The Thin Blue Line; innocence made guilty

The Thin Blue Line is ultimately about truth in our justice system or the lack there of. Randall Adams was arrested for the murder of a cop in Texas and then convicted in court. This about the only certain truth we know about the events described in this movie. However, by the end of the movie it will appear almost obvious that Randall Adams is in fact innocent of the crime he has been convicted of and given a death sentence for. This movie would afterwards help publicize Adams’ case and in a Supreme Court Case his sentence would be overturned and he would eventually be released. But at the end of the movie he is still in prison.

This movie isn’t really about Justice either it is only about truth. The actual killer, David Ray Harris, would be convicted for other crimes and suffer the death penalty. No, the important factor here is just what process would lead what feels like an obviously innocent man to be convicted. As Harris says in his final interview he is certain plenty of innocent people are probably sentenced for crimes they did not commit. The documentary, fairly or unfairly, paints the police as seemingly set on convicting Randall Adams as soon as the arrest him. They wording they use in the film clear shows they treated him as though he was already guilty from the beginning. They set themselves on a mission to prove what they felt they already knew.

The Herzog reading talks a lot about the different types of truths and his anecdote about the Machiguengas and their struggle for legal ownership of some land between two rivers is something interesting to consider in relation to this film. Here it is almost the reverse of the story Herzog tales where hearsay is to easily accepted as fact when it should not have. It is also selective hearsay that they chose. The three witnesses call to confirm that Randall Adams was the shooter appear to be very unreliable sources and movie attempts to show with actual interviews with the witnesses and those who knew them. The police also completely accept the story David Ray Harris, the actual killer, tells them. They police men interviewed even says that he felt as though David Harris was a kind and good man and they talked for a while. This is not that surprising to me as with the interview in the movie he appears to be a completely cold-hearted psychopath who doesn’t feel any remorse for what the things he admits to doing. The police took this lack of remorse and carefree attitude of his and wrote him off. They made truth match their gut feeling rather than the evidence which is how an innocent man became guilty.