I think the silhouttes that UM used could have been better. Even though you coulndn't tell exactly what the victim looked like, often times you could make out their hair color, shape of face, etc. One segment I watched recently, I think it was the Reggie DePalma case, one of the victims had several features noticeable. I think that in the future they should do the grid thing withe the boxes exclusively, where you can't make out anything. Also they rarely used vocal distortion. I would imagine that people that either knew of the victim or lived in the area could conclude that it was them based on this.

Also UM has dropped the ball on other safety issues. I recall awhile back someone saying that the fake name they gave one of the New Mexico bowling alley massacre victims was actually their real name. And then of course there was that bit of evidence they lost in the Harold and Thelma Swain case, that was crucial.

I certainly hope the latest incarnation of UM does better in this area.

I think when the series is renewed when they want to obscure someone's identity they should hold the interview with them wearing a cardboard box over their head and a sock stuffed in their mouth so when they speak it will sound muffled...but thats just me.

I certainly agree about the Swain evidence though - I mean wow thats something.

I always thought it was strange how sometimes they would do the voice distortion/face mosaic business and other times they would not. It seemed kind of random too. The victims of the Boston Shopping Mall rapist, for example, got the entire package. However, Reggie Depalma's victims (also rape victims) were just filmed in silhouette. Donny Hansen, if I remember correctly, also had his voice and face distorted too, while the owner of the gun allegedly used to kill Morris Davis was filmed in silhouette - both murder suspects.

Maybe it just depends on the interviewee's personal preference. I'm also wondering if there could be legal scuttlebutt in some of these cases that would prevent them from talking about the case in a public forum while disclosing their identity - either visually or by name.

I don't know for sure, I'm just brainstorming.

I always found it so odd in the segment about "Debby" that although the pretty well concealed "Debby's" identity, they showed her sister on camera. If you knew Debby's sister, wouldn't you think you'd know Debby as well?

I always found it so odd in the segment about "Debby" that although the pretty well concealed "Debby's" identity, they showed her sister on camera. If you knew Debby's sister, wouldn't you think you'd know Debby as well?

Maybe there were multiple sisters in the family?

This reminds me of the case involving "Carol". I always found it odd that she insisted on masking her identity and using a pseudonym on UM even though her name had been released to and printed by the press.

I always found it so odd in the segment about "Debby" that although the pretty well concealed "Debby's" identity, they showed her sister on camera. If you knew Debby's sister, wouldn't you think you'd know Debby as well?

My thoughts exactly, haha. Gotta love the sporadic use of silhouttes.

Didn't they show Susan Laferte in silhouette yet they said her real name and showed her husband? Doesn't make much sense.

Is it just me or did anyone else have a flash back to an Electric Company skit when they saw the name of this thread? :lol:

^ No just you...sorry ;) ;)

actually, I knew I was going to misspell the word. I think it's silhouettes, which is weird because it has 3 vowels in a row.

actually, I knew I was going to misspeell the word. I think it's silhouettes, which is weird because it has 3 vowels in a row.

I fixed it for you. :)

I fixed it for you. :)

thanks.

and I originally misspelled misspell. how ironic is that? :lol:

Remember Dale Hyde? They didn't exactly do a bang up job concealing Dale Hyde's girlfriend's identity, you could make out her eyes, her face, everything :rolleyes: Why didn't they just turn on the lights? :rolleyes: