It's interesting how many people with only a media's perspective of an incident can be so sure of how an event actually occurred. This movie's presentation is based on taking one side of a traumatic and complex case and virtually no presentation of the other side. As far as shock value, the movie does a good job. But anyone who took the time to look at all sides of this actual case would find the movie laughable and inaccurate. It mocks a reputable and highly regarded police department and discounts the actual work done in the case. What this case and movie did successfully prove is that the possibility of an innocent person going to jail and a guilty one being set free is entirely possible. Michael Crowe could very well be guilty and Richard Tuite could very well be innocent. The legal system isn't perfect and makes mistakes. There is reasonable doubt in both cases and Tuite never should have been convicted, even if he is guilty. The evidence against Crowe was more convincing than against Tuite. The investigators and department involved conducted a detailed investigation and took the reasonable paths available to them based on what they had at the time. Experts on both sides of the argument still can't agree on who actually committed the murder. Anyone truly interested in the facts of this horrible and very complicated case need to look much deeper than this one-sided viewpoint and dig into the actual prosecution's case against Crowe (and later Tuite) and see what they find. As is usually the situation, there is much more to all of this than meets the eye. The silly ideology that a bunch of rogue, corrupt cops and prosecutors conspired to put an innocent person in jail is just pure nonsense.
Review of The Interrogation of Michael Crowe
The Interrogation of Michael Crowe
(2002 TV Movie)
After School Special Type Movie, Very Biased Viewpoint
9 October 2011