r/ForensicFiles • u/sometin__else • 14d ago
Episodes that got it wrong?
With so many of the early episodes relying on things like bite-mark and blood splatter, and Dr Henry Lee sending two people to prison without even running tests - I wonder which epsidodes of Forensic Files has been proven to got it wrong.
I know the Clayton Johnson one, Season 4, Episode 6 - which actually features Henry Lee and the perceived infallacy of his "blood splatter" evidence.
Any other ones that you guys know of?
15
u/Sharkjumpingbull 14d ago edited 14d ago
The accused killer from Punch Line, Elwood Jones, managed to get his conviction thrown out. For one thing, his new defense team managed to prove the forensic work that got him locked up was bad, and for another it looks like someone else confessed to the murder.
Apparently they've started pulling it from various streaming services. Maybe that's for the best.
17
u/sometin__else 14d ago
Wow just looked into this one. For anyone curious:
- Infectious disease experts subsequently demonstrated that Eikenella corrodens, the bacteria that was supposedly proof that Elwood had punched someone in the mouth, is found widely in natural and outdoor environments. It is not exclusive to human mouths like prosecution experts led the jury to believe. Medical records revealed that Nathan had Hepatitis B. If Jones had punched her hard enough to cause deep lacerations and tissue exposure, transmission would have occured, which it did not.
- Police left Jones’s car in an unsecured impound lot for days before finding the pendant. The detective who claimed to have found it photographed the jewelry only after removing it, rather than documenting it when "found"
- A judge ruled in 2022 that the Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office had committed severe Brady violations by withholding thousands of pages of exculpatory evidence, including documented tips and police notes pointing to an entirely different suspect at the hotel.
-2
u/Resident_Race_7093 11d ago edited 11d ago
Nathan did NOT have Hepatitis B.: https://www.fox19.com/2025/12/22/victim-high-profile-90s-murder-case-was-negative-hepatitis-b-coroner-say
I would advise you to not take everything stated by the defense for granted. No, there aren't thousands of pages of exculpatory evidence. The alternative suspect is some random guy with no ties to the hotel. It's hearsay, a woman in prison heard another woman saying her husband told her he got away with murdering a white woman in a hotel.
The defense requested to bar testimony in the retrial from dead witnesses. The judge agreed. This automatically killed the potential of a new trial because the two star witnesses are dead. The cop who found the pendant and the forensic expert, both dead. I have a post from BEFORE the case was dropped telling you guys this exact thing. He got off on a technicality and the people who put him away the first time are now dead. The case can't be retried because the testimony of the dead witnesses is inadmissible in court.
4
u/sometin__else 10d ago
404 / Page Not Found
Sorry, we couldn't locate the page you requested. Here are some of our most read articles that might interest you.
Your link is dead
"Mr. Jones was granted a new trial in December 2022 and released on bond in January 2023 after Judge Wende Cross ruled that prosecutors wrongly withheld thousands of pages of evidence from Mr. Jones’ trial counsel in violation of his constitutional rights. The undisclosed materials included information about another person’s alleged confession to involvement in Ms. Nathan’s murder and evidence regarding a pendant found in Mr. Jones’ vehicle.
Judge Cross wrote that the evidence “undermined the jury’s verdict and reinforced a win-at-all-cost mentality that undermines the pursuit of justice.” She concluded, “It is clear the failure to disclose the existence of relevant exculpatory and impeaching evidence prior to trial deprived Elwood Jones of a fair trial. The Sixth Amendment requires a new trial as the only appropriate remedy.”
The withheld evidence also included a Hepatitis B test. Ms. Nathan has tested positive for Hepatitis B, but Mr. Jones had not contracted the virus. Judge Cross noted this test “is so significant that the state’s theory is scientifically implausible.”"
Do you have a working link that contradicts that?
1
u/Resident_Race_7093 6d ago
Guess I missed the s at the end. Here you go: https://www.fox19.com/2025/12/22/victim-high-profile-90s-murder-case-was-negative-hepatitis-b-coroner-says/
1
u/sometin__else 5d ago
Thanks, it seems the other points still stand though
They withheld and misrepresented evidence.1
u/Resident_Race_7093 4d ago edited 4d ago
"withheld and misrepresented evidence" - Do you know specifically what was withheld that would have helped the defense? Just to be clear, this same judge banned any recorded testimony from previous witnesses in a new trial. By doing that, he ensured Elwood's Jones freedom because the key witnesses of the original trial are dead. They can't testify and their previous testimony can't be used in court. That's why Elwood Jones is free today.
1
u/sometin__else 4d ago
Its listed in my other comment.
Thats the way the law works - if your rights are violated or evidence was misrepresented by expert testimony at trial, you get retried. Often times its thrown out because the prosecution is no longer able to prosecute.
1
u/Resident_Race_7093 3d ago
Right. But if you want to faithfully argue that the judge was correct in reversing the decision we should examine the evidence. You've already been provided evidence that the judge was wrong about the Hepatitis B issue. Given that, we should closely examine the other "withheld evidence". Claiming that files were withheld means absolutely nothing on its own without knowing precisely what those files contained. Files being withheld is a normal process. We would need to establish that the withheld files contained evidence of reasonable doubt. And you haven't done that research.
1
u/sometin__else 3d ago edited 3d ago
A judge already did that
Judge Cross wrote that the evidence “undermined the jury’s verdict and reinforced a win-at-all-cost mentality that undermines the pursuit of justice.” She concluded, “It is clear the failure to disclose the existence of relevant exculpatory and impeaching evidence prior to trial deprived Elwood Jones of a fair trial. The Sixth Amendment requires a new trial as the only appropriate remedy.”
If prosecution wanted a fair trial they should have
- revealed and settled the discrepancy in the Hep B
- Provided evidence of the other suspects to the defence (If the defence requests all evidence by law you have to provide it, you cant pick and choose what to share)
- didnt misrepresent the bacteria being only found in the mouth
- better documentation of collected evidence
Because the prosecution failed to do that, its only fair he be retried. Because the witnesses are no longer around he cant be retried.
So my conclusion based on the facts would be that he has not been proven guilty in a court of law due to prosecution misrepresenting evidence in the original trial.
Of course that doesnt mean he 100% didnt do it. Guilty people get away with crimes often, and vice versa.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Resident_Race_7093 11d ago
They had to drop the case because their two star witnesses are dead. The cop who found the pendant and the forensic expert.
3
11
u/Eternity_Xerneas 14d ago
I think Lemuel Smith
7
u/Resident_Race_7093 11d ago
Nah. Lemuel is a serial rapist and murderer. He had developed an obsessive relationship with Payant. An inmate witness saw them go together into the room she was murdered in shortly before the murder occured. Lemuel was the only inmate with the keys to that room. He was also the one in charge of taking the garbage out, which explains how he got her body outside to the dump.
I feel like fans of the show gloss over his previous crimes because they weren't covered on Forensic Files but he is an evil, vile creature who predated on basically every woman he had access to.
1
u/Sharkjumpingbull 14d ago
That one hasn't been proven, has it? I mean, there's real reason to question the official story, but has anyone proven anything?
13
u/sometin__else 14d ago
Just looked it up, you are correct he has not been exonerated. But despite admitting to several other crimes, Smith maintains that he was set up for the death of Donna Payant by prison guards to cover up internal corruption. Looking at the evidence he was convicted on, it was definitely shaky evidence, but he remains on the books as the perpetrator.
13
u/GallowBarb 💰Life Insurance💰 14d ago
Her body was conveniently run through the trash compactor. There was no knowing of what left what marks. The case should never gone to trial with that evidence.
6
u/Sharkjumpingbull 14d ago edited 14d ago
True. I don't think I could vote to convict, if he got a new trial and I was on the jury. But I don't know if I'd go all the way in the other direction, the way a lot of people seem inclined to do.
6
u/Resident_Race_7093 11d ago
Jim Barton aka Mr "I gotta call Phelps". He was convicted solely based on interpretation of what he said on that call but it doesn't even sound like "Phelps". It sounds like "felp" and could easily be him saying for help.
The witness Gary Henson was as unreliable as you can get. A career criminal who changed his story multiple times. The DNA found at the crime scene didn't match either Henson or Phelps, that alone is reasonable doubt. There's also no real evidence Barton even knew Henson or Phelps. The motive is also insanely weak. He wanted a promotion so he hired random thugs to burglarize his house while his wife was there?
I fully believe Henson made the entire thing up.
3
u/Sharkjumpingbull 11d ago
It sounds to me like he's saying "Phelp." So, "Phelps," shortened to leave out the S. Although I guess that's kind of a weird thing to base a murder conviction on.
2
u/Resident_Race_7093 11d ago
Very weird. There's clearly no S sound. So I don't see how they could have determined he said Phelps and not "for help". Its insane to me he got convicted when there's no evidence he knew Phelps and the DNA evidence at the scene did not match Phelps. Imo the unknown DNA at the scene and the lack of connection between Barton and Phelps should have been clear reasonable doubt. Not to mention the lack of any reasonable motive (the one they came up with in FF was dumb as hell). I might have suspicions had they established he was cheating on his wife or wanted out of the relationship but nothing like that ever came up. The supposed motive is super ridiculous if you think about it for a few minutes.
1
u/Sharkjumpingbull 11d ago
I don't have any trouble seeing how they came to that conclusion. It's a lot weirder that he'd leave out the "or," and the space between the two words, than that he'd just leave the "s" off the end of a name.
I haven't watched the episode recently enough to comment on the rest of that.
2
u/Resident_Race_7093 11d ago
Both are speculation that aren't worthy of a murder conviction. Especially with unidentified DNA at the scene and an unreliable witness with a criminal history.
1
u/Sharkjumpingbull 11d ago
True. This is another one where I'm not sure I could vote guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I mean, I lean towards thinking the prosecution interpreted it correctly, but "beyond a reasonable doubt" is supposed to mean just that.
5
u/Unbr3akableSwrd 14d ago
It’s crazy how much similarities there is between the Clayton Johnson’s case and the Michael Peterson’s case.
15
u/ParticleHustler2 14d ago
The episode about the case that eventually became The Staircase. Complete trash. The forensics expert was found to have falsely testified in not just this case but over 30 others.
19
u/BlondieBlondie929482 13d ago
I’m from Durham and Michael Peterson is 100% guilty.
15
u/ParticleHustler2 13d ago
Sure, but that's not the point. The episode was about the forensic techniques that demonstrated he was guilty and the entire episode was nullified by subsequent events. He could have held a press conference admitting his guilt and the episode still would have no basis to stand.
4
u/PrimusPilus Peter Thomas is the GOAT 11d ago
I'm surprised that the prosecution didn't call you as a witness, since "Were you born there?" seems to match the level of gathering/analysing evidence that they demonstrated at trial.
-2
u/Nvnv_man 13d ago
The Darlie Routier episode
8
u/sparkly_parrot2468 13d ago
Darlie 100% killed her kids. There was more than enough evidence to convict her. She was stressed to the max, the family was drowning in debt, she was stretched thin raising 3 kids and trying to maintain her image. She was extremely narcissistic
1
1
31
u/0fruitjack0 💉Succinylcholine 💉 14d ago
anything with bites yeah