Las cintas de Rosa Peral

This is a show where a person who is convicted of a crime sits down and is able to provide their point of view as to what happened. It's hard to piece together what happened just from watching this documentary as, by the entire structure of it, it is incredibly one-sided. Two people were convicted of the murder of another person, but only one was interviewed for this film. The filmmakers make a big deal about how Rosa was treated unfairly in the courtroom and in the media because she had many different kinds of sexual relations with others. And there's an attempt to make this into some kind of double standard for men and for women because a man's character would never be attacked in court when he is accused of a crime. I don't really buy that, and I don't understand why the defense didn't turn around and say yeah she is exactly that kind of person, if she's that kind of person why would she murder a partner. She could just easily go get another one, she doesn't care. So for me, that's a pretty strong argument for her innocence. There are however a few things that don't really add up in this case. For example, why is she claiming to have really loved the deceased when there are thousands of text messages of hers detailing how she really felt about him which was not that positive? Then there's the fact that the murderer and her communicated on a phone that was only used once or twice, and she admitted to trying to make it look like the victim and her were phoning each other after the victim had died. Then she also delayed in informing the police what had happened by 12 days or something like that. In court, she claimed that she was afraid of her partner in crime, would hurt her or her family. There's absolutely no evidence that he was abusive in any way before this and honestly if I knew that somebody had murdered another person then I would change my feelings about them but not when I was involved in covering up the murder. And the best part about this case is that all of these people were police officers. Think that they would have a better idea how to commit a crime and how to cover up a crime. So ultimately we will never know what really happened but in my opinion I think that she was highly involved in the murder if she wasn't the principal driving force of it, and she helped to cover up the crime. So I don't know how Spanish law works, but I think that's an accessory to murder and hindering the investigation of a crime, so those are both long sentences.

"Rosa Peral Tapes (2023) Documentary. Now streaming exclusively on Netflix.

In the corridors of public opinion, even before the solemn gavel of the legal system could pronounce its judgment, murmurs and whispers had seemingly sealed Rosa Peral's fate as the accused. The weight of these hushed condemnations painted a narrative where Rosa was seen as the undeniable perpetrator.

However, this meticulously crafted documentary ventures far beyond the superficial stories and common beliefs. As it dives deep into the intricate details of the case, it brings forth a compelling argument, suggesting that Rosa might have been caught in a web of misrepresentations and misunderstandings, portraying her more as an ensnared victim than the genuine culprit.

For fans of intense drama and those whose curiosity was ignited by the web series 'Burning Body', this documentary is a treasure trove of insights. It not only peels back the layers of the dramatized account but also illuminates the stark realities and hidden truths of the events that inspired such a captivating series."

The documentary is a look onto Rosa Peral's side of the story in the "Caso de la Guardia Urbana".

I watched this documentary after watching the "Burning Body" series. (By the way, the series is also not bad, although this documentary and series represent completely different angles- and also remember the series is largely fictional and dramatized to make it more interesting).

The documentary relies largely on Rosa, her side of the story, making her the victim of prejudice and misogyny. The documentary presents her lawyer, and other people involved in the case, all of whom are on her side. The only one on the "other side" is the prosecutor, and even then, it feels like his testimony is cut off on certain places because he never manages to make a full argument.

While I appreciate deeper insight into her, it just does not make sense to me to make such a short, close-minded, single-way docu on a case like this, where complexity cannot be avoided. There is no mention of how Rosa changed her version of events, of Albert's side of the story, etc. Again, the series is about her own confessions, but it is extremely misleading to someone who has never heard of this case before.

While they do give some major points that can be discussed, they focus mostly on misogyny towards Rosa and her choices and romantic relationships, questioning why did these need to be discussed. I found this argument particularly absurd, when the story was about a complex love triangle.

The cast, besides the prosecutor and the lawyer of Rosa, is mostly not bringing anything but their biased opinions with best regards towards her. There is barely any shred of trying to be impartial or present the full picture.

So I call this one unconvincing, because I found many unconvincing arguments, unconvincing cast- but necessary, as I found it to be an important piece of a bigger puzzle. It is my recommendation to research separately, do a deeper dig on the story on your own. This docu by itself is not enough.

A biased look at the story. A narcissist enabled by her father. I believe she did it with no doubt in my mind. The documentary lacks other points of view.

It seems like she has a similar personality to Casey Anthony, kinda disgusting, thinking she can flirt her way out of everything. Well at least this one got jailed. I believe this one also does not care about her children at all and only uses them and mentions them as a leverage so that people feel sorry for her.

I hope crime documentaries become less one-sided and let us see the whole story without too many biases. But ... I feel like every other crime documentary is like this one - biased, based on opinions rather than facts and sensational.

The prosecutor of the case talks forever, on and on, damning Rosa. But he's a fast-talking con man. He even admits at the onset that all he had was circumstantial evidence. My gut feeling about this guy is not good. He just isn't reasonable, convincing, or credible. He drowns the jury with a flood of rushed verbiage, a blur of so-called "facts," so that they can't consider the facts one by one, carefully. Con men have been doing this for centuries.

The prosecutor makes a big deal that Rosa and Albert talked by cell phone 50 times before the murder. He claims they were conspiring to commit the murder during those calls. First, this is false. The defense attorney points out that 19 of those calls were missed calls and that Albert and Rosa talked for a total of only 28 minutes during those 31 calls. That's only 0.9 minutes a call, less than one minute per call. Second, he has no proof of what they talked about. His claim that they were conspiring to commit murder is purely speculative and is, frankly, inadmissible. He has no transcript or recording of those calls. His claim is flimsy, to say the least.

Rosa, her 2 daughters, and her mom and dad spent a warm, close, loving day together the day before the murder. They even took many cell-phone pictures of themselves, hugging and loving each other. The prosecutor, without a shred of evidence, maliciously claims this was just a fraud intended to throw the cops off the cold-blooded Rosa, who was in fact planning to kill Pedro the next day. Again, the prosecutor has no evidence or proof, just damning suspicions and speculation.

Seeing things from Rosa's point of view casts a shadow of doubt on her guilt. She explains she obeyed and cooperated with Albert because she was afraid of him, especially afraid that he would harm her children, which, she says, he threatened to do. In America a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless there is no shadow of a doubt. There is certainly one here.

The movie. Burning Body, portrays Rosa as an ultra-promiscuous, very sexy, beautiful, young, ruthless, hungry black widow, which sensationalizes the film. Sex is everywhere. This is cheap sexploitation.

The media, which covered the crime, did exactly the same thing.

In America a jury of 12 men and woman must reach a unanimous verdict. In Spain they not only have just 9 jurors, but they accept a guilty verdict from just 7 or 8 of the jurors.

Because of a shadow of a doubt, I would not have convicted Rosa Peral.