Elize Matsunaga: Once Upon a Crime

It's a bit unsettling to watch the killer herself talking about the crime for the documentary though it is intriguing at the same time.

Although it could have had one less episode like every other crime series of Netflix, it leaves you wondering if Elize is a cold-blooded murder or committed a crime of passion.

I don't agree that is biased to Elize. Of course it is going to feel this way because it's centered in her narrative. On the other hand they show the investigator, prosecutor and the victim's family and friends talking.

It's up to the viewer form their own conclusion.

It is a bit of a cold crime at this point, this would have benefited from earlier release. It is also a case without a lot of mystery, everyone knows what happens (the doc also tells you in 10 minutes). So, it has to be about how the story is told, how much inside information the show can bring.

As most of the Netflix series, this is longer than it should. Episodes are not that dense. But it's still within "OK". The main merit I found - and this is not to be taken for granted in crime series - is how it manages to involve absolutely everyone. Elize, the killer, obviously, now and then. Police sheriff who investigated. Victim's family. Elize's family. Prosecutor. Lawyers for the defense. Significant press members who were covering it at the time. Fomer school colleagues who had relations with the couple. You do get everyone's opinion and insights. Good editing in this aspect.

It shows victimization and lots of fingers pointed. If you hear the killer, there will be victimization, for granted. It is part of what will incluence viewer's opinion. Documentary lacks brilliance or new evidence. It is for those who followed the case then. If you are all new to it, lack perspective, it might look flat.

I think some people who wrote reviews and disappointed is not getting the point that this docuseries titled her name, her Point of Views. In some ways I get that she is a manipulator, this serie is not 100% supporting her as a victim and the crime as the result. You can also see how investigators againsts her theory and forensics clearly didnt agree with her explanation.

I believe it is a crime of passion, but on how she murdered her husband I still believe in forensics results, because it is proven and can't be manipulated againsts her words.

There are some proof that her husband really think he is untouchable by taking his mistress to the same restaurant where people recognized him as regulars. Although we never get to hear the victim POV. Why people really put on negatives the fact that she was a prostitutes, and ditched the fact that her husband also regularly paid the services?

But then again, we will never know how and what make her do it because I dont believe her story as it is not genuine on how she do it, but then again, I do believe this is a crime of passion. Either premedidated, or not.

It's like my grandmother used to say: "The dead has no voice".

Elize is a human that did a huge mistake, and she still has her rights, but it's a bit disgusting to interview a cold blood killer and let her talk trash about the person she killed and mutilated. And of course, the dead husband has no way to defend himself from all the nonsense and accusations coming out of his killer's mouth.

The documentary makes you almost forget that she shot him in the head and cut his body in small pieces and threw it in the bush, such a poor lady.

I watched until the end but I can definitely say I don't really see the point of watching this documentary.

Making a cold murder a victim.

It's plain simple Netflix...if a man shot and mutilated his wife, you would NEVER show him as a victim, cause of course he is not.. and obviously, cause he is a men.. disgusting that your feminist ideology has come to this point that tries to justify a psycho who clearly is a master of manipulation.. Homicide will never ever justify choosing a bad partner in life ..