Tried to find a court case for these characters. I did not. Instead I found an appeal case of a Robert Richardson and a nephew of his wife, both who did not attempt to rob a bank as the movie implies but actually robbed it and were caught later that day. The only mention of a Sybil Fox was during the trial when both Rob and Sybil, presented as his wife, tried to tamper with the jury by visiting their homes and coercing them. Two of them were replaced during the trial for this, and in effect they tried to create a possibility for the trial to be ruled a mistrial when the nephew argued he couldn't received a fair trial because of what the two did. Otherwise there was nothing about her being involved in any way. My thought is that she was a placeholder in the story for the nephew, either he did not agree for this part of his life to be publicized or they did not agree on the proceeds for the publications and had to be swapped for a made up character, hence her struggle in the prison system might be fabricated. I can't point it out exactly since the case eludes me but... This is, at best, an artistic adaptation of a real event than an actual documentary of said event. Something like Fargo, but that's it. It's very one sided and misleading, while hiding behind a real event to obtain credibility. On the part of the victimisation, that court document showed a lot of mistakes he did, and the whole focus was on gaming the system in failing the trial. Are the 60 years excessive? Yes! But a victim, he's not, when the had the chance to come clean. Poor life choices will lead to severe punishment and while the punishment in his case seems exaggerated it might serve as a warning about outcomes and personal responsibility in face of clear evidence. Out there there are other cases, far more damaging than his, yet less dramatised and faked. Another striking thing was the changes in names: Sibil Fox, Sybil Fox, Sibil Rich, Sybil Fox Richardson, Rob Rich, Robert Richardson. If it were supposed to be a documentary, it should contain clear identities. This leads me to suspect that they are trying to hide ways for people to arrive at the actual court case and see for themselves what is instead of being told a one-sided story about the prison system. And even regarding this in reality is not the actual issue, since that sentence, the length, the conditions, were part of the justice system (judges and jury) outcome. The issues with the prison system are different and pertain mostly to the kids in this instance. Chances have to be made, abolishing won't be one of them. Overall the mockup-umentary is hard to swallow. Works as an artistic work, but the pushed narrative as being a real event is mostly for the gullible.
