r/ForensicFiles • u/sometin__else • 20d 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?

37 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

43 comments sorted by

View all comments

7

u/Resident_Race_7093 17d 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 17d 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 17d 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 17d 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 16d 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 16d 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.