I know this has been out for a while but a friend has been on my case to watch it and i finally binged it yesterday. Was actually already aware of this case through finding it on the unusual deaths wiki page, that had to be 10-15 years ago now though so i had forgot a lot as it's so convoluted and plus information has came out since then. Only really posting my thoughts here so i have them somewhere as my friend will want to talk about this and i'll probably forget about some of it. This is a very long convoluted, contradictory, spoiler-filled post that i don't expect anyone to read but whatever.
Enjoyed this a lot but i don't agree with some of the conclusions and find some ridiculous, suspect some of them were just for entertainment purposes and to attempt to come up with a concrete conclusion when there is none, still annoying though. Respect that the dude who made it put in so much research and actually managed to get the interviews he did but i rolled my eyes at how certain he was with his Margie was the mastermind epilogue and just the rabid focus on a "mastermind". There doesn't have to be some grand criminal overlord figure who was playing everyone like puppets, prosecutors often go for those narratives to ensure convictions in cases where witness testimony (by people involved) is the only real evidence they have since they often have to offer incentives to said witnesses to get their testimony. Sometimes it's definitely true but i'm not convinced it is here and if it is i think Rothstein fits more into that than Margie. One thing that really annoyed me was us constantly being told Margie was some master manipulator without showing us any actual examples of it. The closest they came was Margie only agreeing to give up information for legal help but i mean why on earth wouldn't she? Don't see that as some machiavelian move her behaviour on the phone with the documentarian reeked a lot more of desperation, fear and anger than any sort of effective manipulation. Anything else is just conjecture, and i'm honestly struggling to think of any examples even; Barnes said she played her boyfriend (not Rothstein, the guy she killed) like a puppet but he didn't explain how and the only example he actually gave of trouble between the two was him throwing her down stairs.
Now there's so many different stories here and everyone involved is a scumbag so it's difficult to take any of it at face value especially how they all had ulterior motives (except maybe the prostitute at the end she has me stumped, could've just been to be in the spotlight but she would've been on it even if she just said the stuff about Wells being a good guy, i dunno will get to her) for telling them. But there's actual examples of Rothstein being manipulative and or controlling and that's from both Barnes and the sex offender guy who were trying to pin things on Marjorie. Their story paints Rothstein much more as an overbearing presence than Marjorie and that's not benificial to them since he's dead and any deals or preferential treatment they may get hinges on Marjorie's conviction. The sex offender guy made out Rothstein was forcing him to put the collar on Wells, not that i take his word for anything just pointing out stuff like that points much more towards Rothstein. Let's look at what was said about Marjorie's role: she was a lookout according to Barnes alongside him and this actually contradicts the governments case somewhat which i didn't see explained and there's a lot of that, think the doc leaves a lot out which is understandable but still frustrating. The whole thing that reignited the Wells case was the dude who said he spotted Marjorie driving away from the scene in a gold car and Majorie admitted she was on the road, but he mentioned nothing of a man with her and Barnes story was he was in the car with her watching it unfold, he didn't mention being dropped off anywhere. Barnes and the sex offender also both said they didn't know who the mastermind was or who built the bomb or anything. The other thing that was said about her direct involvement was the prostitute said she gave her 1500 dollars as a down payment on her delivering Wells, if true (personally i feel that story is the most likely although it may not be, or may be half-truth) then i think that points to a much more believable role for Marjorie. As pointed out Marjorie didn't need the money (i realize there's the Barnes hitman thing but i don't believe that will go into it if anyone wants, for one he made out at first he was only joking around and that he had nothing to do with the Wells case before changing his story and becoming a principal participant) she was the only one of the four with any money, and one of the two main things she was said to have done was pay the prostitute. The doc constantly hits us over the head with how smart she apparently is, if that's the case and she's essentially the boss why on earth would she introduce herself to someone she has no prior relationship with? She is paying the money for Barnes makes no sense that the big bad criminal mastermind wouldn't give him the money for him to give to this prostitute, allowing herself to be known to an outsider is beyond dumb.
So to me i think the role of a financier is much more likely than the one who came up with it all. Could definitely see them offering her 20K or whatever for the couple of grand they'd need to do everything, not trying to absolve her of anything she's a double murderer outside this anyway who shouldn't have gotten away with it the first time and financier or not she was still involved just saying that makes more sense to me. Of course the prostitute could be lying but then neither Barnes or the other guy said it was her plan either. I also don't understand the shift in perception of Rothstein like at all, so baffling. By the end he's randomly painted as some hopeless romantic and just loved an evil monster coz they found a record in his possessions? Then the laughable he went to his grave protecting Marjorie line, hahaha what? He gave her up for the freezer murder she was incarcerated for the rest of her life because of him, it doesn't even mention the possibility that he may not have gave her up for that because he'd need to mention his own involvement/knowledge. We have three stories, Rothstein is involved in all of them and he's literally giving orders in two of them not to mention he had money problems and a very suspect get out of jail free card. Now, i don't think any of these people were criminal geniuses but if we want to paint any of them as one i feel Rothstein is the easiest to do so. I feel like i don't have a clue what went on with the freezer death, i definitely don't think we got the right story there Marjorie just realized she was going to be convicted so she pled guilty and insanity. The statute of limitations thing does make sense as a reason for her not owning up or giving her side of things, in the end she needed that murder to be a fit of insanity due to abuse and not something calculated, although that's possibly what happened anyway who knows. This happened two weeks (think it was?) before the Wells incident so it is actually possible it was unrelated, these people were clearly severely dysfunctional. I do think Marjorie killed him but i dunno about the circumstances and the relations to the scheme. Either way unless you feel these people weren't involved at all and they just started spinning tales about something none of them knew anything about, then Rothstein giving her up is suspect. Seriously don't get why he'd put himself at risk of her blowing the case weeks after it happened unless it was to get himself immunity for that and to force her into a position of admitting her knowledge of the Wells case which could possibly make her case worse making it an unlikely move on her part. Anyway, that part has me completely stumped and i feel i'd have to read more into that to tie it together.
This was super dumb and confusing so i don't really think any of them were that smart at least criminally, think it's just people wanting to believe criminals are evil geniuses like Hannibal Lecter or whatever. If the stuff said in the first episode about Wells having no chance of getting the collar off is true then what on earth was the point in putting themselves at that sort of risk? The documentarian seems to believe it's because it was a game to them, they wanted to see if they could get away with it, i think incompetance was more likely. Don't think they had much experience with explosives and they timed it wrong. There was just no way for this plot to actually result in them getting the money and if they somehow did it has to result in Wells death as if he's caught he's going to give them up. The thing everyone seems to want to know is Wells involvement if any but honestly there's ofther things i'd prefer answered first including some i mentioned. There's only two scenario's in my mind, either they grabbed him and put the collar on him basically Barnes scenario except if that's the case i don't believe he actually was willing at any point or informed of it think that's Barnes saving himself from a potential death penalty charge. Or Wells was in on it but he was lead to believe it was fake, i lean that way for a few reasons. First he was incredibly calm until it started beeping which is when he got panicky and started shouting things, and also because of the shotgun. No way would you hand a dude you were forcefully putting a bomb collar on a shotgun, it's an incredible risk to hand a dude under extreme duress a loaded gun and the bomb is just as much a threat to you as it is to him seeing as you're in the vicinity to hand him it, pretty easy to turn the tables there. Even if Wells had all the problems people speculated on and wasn't likely to try anything, there's always the chance and i definitely wouldn't take it. Truthfully telling him it was fake when it was actually real is your only real option as you need the assurance of him not giving you up. But then it's also baffling that he didn't give them up when he realized it was going to happen, surely you'd shout out their names when you realized you were going to die...but then maybe he didn't know their names. I dunno everything about it doesn't make sense. Kinda think the most likely thing is no mastermind, a group of scumbags got together and formulated an insane/dumb plan and things both went their way (him not giving them up) and against them (no money making the whole thing pointless) i don't think it was that well thought out and i don't think it had any chance of actually working with these "geniuses" heading it. Oh and for the record i don't think the other pizza guys death had anything to do with this, think it was just a weird coincidence. Doesn't even have to be a coincidence, it mentions he was Wells friend could have taken too much drugs under a saddened state due to his friends death. Or maybe he was paranoid over his role being revealed and took too many drugs due to that paranoia. Personally i don't think he was involved though, they didn't even try to come up with a convuluted role for him because nothing fit. And i definitely don't think Marjie and the rest of those geniuses fed him an overdose, not outside the realms of possibility but still seems pretty absurd to me. I mean that's a pretty skilled execution for a group that shot a dude and kept him in a freezer for weeks while planning this equally dumb plan.
Overall i don't think this is a good documentary. Think it's very entertaining/riveting but that's purely because the story is so insane, it would be very difficult to end up with a boring documentary based on this case. It's way too sensationalized (when it didn't need to be the story is sensational on its own) and agenda-driven in presentation. To me the documentarian wanted to come across like he "solved" it, he's way too positive that he knows everyone's exact motives and the size of their roles, and frankly his explanations for their actions are both underwhelming and unbelievable. Also terrible person or not his last conversation when he tells Marjorie "he knows what she did" after all the time he played her like he was her friend just made him seem like a douche and a major reason criminals often don't give documentarian's interviews in the first place. Got a feeling if i was to read into these cases i'd find out a tonne of stuff was left out, and likely not due to time but because it potentially points away from some of his conclusions.