The thesis of the documentary The Thin Blue Line is that, in the murder of Officer Robert Wood, the police were more interested in convicting Randall Adams than finding true justice. Throughout the documentary, director Errol Morris uncovers the story of what really happened on the night of November 29, 1976. Interviews with police, lawyers, and eyewitnesses help to piece together the actions of everyone involved in the investigation, and the lengths taken to obtain a death sentence.
1. In an interview, Randall Adams said that the police tried to force a confession by threatening him with a gun, and that "they didn't want to believe [him]".
2. Mr. and Mrs. Miller, eyewitnesses who testified that they saw Adams in the driver's seat, told a friend that it was actually too dark to see anything, but would testify for the right price.
3. Adams' lawyer, Edith James, said in an interview that the police wanted to convict Adams because he was 23 years old and could be sentenced to death, while David Harris, only 16 at the time, could not.
4. Officer Robert Wood's partner, Teresa Turko, originally said that she had not seen the shooter, but later in court identified Adams as the shooter.
5. Adams had no previous encounters with the law, or even a motive to shoot Officer Robert Wood, while Harris had committed several …show more content…
It seems completely illogical to insist on convicting Randall Adams when he is clearly innocent. Instead of true justice, the police wanted revenge for their fallen officer, even if it meant condemning the wrong man. I was previously aware that police sometimes become mistakenly fixated on a single suspect, but the evidence covered up and fabricated in this case goes far beyond that. This documentary definitely challenged my views on the police and the justice system, and I would highly recommend it to anyone who wishes to have the same eye opening
1. In an interview, Randall Adams said that the police tried to force a confession by threatening him with a gun, and that "they didn't want to believe [him]".
2. Mr. and Mrs. Miller, eyewitnesses who testified that they saw Adams in the driver's seat, told a friend that it was actually too dark to see anything, but would testify for the right price.
3. Adams' lawyer, Edith James, said in an interview that the police wanted to convict Adams because he was 23 years old and could be sentenced to death, while David Harris, only 16 at the time, could not.
4. Officer Robert Wood's partner, Teresa Turko, originally said that she had not seen the shooter, but later in court identified Adams as the shooter.
5. Adams had no previous encounters with the law, or even a motive to shoot Officer Robert Wood, while Harris had committed several …show more content…
It seems completely illogical to insist on convicting Randall Adams when he is clearly innocent. Instead of true justice, the police wanted revenge for their fallen officer, even if it meant condemning the wrong man. I was previously aware that police sometimes become mistakenly fixated on a single suspect, but the evidence covered up and fabricated in this case goes far beyond that. This documentary definitely challenged my views on the police and the justice system, and I would highly recommend it to anyone who wishes to have the same eye opening