HBO documentaries tend to be of pretty good quality. Here the documentary talks about how the media hype interfered with Pam Smart's chance at a fair trial. No doubt different decisions would have been made had this not been such a media circus. The tale of the killing of Greg Smart was irresistible to the media. You have the beautiful 23 year old widow as the accused murderess by proxy of her husband, the teens she had influence over in her job with the school carrying out the crime, and the sordid affair she had with the actual 15 year old shooter. No doubt the judge liked the idea of Clint Eastwood possibly playing him in the movie, and maybe that was on his mind when he refused to move the trial. You have people who claimed to see the actual teen killers getting worked up before going on the stand so they could give "good performances". Method actor teen murderers! Who would have thought it! The Smart family themselves complained about the accused boys, given sentences for second degree murder in return for their testimony against Pam, smiling after their testimony.So given what is shown here maybe there is room to doubt. But HBO left out one little thing - the tapes that came from the wire Cecilia Pierce was wearing when she talked to Pam. Gone was that ladylike "woe is me" victim of circumstance demeanor. Instead Pam talks like she very well knows what went down when her husband was killed, and you can hear her talented manipulation of Cecilia when she tells her not to cooperate and tell the police everything. That was the damning evidence that HBO did not talk about and turned this from probably a hung jury result into a conviction. Those tapes were pretty clear too - not mangled with noise as many have said. I was one of the many listening/watching in real time when this trial aired on TV.One thing I thought was interesting came from one of the jurors. She said there were three that were threatening to hang the jury in spite of everything. She also said that if she had known the only sentence the judge could give Pam was life with no parole she would have hung it anyways. Really? What exactly should you do with somebody who manipulated teens into killing her husband because she is angry about a one night stand he had a few months before? Give them a stern talking to and send them home to mother? I'd recommend the documentary for what is there, but I'm knocking off a few stars for what was likely omitted because it makes the case more open and shut.

While this documentary purports to be interested Solee and media bias and how it impacts trials, the real Takeaway is that Pamela smart managed to do yet another person, the director. What does make this documentary fascinating is how it shows footage rarely seen since the original trial itself. Unfortunately at glosses over several incredibly damaging pieces of evidence against Pam and instead tries to paint the boys in as bad a light as possible. The most damning moment of this occurs when the prosecution is presenting the transcript I hope the wire taps to the jury. Instead of really allowing the viewer to get a sense of what the transcript shows, the narration talks over the presentation. But you will be wise to pause the screen with the blown up transcript in front of the jury. Read the transcript and you'll have no doubt why the jury convicted this woman. Pamela and her one or two supporters, despite all of their whining, have never will never and can never explain away Pam's words on that wire tap. It's the proverbial smoking gun and that's why she will never be released from prison When Pama says, among many other things, that "if we tell the truth were all going to end up in the effing slammer," or "Who are they going to believe me a college educated professional or a bunch of no good loser high school students, she sealed her fate". Not to mention the fact that, when I asked point blank on the wiretap why she didn't get a divorce, and specifically that she knew about the plot to kill her husband before it happened, Pamela answered "yes I did know." How the director can overlook such blatantly obvious guilty admissions is beyond me. It completely undermines any credibility he has and leaves this documentary will be short.

Jeremiah Zagar's HBO documentary tells the story of the high-profile New Hampshire trial and conviction of Pamela Smart, the accused murderer of Gregg Smart (her husband) in 1990. The film is packed with interviews—which includes: Smart herself, family, friends, accused conspirators, authors, reporters, and others—and does a pretty good job of letting the viewer choose who to believe. Right from the get-go, the film's main interest is how the notorious media coverage may have interfered with Smart's right to a fair trial, and Zagar not only never lets up but actually keeps pushing the issue harder and harder as the film progresses, making itself as sensationalistic as the subjects it's criticizing. Still, very intriguing and quite education for those who were not around or do not remember the hype of it all in the early-'90s.*** (out of four)

This is an oddly structured documentary.The first quarter seems to assume that everybody knows the case and remembers the basic details. It's as if the filmmakers (who apparently spent years on getting this made) forgot who their audience was. Or, they thought it was still the year 2000! Some of the viewers weren't even born when this happened and many many others were too young. Further, this happened almost a quarter century ago, and yet, even the basic facts are barely analyzed in that first section of the movie.Yes, the filmmakers are trying to concoct their own counter-theory that the trial, testimony and public perception were all 'tainted' by the media, but, you need the context in order to test that theory. Fortunately, the rest of the movie does fill in many of the details, but you can't help but criticize the structure of the piece. Of course, an even BIGGER problem is that Pamela Smart (and by implication, the filmmakers who seem stacked in favor of her) seemed to rest their 'hopes' on Raymond Fowler testifying after his release that he would exonerate her. When he doesn't the filmmakers pull out their handy counter-theory and seem to indicate that Fowler can't remember what really happened, instead he is regurgitating what is shown in the TV movie.There are some stylistic flourishes like the clips on old TVs and the whole 'Theater' wraparound. But, these are just standard devices and don't really make the movie any more cinematic (and, if the whole theory is about the populace being influenced by what was shown on TV - why is the wraparound in a THEATER?? Shouldn't it be a gathering around a TV set?) Ironically, the best take on media manipulation in the Smart case remains the movie TO DIE FOR - an almost wholly fictionalized version!