Ann Rule is best remembered as the biographer of serial killer Ted Bundy, who worked with her on a suicide prevention hotline, if you can credit that.
Although it wasn't the first time she put pen to paper, that book launched her career as an author of crime non-fiction. I haven't read the book (or rather the chapter in a book) on which this film is based, although I have skimmed her book about Diane Downs and the aforementioned Bundy biography; if they are anything to go by, this is a factual rather than sensationalised account of a bizarre murder and its even more bizarre aftermath.
Having said that, some changes have been made. Names, of course, for the usual reasons; also, Thomas Brown (the real name of the killer) shot and killed the family dog after murdering the husband. There is no dog in this story. The events herein happened in 1976 not in the present as is clear from the computer on the sheriff's desk. Indeed, it is most unlikely a crime like this would have happened today because campers, hikers, and tourists usually carry smartphones, so tend not to get lost in the woods. The wife in the original story was even younger than here, a teenage bride.
Yes, Brown did pass a polygraph while his accuser, whose story kept changing, failed one, but polygraphs are junk science, which is hardly surprising as the so-called lie detector was invented by the creator of Wonder Woman. Also, polygraphs tend not to work on psychopaths, while nervous people often sound implausible.
There are no courtroom scenes, the film ends as the trial is about to open. Don't expect too much from this film, just remember that as usual the truth is stranger than fiction, though seldom as popular.
Although it wasn't the first time she put pen to paper, that book launched her career as an author of crime non-fiction. I haven't read the book (or rather the chapter in a book) on which this film is based, although I have skimmed her book about Diane Downs and the aforementioned Bundy biography; if they are anything to go by, this is a factual rather than sensationalised account of a bizarre murder and its even more bizarre aftermath.
Having said that, some changes have been made. Names, of course, for the usual reasons; also, Thomas Brown (the real name of the killer) shot and killed the family dog after murdering the husband. There is no dog in this story. The events herein happened in 1976 not in the present as is clear from the computer on the sheriff's desk. Indeed, it is most unlikely a crime like this would have happened today because campers, hikers, and tourists usually carry smartphones, so tend not to get lost in the woods. The wife in the original story was even younger than here, a teenage bride.
Yes, Brown did pass a polygraph while his accuser, whose story kept changing, failed one, but polygraphs are junk science, which is hardly surprising as the so-called lie detector was invented by the creator of Wonder Woman. Also, polygraphs tend not to work on psychopaths, while nervous people often sound implausible.
There are no courtroom scenes, the film ends as the trial is about to open. Don't expect too much from this film, just remember that as usual the truth is stranger than fiction, though seldom as popular.