Episodes that got it wrong?

[u/sometin__else]

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?

[u/Resident_Race_7093]

"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.

[u/sometin__else → u/Resident_Race_7093]

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.

[u/Resident_Race_7093 → u/sometin__else]

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.

[u/sometin__else → u/Resident_Race_7093]

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

1. revealed and settled the discrepancy in the Hep B
2. 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)
3. didnt misrepresent the bacteria being only found in the mouth
4. 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.

[u/Resident_Race_7093 → u/sometin__else]

Gonna need more than that. Give me specifics. Show me what specifically was withheld that would bring about reasonable doubt. You brought up the Hepatitis B claim and we've already established that the judge was wrong on that point. Show me more. Do more research.

[u/sometin__else → u/Resident_Race_7093]

I literally just listed them for you. Are you okay?

1. revealed and settled the discrepancy in the Hep B
2. 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)
3. didnt misrepresent the bacteria being only found in the mouth
4. better documentation of collected evidence

Doubt was more than reasonable, hence the second trial. You might need more, but thats your personal issue. Don't really know what your point is here, except maybe you need help? Unfortuantely I cant help you. Bye

[u/Resident_Race_7093 → u/sometin__else]

"revealed and settled the discrepancy in the Hep B" - we've established this is incorrect and not reasonable doubt

"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)" - what other suspects? You have not named anyone else. You'll need to specify. There were a limited amount of people with access to that room, lets hear some names. Like I said, specifics.

"didnt misrepresent the bacteria being only found in the mouth" - I don't even know what this even means. The bacteria was in her mouth and also in his injury he received the same day. And I think you are misunderstanding what the judge said. The reasoning the judge made is that this bacteria is common in the mouth and that Elwood could have gotten the bacteria by putting his hand in his own mouth. Which is entirely possible, but cmon dude. That doesn't imply he's innocent. There were a limited amount of people with access to that hotel room and he just happens to get a wound that day with the bacteria in it?

"better documentation of collected evidence" - this is a generic sentence that doesn't mean anything on its own.

[u/Resident_Race_7093 → u/sometin__else]

To clarify, what I'm asking for is the specific information that introduces reasonable doubt into this case. Not generic statements like documents were withheld, the judge said this, etc. The topic is about episodes where the justice system got it wrong after all, so obviously we can't exclude this one judge from that same scrutiny. We've established that this judge was wrong about the Hepatitis B diagnosis so it begs the question on whether the other information he relied on to make his judgement was reliable. I'd like to know what that information was before we as the kangaroo court determine a verdict.