#ed edwards

[smol-bean-dragon-hoard]

HUSH YOUR TINY, WHORE MOUTH, BEN ARNOLD.

[coarsely]

How do these two interact with each other in public versus in private? For Sal Solomon and Ed Edwards? (I love their names!!)

24) How do these two interact with each other in public versus in private?

Sal really wants to convince people that he and Ed are on equal standing, that theirs is a partnership of peers and not him being funded by a more wealthy, intelligent, confident person, and part of how he does this is being a lot more friendly with Ed in front of other people than he is in private. He even occasionally calls him by his first name, something very uncommon to do, to try and convince people they are friends and have a close bond. In private however, he naturally defers a lot more to Ed, and goes back to calling him Dr, and is much less boisterous and overbearing than he is in public. Ed, meanwhile, having once been a champion boxer, has had enough of personas and of acting one way in the public vs private eye, so there isn't that notable of a change; he is still angry, he is still rude, he is still cruel and argumentative and antagonistic, etc etc. I suppose he's more direct with the way he's insulting Sal in private than he is in public? And rather than trying to laugh it off or act like he's just joking as he does in public, Sal gets very embarrassed and defensive in private. Sal really wants to convince people their "marriage" is a successful and equal one, while Ed is under no illusions of the kind of person Sal is and does enjoy exercising his control over him in different ways.

OC relationship dynamic asks!

[ad-ya]

[thattruecrimewriter]

Ed Edwards and the Danger of Obsession

     Ed Edwards is guilty. The convicted serial killer is responsible for at least 5 murders. It’s not his innocence that’s in question, but the true extent of his guilt. 

    That’s the question explored in Paramount’s newest crime show It Was Him: The Many Murders of Ed Edwards. In the show Wayne Wolfe learns an uncomfortable truth about his grandfather; he’s the serial killer Ed Edwards. Upon learning this, Wolfe joins former investigator John Cameron to investigate the number of crimes his grandfather is responsible for. 

      According to Cameron, that number is extensive. In fact, Cameron believes Edwards is responsible for many of America’s most infamous case, including the Zodiac, Laci Peterson, JonBenet Ramsey, and the Black Dahlia. 

     Cameron’s belief that Edwards murdered Elizabeth Short (aka the Black Dahlia) is particularly interesting. At the time of that murder, Ed Edwards was only 13 years old. While that information may convince the average viewer of the absurdity of Cameron’s theory, sadism does occasionally appear in very young offers. Of course, even then there is a problem with the consistency of Edwards’ behavior. If Edwards is truly responsible for the murder of Elizabeth Short, he has become considerably less sadistic as time’s gone on. It’s unlikely that this level of progression would occur in a child already capable of such extreme levels of sadistic torture. 

     In short, John Cameron is wrong. For many critics, this means the show itself is not worth watching. I disagree; I can’t recommend It Was Me: The Many Murders of Ed Edwards enough. Because you see, the show really isn’t about Ed Edwards. It’s about John Cameron, and how his obsession with Ed Edwards is taking over his life. 

     Although Cameron is wrong, he clearly believes in his own theories. This is seen by the sacrifices he had made to pursue them. His reputation and peace of mind have been destroyed by his obsession. It’s eating him alive, and unfortunately, there are other casualties. By reopening cases that should remain closed, Cameron is forcing the victims to face their trauma again unnecessarily. 

    Tunnel vision is a well-known problem for investigators. It’s easy to look past any information that disproves a pet theory. While this has always been a potential problem with investigators, it is becoming a problem with true crime in general.     Suppose a new documentary comes out about Laci Peterson. This documentary twists facts and evidence, and by the end, the viewer is convinced that Scott Peterson (her husband) is innocent. After they watch the documentary, they ignore any evidence that disproves their new theory about the case.

    The rise of the internet provides more information about True Crime, but if used irresponsibly the community will end up doing more harm than good. Don’t let the Ed Edwards of the world consume you. They aren’t worth it. 

[thattruecrimewriter]

So, anyone else love the new show about Ed Edwards?

[trench]

It Wasn't Him, but will the WM3 faithful believe it?

It Wasn’t Him, but will the WM3 faithful believe it?

Damien Echols (It was presented in documentary format so it must be true.)

There are three famous killers from history who I believe will never be identified. They are Jack The Ripper, The Zodiac Killer, and the Black Dahlia murderer. Every time someone comes out with a new crackpot theory about who one of these killers were, I just roll my eyes and go on about my business. However, this time, I…

View On WordPress

[free-to-be-impaled]

Me: Ed edwards....he was responsible for some of the most infamous murder cases of the last century. He's NOT A MONSTER he was my dad PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW, if you messed with us he would kill for us...every place we lived in there was a murder...do you think your dad was the zodiak killer?.........I do. IT WAS HIM the many murders of ed Edwards. premiers april 16 at 9

ON PARAMOUNT NETWORK

Cashier: ma'am, I asked if you wanted a bag

[truecrimeguru]