Las cintas de Rosa Peral

Or Rosa to us the actual name I reckon - so no pun intended. I saw the series - and after it was done, Netflix suggested I watch the documentary you see right here. Now I think I did the right thing watching the show first and then the documentary ... to be honest ... the documentary is quite one sided. Which I reckon you could say about the show too - but differently. More on point and more accusing I guess.

That said, this views the case especially through the lens of the female main "character" involved in all this. And while there is a lot she had to go through - it would still be nice to get to see and hear some other people ... like the man that she accuses was behind it all ... and was so threatening to her ... I would say there is more evidence than not, that this is just another lie of hers ... but feel free to watch this and think differently ... I still would suggest you only watch the series/show.

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.

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.

"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 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.