Support NeoGAF

[FlyinJ]

Yeah I actually laughed loudly when kratz was describing the story to the media that Brendan gave in one of his confessions and he kept referencing SA as sweaty

Kratz used the term sweaty constantly. He was obsessed with it.

He even used it several times in the recent interviews.

That's why everyone on here keeps bringing up that they found his "sweat" on the hood latch, even though there is no possible way to determine it was sweat.

It's all a product of Kratz' creepy fantasies.

 

[Ophelion]

To be fair, even if Avery had confessed to him that he did do it and explained a whole bunch of other horrendous stuff he did to her, he likely would have said the same thing with the same gravitas.
I recommend watching the staircase documentary for a case where there isn't the specter of corruption. You get to see the defence lawyers discussing different narratives they might use for the defense that are wildly different, they are just looking for the most believable story, the truth is irrelevant. It also makes clear just how costly a good defence is.

No, I know. It wasn't that specific quote that convinced me he was probably just a principled person. It was all his comments regarding Brendan's case. He was paid to care about Steven. He was under no obligation to put any emotional investment into Brendan's case, but he does care and is obviously very distressed by how dirty the system did that poor kid.

As an aside, I think it's interesting that Steven was not charged with a bunch of things that Brendan ultimately was. Logically, I understand why it worked out that way, but it still feels really weird that as a society, we said that Steven was not guilty of these things, but Brendan was when the crimes they were being charged over was the same crime.

 

[BronsonLee]

His ssssssshweat

 

[Vampire On Titus]

Except this doesn't make sense. If the ex-boyfriend planted the car there and instructed the lady where to look then how did the cops obtain the key? Or better yet how did Sergeant Colborn call in the license plate before the car was discovered? If the answer to this is that the cops found the car somewhere else and planted it then how would the ex-boyfriend know the cars location?

It's been suggested that the cops told members of the search party where to find the car. 100% speculation and there's really no way to ever tell so it's not a particularly prudent road to travel. Still, I wouldn't put many possibilities past Manitowoc county.

 

[Kill3r7]

It's been suggested that the cops told members of the search party where to find the car. 100% speculation and there's really no way to ever tell so it's not a particularly prudent road to travel. Still, I wouldn't put many possibilities past Manitowoc county.

I agree with the conspiracy theory (Manitowoc County framed Avery) as there was enough evidence presented at trial to plant a seed of doubt. I thought Buting and Strang handled it very well.

I just don't buy into the ex-boyfriend theory because most if not all of it is speculation, much like the German theory, drug/incriminating photo theory.

 

[Homeboyd]

Except this doesn't make sense. If the ex-boyfriend planted the car there and instructed the lady where to look then how did the cops obtain the key? Or better yet how did Sergeant Colborn call in the license plate before the car was discovered? If the answer to this is that the cops found the car somewhere else and planted it then how would the ex-boyfriend know the cars location?

Oh hello there! You must be new to the thread.

 

[Glorious Ownage]

Just reread my favorite quote from the series:

“All due respect to counsel, the state is supposed to start every criminal trial swimming upstream. And the strong current against which the state is supposed to be swimming is the presumption of innocence”
-Dean Strang, badass

I cheered when I heard that line.

He was an incredible attorney. I hope he gets a lot more business after this airs. He deserves it.

 

[Vampire On Titus]

I agree with the conspiracy theory (Manitowoc County framed Avery) as there was enough evidence presented at trial to plant a seed of doubt. I thought Buting and Strang handled it very well.

I just don't buy into the ex-boyfriend theory because most if not all of it is speculation, much like the German theory, drug/incriminating photo theory.

I agree with you. Although I don't think those positing collusion between the search party and the police are necessarily the people suggesting the ex killed Theresa. The idea seems to mostly come from Pamela Strum seeming a bit shady and odd with her "god lead me to the RAV4" bit of testimony. Which did come off a bit odd but that's nothing to hang your hat on. That and her being uniquely given a camera when directed to search the Avery property.

Unfortunately a lot of these speculative curiosities can only go so far because the police never really looked into anyone other than Steven. So when asking a question like "How would the ex know where the car was?" or really any questions about the ex or any other potential suspects, It can't go much further than speculation. It just wasn't looked into extensively enough for anyone to get a proper idea.

 

[Kill3r7]

Oh hello there! You must be new to the thread.

I intentionally planned to skip this series, because I had concerns about it being inherently biased (same reason I have not listened to Undisclosed), but finally caved in after new years. After watching it, I walked away thinking that the defense did an excellent job advocating on Avery's behalf and IMO, did enough to plant a seed of doubt in the mind of the jury/viewer.

 

[Deadstar]

I'm into episode 6 now. This is really ridiculous. These things do not add up. The jury has failed. Here are some things that seem very strange.

1. Why is the dna analyst smirking the entire time she's being questioned? She keeps smiling and using very strange body language. She acts very smug.

2. Why doesn't Teresa's boyfriend show any emotion when being questioned? It seems like someone that close to her would show some type of feeling? Also, he can't remember the answers to questions by the defense but answers very specific questions by the prosecutor perfectly? He doesn't remember the last time he saw Teresa, whether it was morning, afternoon or night? Really? You wouldn't remember the last time you saw your girlfriend? I may not remember the exact time of going to a friend's house but I absolutely would remember the time of day. It's ridiculous.

3. Bobby Dassey's Alibi: His body language changes visibly after he is caught to be lying about the time he left and saw Bobby pass him in the truck. That all seemed weird to me.

4. Any time there was an outside party questioned that was not part of the police department, there seemed to be a different tone, a more objective tone to the whole situation. It struck me as being night and day compared to the witnesses who knew Teresa or the police department.

The strange thing is that it seems like a lot of different people are lying. At this point in time it seems like it was probably the boyfriend, Bobby Dassey or the neighbor who drive past Bobby.

 

[jsnepo]

I'm at episode 8.

Spoiler

The wait for the verdict is intense. The last minute jury change is shady as fuck.

 

[Homeboyd]

I intentionally planned to skip this series, because I had concerns about it being inherently biased (same reason I have not listened to Undisclosed), but finally caved in after new years. After watching it, I walked away thinking that the defense did an excellent job advocating on Avery's behalf and IMO, did enough to plant a seed of doubt in the mind of the jury/viewer.

lol yeah I'm just joking..

I just thought it was funny because you said "it doesn't make sense" when the entire premise of this documentary is that nothing made sense and yet.. SA and Brendan are in jail anyways. You're absolutely right... defense did their job of proving reasonable doubt. But NOPE he's guilty! Good thing they didn't give him the death penalty!

 

[onadesertedisland]

The experience of having jury duty has soured me on the idea of a layperson jury pool. I don't believe that average people are capable, or willing for that matter, of deciding guilt using evidence. Juries are made of people that have prejudices and biases that are not easily identifiable or even known consciously to the jurist.

 

[jsnepo]

This is bullshit! The verdict I mean.

Spoiler

I feel sorry for the parents and Brendan too.

 

[Nappuccino]

It's been suggested that the cops told members of the search party where to find the car. 100% speculation and there's really no way to ever tell so it's not a particularly prudent road to travel. Still, I wouldn't put many possibilities past Manitowoc county.

Something as simple as "Your search party should start at this corner"--and then that message being relayed by the boyfriend to the woman would be enough.

 

[darscot]

The experience of having jury duty has soured me on the idea of a layperson jury pool. I don't believe that average people are capable, or willing for that matter, of deciding guilt using evidence. Juries are made of people that have prejudices and biases that are not easily identifiable or even known consciously to the jurist.

The press conferences of the prosecution only make this worse, they biased everyone on the jury. I don't understand how that is legal in the US? They straight up said that Avery forced a 16 year old boy to rape and cut her throat. They have to do something because it's painfully obvious your average dude does not have the ability to be a juror.

 

[Sora the Cat]

My theory:

Spoiler

Brendan and Bobby did it.

 

[LaserBuddha]

My theory:

Spoiler

Brendan and Bobby did it.

I really don't think Brendan was capable of not implicating himself and Bobby over the course of all those interviews and how they went. It would have happened at least by accident, and he didn't seem to honestly know anything that matched the physical evidence. If Brendan was involved under entirely different circumstances than what the detectives coached him to say, then I think he'd have to be a legitimate genius fooling the cops and everyone he knows into thinking he was an idiot, given the quality of his performance.

 

[electroshockwave]

the ex i can see as being shady, but the brother? nah. he is obviously hurting but i hate that he goes on saying that Brendan is clearly lying on the stand when he finally says he made everything up, yet her dumb ass brother when clear evidence is brought up that cops were lying in Steven's trial, he fails to even second guess that. That Coulburn and Lentz or whatever, are clearly the fucks who conspired to some degree here. on the stand their body language when under cross examination clearly changes when Steven's (brilliant!!) lawyers lay into them and rip their stories apart. Those cops being stammering, fidgeting, blinking excessively. It's crazy.

I've not finished the series yet but something immediately set alarm bells off for me in episode 2 when the brother seemed sure that she was dead shortly after she went missing and before any physical evidence was found. I can't remember the exact wording but that and the other stuff people brought up at least make me suspicious.

 

[Homeboyd]

My theory:

Spoiler

Brendan and Bobby did it.

I think the judge did it. Both of em actually.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

My theory:

Spoiler

Brendan and Bobby did it.

If you're going to go that route go Scott and Bobby.

 

[Tatsumi Oga]

I've now watched three episodes and I am seriously shocked. This is all real, right? All this footage, none of that is acted, right? The shit I am seeing here is the kind of stuff that would make me say "yeah riiiiiight" if it were in a movie or show. Injustice doesn't even begin to describe it. I honestly did not know about this case but then... I barely ever watch the news. Anyway....

How the fuck

Spoiler

is it possible that he's behind bars for 18 years while there were plenty of people willing to testify in his favor, hell....they were with him at that moment that it happened on the beach, yet they simply ignored it? They weren't there in the courtroom. How is that even possible? But then 18 years later and thanks to technology advancement they see that one of the hairs was not his DNA. And from there he was a free bird? What the hell?

I could be wrong, but these sheriffs clearly knew from the beginning that they had the wrong person, how didn't any of these guys get arrested? Hell it seemed they weren't even fired from their jobs, unless I wasn't paying attention at that part. Also..... why? Why this clearly personal vendetta against the dude from the beginning?

Also, incredibly terrible how in episode 3 we see the 16 year old being questioned and the way these guys basically force him to lie, to fabricate the whole story. I sure hope all these assholes get what they deserve. In episode 3 you also see that even his own family is now starting to believe it. This is so damn awful.

I am truly shocked, no words. It just shows how immensely messed up the justice system can be in the USA. I assume this documentary covers everything? So we find out about the real outcome and get everything answered?

 

[Homeboyd]

I assume this documentary covers everything? So we find out about the real outcome and get everything answered?

It leaves out a few bits of the trial that would actually only help the defense even more, contrary to what you'll read in the "Making a Murderer left out the facts that prove Steven Avery did it!" articles... every single point has been challenged, with evidence, showing that those articles are full of shit. The articles are just bullet-point summaries of things Kratz has said in his defense since the documentary came out.

Yes, you'll find out the real actual outcome of what happened to Steven and Brendan and what they're up to now if you finish the series. It only gets more ridiculous as you go though so be prepared.

 

[Tatsumi Oga]

Good lord man. And all of this, no matter how ridiculous is all reality, truth?

Yeah I am not in the least surprised that such articles exist man. It reminds me of the MJ case. I followed it completely at the time and I saw how the media twisted every little bit of positive news for MJ into something ridiculous and negative. Plenty of what I've seen so far is reminding me of that case as well.

My bro told me that apparently the case is still ongoing to this day and that a petition has been started and signed by 150.000 people to declare him innocent.

 

[Homeboyd]

Good lord man. And all of this, no matter how ridiculous is all reality, truth?

Yeah I am not in the least surprised that such articles exist man. It reminds me of the MJ case. I followed it completely at the time and I saw how the media twisted every little bit of positive news for MJ into something ridiculous and negative. Plenty of what I've seen so far is reminding me of that case as well.

My bro told me that apparently the case is still ongoing to this day and that a petition has been started and signed by 150.000 people to declare him innocent.

No there is no on-going case. I don't want to spoil anything for you regarding his current status so I'll leave it at that.

Fyi, the only way a new case could be opened is if new evidence is presented that could prove corruption, his innocence, etc which is what I assume your bro is referring to. They do have newly acquired representation from big time firms in Chicago and Wisconsin which is a positive.

People asking for SA's pardon from the White House aren't well informed about how pardons actually work. Only the governor can pardon someone from a state level case and the Wisconsin gov. said he will not pardon them. People are now asking the Dept of Justice to investigate the MC Sheriff's Dept and certain details of the case which is what they should've done to begin with.

 

[bishopcruz]

The experience of having jury duty has soured me on the idea of a layperson jury pool. I don't believe that average people are capable, or willing for that matter, of deciding guilt using evidence. Juries are made of people that have prejudices and biases that are not easily identifiable or even known consciously to the jurist.

Layperson juries suck, I'm just not convinced that there is a better system. The thing is EVERYONE has biases. Judges, prosecuters, defense attorneys, absolutely everyone. An inquisitorial system puts far too much power in the hands of the judge, having 'qualified' jurors of some sort adds a greater level of certainty to whatever bias is held.

I honestly think the biggest thing that needs reform is a removal of prosecutorial immunity, and greater handicapping of the police and prosecutors in the process. What this, and many other cases have shown is that prosecutors have far too great an influence with judges, and hell even the general public.

Maybe the defense should be granted additional privilege that hte prosecutor's arent. Something like only allowing the defense to veto jurors would probably be a good start. A trial should NOT be fair, at least for the prosecution. They are supposed to be proving something concretely beyond a shadow of a doubt. Also the physical evidence should be the most important part of a trial. Jurors should be instructed that confessions and eye-witness testimony can easily be tainted, and physical evidence has priority over anything else.

I doubt any of that is realistic though.

 

[Vampire On Titus]

Good lord man. And all of this, no matter how ridiculous is all reality, truth?

Yeah I am not in the least surprised that such articles exist man. It reminds me of the MJ case. I followed it completely at the time and I saw how the media twisted every little bit of positive news for MJ into something ridiculous and negative. Plenty of what I've seen so far is reminding me of that case as well.

My bro told me that apparently the case is still ongoing to this day and that a petition has been started and signed by 150.000 people to declare him innocent.

Dean Strang, one of Steven's lawyers, has stated many times that new evidence is really Stevens only shot at this point. There's a few little mentions here and there in interviews that hint at developments being made after the attention the doc has gotten.

edit:

Unrelated but lmao. New board game.

 

[Tatsumi Oga]

No there is no on-going case. I don't want to spoil anything for you regarding his current status so I'll leave it at that.

Fyi, the only way a new case could be opened is if new evidence is presented that could prove corruption, his innocence, etc which is what I assume your bro is referring to. They do have newly acquired representation from big time firms in Chicago and Wisconsin which is a positive.

People asking for SA's pardon from the White House aren't well informed about how pardons actually work. Only the governor can pardon someone from a state level case and the Wisconsin gov. said he will not pardon them. People are now asking the Dept of Justice to investigate the MC Sheriff's Dept and certain details of the case which is what they should've done to begin with.

Thanks a lot man, you are a great help. I am just shocked.... nah beyond shocked that such a thing like this could happen and all I can ask is... why? I told my bro while we were watching it that it seemed like some big celebrity case, the guy seems so damn important, but he really is just a small time guy living his life. In what way do they benefit from this? I will find out more next week, going to watch it each Monday when I visit my bro.

 

[shortsFortallPeople]

Thanks a lot man, you are a great help. I am just shocked.... nah beyond shocked that such a thing like this could happen and all I can ask is... why? I told my bro while we were watching it that it seemed like some big celebrity case, the guy seems so damn important, but he really is just a small time guy living his life. In what way do they benefit from this? I will find out more next week, going to watch it each Monday when I visit my bro.

well, it started with him basically getting on the wrong side of some important people.

Then, it became a situation of trying to not pay out a settlement that would've ruined many a folk and that had proven to be a great embarrassment to a group of authority figures

the first arrest was based on some bullshit, the second one was revenge for getting caught with their bullshit and also done to save themselves from the consequences of it all

 

[Homeboyd]

Thanks a lot man, you are a great help. I am just shocked.... nah beyond shocked that such a thing like this could happen and all I can ask is... why? I told my bro while we were watching it that it seemed like some big celebrity case, the guy seems so damn important, but he really is just a small time guy living his life. In what way do they benefit from this? I will find out more next week, going to watch it each Monday when I visit my bro.

No problem. The more people that know about the story, the better.

Also just saw this on reddit LOL

edit: seems positive indeed (if real)

 

[Kill3r7]

I honestly think the biggest thing that needs reform is a removal of prosecutorial immunity, and greater handicapping of the police and prosecutors in the process. What this, and many other cases have shown is that prosecutors have far too great an influence with judges, and hell even the general public.

This is a very tricky issue as the theory in support of absolute immunity holds that if prosecutors can be subjected to lawsuits for the decisions they make, they may start second-guessing themselves and become reluctant to file charges except in only the most open-and-shut cases. There’s also a fear that exposing prosecutors to lawsuits could bring a wave of frivolous filings that clog up the court system. Furthermore, any civil suits would not be paid out by the accused prosecutor bur rather the county. That said, there needs to be oversight and a system in place to allow for lawsuits in connections with a proprietorial misconduct.

Maybe the defense should be granted additional privilege that hte prosecutor's arent. Something like only allowing the defense to veto jurors would probably be a good start. A trial should NOT be fair, at least for the prosecution. They are supposed to be proving something concretely beyond a shadow of a doubt. Also the physical evidence should be the most important part of a trial. Jurors should be instructed that confessions and eye-witness testimony can easily be tainted, and physical evidence has priority over anything else.

The current judicial system already accounts for all of these factors. Both sides are allowed an unlimited number of challenges for cause and both sides have a set number of peremptory challenges. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution which makes it an uphill battle for them because it is not easy to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, it is the job of the defense attorney to poke holes in the prosecution's case in chief and all their witnesses.

 

[Woody Invincible]

I've now watched three episodes and I am seriously shocked. This is all real, right? All this footage, none of that is acted, right?

After a few episodes, I was sure that I had taken the bait, and that this was all fiction. I googled to make sure what I was watching was real. That's how ridiculous this whole thing was.

 

[Dalek]

If anyone else wants to read a similar story of an innocent man who was wronged by the justice system, this is a must read article. I read it late one night and I was riveted the entire time-and in the end had tears streaming down my face. This is one of the most well written pieces of journalism I've ever read.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-innocent-man-part-one/

On August 13, 1986, Michael Morton came home from work to discover that his wife had been brutally murdered in their bed. His nightmare had only begun. - See more at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-innocent-man-part-one/#sthash.0oYO4mPw.dpuf

 

[Tatsumi Oga]

After a few episodes, I was sure that I had taken the bait, and that this was all fiction. I googled to make sure what I was watching was real. That's how ridiculous this whole thing was.

Yeah and incredibly sad at the same time.

I was talking to someone about this just now and he says the doc is one-sided and biased. Fact remains though that they clearly show how many lies are fabricated. Something episode 3 definitely shows. So that argument only goes so far.

 

[Jmanunknown]

After a few episodes, I was sure that I had taken the bait, and that this was all fiction. I googled to make sure what I was watching was real. That's how ridiculous this whole thing was.

It gets even more ridiculous when you find out the prosecutor in the trial Ken Kratz had to later resign because

In October 2009, a 26-year-old domestic violence victim, whose case against her boyfriend Kratz was prosecuting, filed a police report in Kaukauna, Wisconsin alleging that Kratz had sent her 30 sexually coercive text messages over the span of three days. She said that she felt that he was trying to coerce her into a sexual relationship and that if she refused, the case against her boyfriend would be dismissed. The report was referred to the state's Division of Criminal Investigation. During the DCI investigation, two more women came forward accusing Kratz of harassing and intimidating them. At the time, Kratz was serving as chairman of the Wisconsin Crime Victims' Rights Board.

and that a juror was actively working for the police as a volunteer during the trial and his son works for the same police department.

 

[JaseMath]

After a few episodes, I was sure that I had taken the bait, and that this was all fiction. I googled to make sure what I was watching was real. That's how ridiculous this whole thing was.

Dude...I was the same way. By episode six I was like, "This is like that Banksy movie 'Exit Through the Gift Shop'".

 

[maniac-kun]

Was is discovert how the murderer shredded her body? The bones are all tiny fragments. So if he used some kind of machine there should be lots of dna evidence there.

 

[Daffy Duck]

The only thing missing that would've been in a film would be one of the defence lawyers turning up dead, everything was just plain ridiculous and would be borderline rolleyes moments of they were in a film.

 

[bishopcruz]

This is a very tricky issue as the theory in support of absolute immunity holds that if prosecutors can be subjected to lawsuits for the decisions they make, they may start second-guessing themselves and become reluctant to file charges except in only the most open-and-shut cases. There’s also a fear that exposing prosecutors to lawsuits could bring a wave of frivolous filings that clog up the court system. Furthermore, any civil suits would not be paid out by the accused prosecutor bur rather the county. That said, there needs to be oversight and a system in place to allow for lawsuits in connections with a proprietorial misconduct.

I get what you are saying, but like police I don't particularly have a problem with the idea that prosecutors should be held to a higher standard. Using these cases as an example, I just don't get how it is ethical to basically provide two completely different accounts of the same murder in two different trials.

The current judicial system already accounts for all of these factors. Both sides are allowed an unlimited number of challenges for cause and both sides have a set number of peremptory challenges. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution which makes it an uphill battle for them because it is not easy to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, it is the job of the defense attorney to poke holes in the prosecution's case in chief and all their witnesses.

The burden of proof may lie with the prosecution, and yes putting together a case can be rough, I have several friends who are prosecutors, their workloads are often insane, however the State still wins about 90% of felony cases. Public Defenders plead out about 90-95% of the time as well. The odds are still heavily stacked against the accused. The supposed difficulty in proving beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't seem to be borne out by reality.

Then you add things in like a confession being considered the gold standard of evidence, something that will change witness testimony and alibis and be more convincing than physical evidence. That gets problematic when 93% of people waive their Miranda Rights.

I'm not saying that prosecutors and cops don't have it rough, but defendants have it a hell of a lot rougher, especially poor ones.

 

[FlashbladeGAF]

Was is discovert how the murderer shredded her body? The bones are all tiny fragments. So if he used some kind of machine there should be lots of dna evidence there.

unfortunately, they only looked at Steven instead of other suspects which might have led them to the scene of the crime.


Now I'm gonna wait for a cop show where they solve the case by NOT having a murder weapon or the scene of the crime (origin)

The only thing missing that would've been in a film would be one of the defence lawyers turning up dead, everything was just plain ridiculous and would be borderline rolleyes moments of they were in a film.

lol I half expected this to happen. Started getting worried when we would see them leave the building.

 

[TVexperto]

edit: seems positive indeed (if real)

what was the question you asked?

 

[Deadstar]

What is the explanation for the EDTA not being found in the blood test by the FBI?

 

[Homeboyd]

what was the question you asked?

I didn't. I was just editing my post quite a bit later since no one else had posted and I saw that email image. I didn't want to double post so I just "edited" it in.

What is the explanation for the EDTA not being found in the blood test by the FBI?

They didn't have to explain anything... that is what they were trying to prove. Since there was no limit of detection (aka no way to actually know if EDTA was actually in the blood sample), nor sampling of the rest of the blood in the car, and the fact that the test was contaminated AND the fact that the analyst just HAPPENED to use up all the source material in this one, contaminated, inconclusive, bogus test, she couldn't test it again and they said the test was conclusive. It 100% should have been ruled inconclusive and not permitted to used in court or they should've explained that the results were inconclusive. Because they were.

FBI didn't have to explain anything since it matched up with the State's argument. win/win

 

[Tatsumi Oga]

Oops, double post.

 

[Kill3r7]

I get what you are saying, but like police I don't particularly have a problem with the idea that prosecutors should be held to a higher standard. Using these cases as an example, I just don't get how it is ethical to basically provide two completely different accounts of the same murder in two different trials.





The burden of proof may lie with the prosecution, and yes putting together a case can be rough, I have several friends who are prosecutors, their workloads are often insane, however the State still wins about 90% of felony cases. Public Defenders plead out about 90-95% of the time as well. The odds are still heavily stacked against the accused. The supposed difficulty in proving beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't seem to be borne out by reality.

Then you add things in like a confession being considered the gold standard of evidence, something that will change witness testimony and alibis and be more convincing than physical evidence. That gets problematic when 93% of people waive their Miranda Rights.

I'm not saying that prosecutors and cops don't have it rough, but defendants have it a hell of a lot rougher, especially poor ones.

Don't get me wrong the system is in need of change and we as a society should always strive to improve it. However, how does one go about making the justice system truly "equal." Equal to what or to whom? How, realistically, do we deal with disparities in incentives, resources, and legal ability? The reason the State has such a high winning percentage is because they only try sure things and mostly plea out/down everything else. Increasing the burden of proof on the State in all likelihood won't have the impact you want in helping the poor or the underprivileged. If anything the upper middle class and the rich are the ones who would benefit most from these changes.

Maybe it makes more sense to focus on reforming our jury system or how to better instruct jurors. Again all of these suggestions work fine in the abstract but prove to be hard to implement in real life. Most jurisdictions have a hard time finding willing jurors who do not view jury duty as a burden but rather a duty.

 

[Clipjoint]

What is the explanation for the EDTA not being found in the blood test by the FBI?

There's no proof that test actually detects EDTA.

 

[Don Draper's Hat]

Exboyfriend - "Here is a camera, start looking for the car over there"

Random lady that found car 5 minutes later - "I found the car at the start of my search of the 40 acre car lot, I had a camera so I took a picture!"

God guided her, man. Nothing else. God.

You can't argue with God.

 

[The Beard]

There's no proof that test actually detects EDTA.

Did they test the blood in the vial a few times to see if the test could even consistently detect EDTA from a known source?

 

[Homeboyd]

Did they test the blood in the vial a few times to see if the test could even consistently detect EDTA from a known source?

lol nope

 

[Frodo]

About the EDTA test, it is not conclusive, you can not say with 100% certainty that there is NO EDTA in the sample if it is not detected. The test is reliable if it finds EDTA, but if it doesn't find EDTA in a sample it could be either that there is actually no EDTA mixed into the sample, or simply there is EDTA, but not in a amount the test is able to detect.

I also found it extremely questionable that they didn't even run a test on the blood from the vial to have a side by side, specially considering that if they could detect EDTA in the vial their case would be stronger. They did test the blood from the vial, it seems.