I’m curious about what’s dishonest and gross about relaying what these men and women stated about their actual, real-life stalking cases.
Was it the part where a man stated that because he wasn’t on tape breaking into her home, he shouldn’t be in jail for trying to break into her home? That he knew that without cameras it would be very hard for a prosecutor to do anything to him? Even though he had also left hundreds of voicemails detailing her daily movements and outfits to let her know he was watching her at all times?
Was it the part where a man stole $100,000 from his employer but kept breaking a restraining order even while in jail because he “just wanted to apologize” to her? And then later gave a fellow inmate a detailed layout of her home to put a hit on her and then the inmate turned him in and the map of her home was accurate?
Or was it the part that the jails these men were housed in let them continue to make phone calls to their victims, while a female stalker was court ordered to not contact her mother because her crime was committed with her mother, and was following the terms of that court order.
Was it the part where the researcher in Episode 1 stated that data doesn’t back that these offenders will stop offending? That rehabilitation doesn’t necessarily work, which was kind of supported by the stalkers themselves who all had multiple victims (except the one woman who was stalking her husband’s ex).
What was disgusting about my framing.