Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For the prosecution working one of these high profile trials, the failure to prove the case is almost never a result of failure to try. More often than not, it's a result of missing pieces of the puzzle, and the unpredictability of taking a case to trial in the first place.
For the prosecution working one of these high profile trials, the failure to prove the case is almost never a result of failure to try. More often than not, it's a result of missing pieces of the puzzle, and the unpredictability of taking a case to trial in the first place.
I don't have too high of a opinion for Casey Anthony, but I will say what I believe is factual about the OJ and Zimmerman cases. I believe investigators bungled their investigations by either missing crucial evidence or destroying it by allowing people to trample all over it. Plain and simple.
Heck, maybe I've seen too many episodes of the first 48 to have that kind of an opinion, but after watching forensic detectives piece together crime scenes, I wonder who is proficient in their field of so called expertise, and who is a bungling fool.
I don't have too high of a opinion for Casey Anthony, but I will say what I believe is factual about the OJ and Zimmerman cases. I believe investigators bungled their investigations by either missing crucial evidence or destroying it by allowing people to trample all over it. Plain and simple.
up to a point i agree with you. in the anthony and oj cases, the defense did an excellent job of obfuscating the truth, and pointing out the horrible way the evidence was collected, and processed, along with the tainting of the crime scenes. in the zimmerman case however, it was the prosecution that tried to obfuscate the truth to get a conviction. there were too many investigators that felt zimmerman didnt do anything wrong and thus didnt arrest him until a month later when the crap hit the fan. also the prosecution did not take the evidence to a grand jury first, like they should have, as they knew that the grand jury would not indict zimmerman.
up to a point i agree with you. in the anthony and oj cases, the defense did an excellent job of obfuscating the truth, and pointing out the horrible way the evidence was collected, and processed, along with the tainting of the crime scenes. in the zimmerman case however, it was the prosecution that tried to obfuscate the truth to get a conviction. there were too many investigators that felt zimmerman didnt do anything wrong and thus didnt arrest him until a month later when the crap hit the fan. also the prosecution did not take the evidence to a grand jury first, like they should have, as they knew that the grand jury would not indict zimmerman.
As you and I know, there's no statute of limitations concerning homicide. Since we know that, there must be reasons why the police department and detectives didn't go over the scene with finer scrutiny, other than the taking of one person's word for what happened. The stuff did hit the fan when procedure wasn't followed, yes. That's the reason I said I believe the investigation was bungled.
Reliance on what an individual saw isn't always cut and dried either, we both know eye witnesses have recanted their testimony in the past in many other cases.
Most recently, the City Of Chicago made a 10 million dollar settlement to a man who was convicted of murder and had spent some 20 years imprisoned on false testimony of a witness and a coerced confession. He was cleared of committing the crime through DNA testing.
I watched a Frontline special a while back on television and during the documentary, they pointed out how unreliable investigations can be, and how DNA testing can be unreliable too, especially when a crime scene is contaminated with people traipsing all over evidence.
Police in big cities have been known to abuse people they have arrested trying to coerce confessions.
Quote:
In another case settled this year, $10.25 million went to a man who spent 26 years in prison for a murder he did not commit
As you and I know, there's no statute of limitations concerning homicide. Since we know that, there must be reasons why the police department and detectives didn't go over the scene with finer scrutiny, other than the taking of one person's word for what happened. The stuff did hit the fan when procedure wasn't followed, yes. That's the reason I said I believe the investigation was bungled.
Reliance on what an individual saw isn't always cut and dried either, we both know eye witnesses have recanted their testimony in the past in many other cases.
Most recently, the City Of Chicago made a 10 million dollar settlement to a man who was convicted of murder and had spent some 20 years imprisoned on false testimony of a witness and a coerced confession. He was cleared of committing the crime through DNA testing.
I watched a Frontline special a while back on television and during the documentary, they pointed out how unreliable investigations can be, and how DNA testing can be unreliable too, especially when a crime scene is contaminated with people traipsing all over evidence.
crime scenes are always tough to secure, especially in the initial stages of the investigation. and crimes scenes are rarely pristine in the first place. as for the chicago case, since there was a coerced confession, and it was proven to be coerced, that right there tainted the prosecutions case, in addition to the false testimony of a witness. in the zimmerman case no such accusations exist. zimmerman cooperated fully with police investigators, and told the same story over and over again. that could mean his statement was rehearsed, or, since it was the same from when he first gave his statement at the scene, it was the truth as zimmerman saw it. and by the way, frontline can be as unreliable as the investigations they checked out.
crime scenes are always tough to secure, especially in the initial stages of the investigation. and crimes scenes are rarely pristine in the first place. as for the chicago case, since there was a coerced confession, and it was proven to be coerced, that right there tainted the prosecutions case, in addition to the false testimony of a witness. in the zimmerman case no such accusations exist. zimmerman cooperated fully with police investigators, and told the same story over and over again. that could mean his statement was rehearsed, or, since it was the same from when he first gave his statement at the scene, it was the truth as zimmerman saw it. and by the way, frontline can be as unreliable as the investigations they checked out.
I didn't and don't see it that way when they have DNA and forensic experts saying what they did about homicide investigations.
I didn't and don't see it that way when they have DNA and forensic experts saying what they did about homicide investigations.
frontline does what a lot of "investigative journalists" do, they pick and choose quotes, and edit them, to fit their agenda. i have no doubt that early in the life of dna use, there were abuses and mistakes made, but the science changes over the years and new techniques and technologies have come out making it easier to find the elusive dna fragments despite a tainted crime scene. i would bet that ten years from now the science will have substantially changed again. remember it used to be that it took several days to get dna results from a lab, today that has been cut down to a few days, perhaps in ten years it might be a couple of hours.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
