they want attention? In which way were they pressured by their environment? They tried to get answers for this at a certain point by deconstructing how foster parents contacted each other and kept in touch, checking their information, but you only tried to show their attitudes and motives via the narratives of these lawyers and judges. This just does not seem to be sufficient.
There are many sociological reasons why these children behaved like this. Their environment, networks, social status is all important. This would be a key to understand this story.
The viewer would need much more explanation on the nature of these mechanisms, instead we can only get the narratives of the people of the establishment, who declare that the 'story of the children didn't add up', so 'the juridical system failed'.
All you can think while watching is: when will they ask a psychologist or a trauma therapist about what happened here? But this never happens and this is a huge missed opportunity. Becasue there is another way of explaining these events in a much more critical and socially sensitive narrative. Showing the unspeakable by not questioning the way we think and talk about it - does it lead us anywhere?
What An Abomination
running-9796416 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
*Spoiler*
I understand the importance of highlighting the judicial failings of this case. What I don't understand is how several grown adults go on to accuse an abused child of being crazy and a liar when FIVE adults have confessed that they abused this child. I'm not saying that all 18 (?) committed these crimes, but is 5 of them enough for us to muster up some compassion? How on earth can a child who's experienced such trauma be coherent and well-adapted? It was never the child's job to bring this case together, only a bunch of heartless fools could ever think otherwise. With all the years that have passed since the events occurred, Netflix had ample opportunity to search for extra morsels of truth when making this series. Instead, they produced this exploitative trash. Who needs truth when the moral of story is simply 'children lie, don't believe them, otherwise look at what happens'? What else could we expect from Netflix?
too many omissions and anti-child victim bias
likemonkeyss16 March 2024
One might wonder why Netflix repackaged this colossal story over just 4 45-minute episodes. For example, for the Gregory affair (much less complex) we have 5 one-hour episodes... All the twists and turns and repercussions of the affair could and should have made it possible to develop the series over 10 episodes. For example, the potential murder of the little girl should have been the subject of an entire episode in itself.
The series seems made for French audiences. We have very little immersion in the atmosphere, in the Delay family before the scandal breaks out for example...
In the first episode: one of the Marécaux children made revelations of touching on at least 3 occasions + frequent running away with his sister, then aged 6 to 10... their father beat them violently. All of this is not stated in the series.
What the report also does not say: Father Delay was summoned to the police station before his home was searched: he therefore had the opportunity to get rid of the sensitive cassettes.
In the same way, the time elapsed between the searches and arrests of the other members of the network was several weeks, which made it possible to get rid of a lot of evidence, probably in particular video cassettes at Marécaux, of which the Marécaux daughter spoke of "they were buying video tapes every week.
The preponderant place of defense lawyers, why so ?
Why give more than half the speaking time to defense lawyers? And only a few minutes for child victims and their lawyer?
Throughout, we give the floor to lawyers Hubert Delarue, Frank Berton and Fabienne Roy Manson (doesn't she have a conflict of interest? Being a childhood friend of Alain Marécaux, they studied together)
They comment on the course of events throughout. While the children and their representatives only detail their participation in the affair and do not comment on each other's actions. Why such a bias towards the acquitted?
Episode 2 concerning the murder of the little girl. Many details do not appear in the documentary. In fact, corresponding elements were provided and overlap: added by Myriam Badaoui, the children and Daniel Legrand during interrogations (and without indication given by the judge). Notably that the little girl had blue pajamas and had a North African tan.
Episode 3: why does no one clearly indicate the media monopoly of the defense lawyers, because the civil parties had chosen not to give more media coverage to the case, affecting children... Why does no one clearly indicate the imbalance between representation accused and child victims? There were 2 lawyers for the children compared to 19 lawyers for the accused!
At minute 23:20 how can the directors leave without counterbalance the declarations of lawyer Delarue who says that children "talk nonsense"?
The defense lawyers chose to focus on the relationships mentioned by the children with animals. And yes, it is unfortunately possible to engage animals in sexual activity, zoophilic videos are proof! The defense focused attention on these facts in order to hide the specific accusations against the accused.
No one indicates in episode 3 that Myriam Badaoui's retractions may have occurred within the framework of negotiations between the lawyers. This is indicated by several people involved in the case in the documentary Outreau the other truth.
The episode 4 of the series focuses on the children's version changes. But who can, even as an adult, ensure that he would describe with exactly the same words things experienced, late after the facts occured ? (the 2 trials happened between 4 and 7 years later) ? Faced with angry lawyers who leave no room for reflection?
Odile Mondileu-Héderer, president of the Paris Court of Appeal in 2001-2007, attacks, for example, the testimony of the Laviers' daughter because the doctor would not have found any after-effects of a rape suffered. But the examination was carried out several months, even several years after the facts denounced. So what evidentiary value should it have?
In order to open up reflection, I invite everyone to find out about the Angers pedophile network affair, which is proof that a pedophile prostitution network is possible in a small town in France...
The series seems made for French audiences. We have very little immersion in the atmosphere, in the Delay family before the scandal breaks out for example...
In the first episode: one of the Marécaux children made revelations of touching on at least 3 occasions + frequent running away with his sister, then aged 6 to 10... their father beat them violently. All of this is not stated in the series.
What the report also does not say: Father Delay was summoned to the police station before his home was searched: he therefore had the opportunity to get rid of the sensitive cassettes.
In the same way, the time elapsed between the searches and arrests of the other members of the network was several weeks, which made it possible to get rid of a lot of evidence, probably in particular video cassettes at Marécaux, of which the Marécaux daughter spoke of "they were buying video tapes every week.
The preponderant place of defense lawyers, why so ?
Why give more than half the speaking time to defense lawyers? And only a few minutes for child victims and their lawyer?
Throughout, we give the floor to lawyers Hubert Delarue, Frank Berton and Fabienne Roy Manson (doesn't she have a conflict of interest? Being a childhood friend of Alain Marécaux, they studied together)
They comment on the course of events throughout. While the children and their representatives only detail their participation in the affair and do not comment on each other's actions. Why such a bias towards the acquitted?
Episode 2 concerning the murder of the little girl. Many details do not appear in the documentary. In fact, corresponding elements were provided and overlap: added by Myriam Badaoui, the children and Daniel Legrand during interrogations (and without indication given by the judge). Notably that the little girl had blue pajamas and had a North African tan.
Episode 3: why does no one clearly indicate the media monopoly of the defense lawyers, because the civil parties had chosen not to give more media coverage to the case, affecting children... Why does no one clearly indicate the imbalance between representation accused and child victims? There were 2 lawyers for the children compared to 19 lawyers for the accused!
At minute 23:20 how can the directors leave without counterbalance the declarations of lawyer Delarue who says that children "talk nonsense"?
The defense lawyers chose to focus on the relationships mentioned by the children with animals. And yes, it is unfortunately possible to engage animals in sexual activity, zoophilic videos are proof! The defense focused attention on these facts in order to hide the specific accusations against the accused.
No one indicates in episode 3 that Myriam Badaoui's retractions may have occurred within the framework of negotiations between the lawyers. This is indicated by several people involved in the case in the documentary Outreau the other truth.
The episode 4 of the series focuses on the children's version changes. But who can, even as an adult, ensure that he would describe with exactly the same words things experienced, late after the facts occured ? (the 2 trials happened between 4 and 7 years later) ? Faced with angry lawyers who leave no room for reflection?
Odile Mondileu-Héderer, president of the Paris Court of Appeal in 2001-2007, attacks, for example, the testimony of the Laviers' daughter because the doctor would not have found any after-effects of a rape suffered. But the examination was carried out several months, even several years after the facts denounced. So what evidentiary value should it have?
In order to open up reflection, I invite everyone to find out about the Angers pedophile network affair, which is proof that a pedophile prostitution network is possible in a small town in France...
And the abuse of these children continued....
wisewebwoman20 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
In the courts. I was appalled watching this series and the further victimization of the children who were traumatized by the horrific abuse and possible manipulation of their abusers.
The whole focus was on the adults - supposedly wrongly convicted - the completely egregious magistrate in charge of the case who went on to great glory - and the mixed bag of adults who were accused.
All of it would be a laughable skit of a series only that the children, the after affects of the horror, their testimony of a murdered little girt, is given short shrift in the efforts to exonerate the perps.
Netflix did a terrible disservice to these children as no follow-ups were instigated and only one child was ever interviewed at length in this whole miserable mess of a 4-parter.
The traumatized children must have suffered terribly in the aftermath. Where was their story?
It would make anyone's blood boil.
0/10.
The whole focus was on the adults - supposedly wrongly convicted - the completely egregious magistrate in charge of the case who went on to great glory - and the mixed bag of adults who were accused.
All of it would be a laughable skit of a series only that the children, the after affects of the horror, their testimony of a murdered little girt, is given short shrift in the efforts to exonerate the perps.
Netflix did a terrible disservice to these children as no follow-ups were instigated and only one child was ever interviewed at length in this whole miserable mess of a 4-parter.
The traumatized children must have suffered terribly in the aftermath. Where was their story?
It would make anyone's blood boil.
0/10.
Biased Documentary is Inconceivable in 2024
freewomxn23 March 2024
Warning: Spoilers
With the success of the #MeToo movement, this documentary is irresponsible and inconceivable.
Participants claiming children are lying about their abuse when trauma alters memory recall by without including opposing views was shocking. Where were the testimonies of the children? Multiple lawyers protecting, not only the interests of their former clients but, their professional reputations and only a single victim. Very affluent lawyers harassing children and adults in a legal setting without the impact of that being questioning by the filmmakers?
I only wonder who financed this endeavor. I have an idea.
Participants claiming children are lying about their abuse when trauma alters memory recall by without including opposing views was shocking. Where were the testimonies of the children? Multiple lawyers protecting, not only the interests of their former clients but, their professional reputations and only a single victim. Very affluent lawyers harassing children and adults in a legal setting without the impact of that being questioning by the filmmakers?
I only wonder who financed this endeavor. I have an idea.
A wild ride but terribly constructed
souplahoopla29 March 2024
This docu series is a bit of a mixed bag and I'm not sure where it was trying to place it's focus. Pdf ring conviction? Unreliable testimony? Police malpractice? People getting away with it? I mean it's all over the place.
The beginning is solid. There are the accusations, the people involved, the web is built...sort of. You never learn really how everyone is connected at all, so they're all floating 'monsters', but the children's testimonies are horrific and it's terrible. Enough said.
At some point in this series a seed of doubt is planted. There is something not quite right going on. The main mother seems to have some form of Munchausens, in whatever form that takes shape in this situation of her feeding off attention.
Then this docu series decends into inchoerent chaos. Suddenly there are more people accused, more kids never actually introduced. More horrific crimes, more accusations. It's actually impossible to clarify what's true and what's not. People confessed, people proclaimed innocence. People got convicted.
And pause.
Now would be the time to sober up in this series, and try to sort the wheat from the chaff of everything that came before. Nope. It diverts it's course from the actual crimes commited to the people who were wrongly convicted. It's bizarre.
You would assume that it would focus on the childrens testimonials. Were they 100% genuine? What actually happened and what did the police/caregivers do to influence the implication of potentially innocent people? Nope, nothing.
One thing you never learn, is how much was true and how much actually happened, and how it ended up the way it did. It's actually heartbreaking. Because clearly something happened, but it was put on the back burner for this.
The beginning is solid. There are the accusations, the people involved, the web is built...sort of. You never learn really how everyone is connected at all, so they're all floating 'monsters', but the children's testimonies are horrific and it's terrible. Enough said.
At some point in this series a seed of doubt is planted. There is something not quite right going on. The main mother seems to have some form of Munchausens, in whatever form that takes shape in this situation of her feeding off attention.
Then this docu series decends into inchoerent chaos. Suddenly there are more people accused, more kids never actually introduced. More horrific crimes, more accusations. It's actually impossible to clarify what's true and what's not. People confessed, people proclaimed innocence. People got convicted.
And pause.
Now would be the time to sober up in this series, and try to sort the wheat from the chaff of everything that came before. Nope. It diverts it's course from the actual crimes commited to the people who were wrongly convicted. It's bizarre.
You would assume that it would focus on the childrens testimonials. Were they 100% genuine? What actually happened and what did the police/caregivers do to influence the implication of potentially innocent people? Nope, nothing.
One thing you never learn, is how much was true and how much actually happened, and how it ended up the way it did. It's actually heartbreaking. Because clearly something happened, but it was put on the back burner for this.
Appalling approach - not focused on the aftermath
annaklaudija7 April 2024
I can only agree with the many other negative reviews.
I was interested in the series, but the portrayal of the case and the attitudes towards the children in the case room made me interested to find out more information about what had happened further on and I was disappointed to see how much of it was not included in the series. The current Netflix portrayal of the events is very much focused on the adults, victim blaming etc.
Terrible to see so many admitted facts - as for example - where one of the couples "acquitted" later were found guilty of sexual child abuse.
It does create a very bad feeling after watching and not because of the sad story, but how it is portrayed and how it almost feels as an ordered story for the layers and how much is skipped over that could have balanced the story from the victims perspective.
I was interested in the series, but the portrayal of the case and the attitudes towards the children in the case room made me interested to find out more information about what had happened further on and I was disappointed to see how much of it was not included in the series. The current Netflix portrayal of the events is very much focused on the adults, victim blaming etc.
Terrible to see so many admitted facts - as for example - where one of the couples "acquitted" later were found guilty of sexual child abuse.
It does create a very bad feeling after watching and not because of the sad story, but how it is portrayed and how it almost feels as an ordered story for the layers and how much is skipped over that could have balanced the story from the victims perspective.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
