Got caught up watching a show on A&E called:
American Justice: "What the Girl Saw"
A man is imprisoned for rape and murder based on the testimony of a 6-year-old.
In it a small child is no doubt coerced into fingering her uncle as the perpetrator of this crime, though at first she claimed not to know who it was;
though she saw him, it was dark.
The prosecution had no material evidence and they admitted this in a pre-trial hearing at the appeal. In fact the defense had a new test run for the
Y-chromosome (male) DNA found at the scene on the underwear and in the murdered lady's body and it excluded
the uncle and one other man (who
the defense discovered).
And...we all know how leading these police shrinks can be when trying to pull a story out of a kid.
Anyway it turns out that the real perp was a gent who lived next door
It took the poor guy's wife two attempts to get him released before the prosecutors petitioned the judge to let him out.
In addition even though they had direct DNA evidence showing who the perp was they still dragged their feet until someone found a pubic hair at the
crime scene that matched the DNA of the new and real perp.
But what chaps me is that here the initial investigation didn't even take advantage of looking in the sex offenders database (the guy had multiple
convictions of the same type).
I mean don't they bother to check the house next door? Don't they employ blood hounds? I mean as soon as they had this eyewitness, they went with
that and ignored everything else, even though the eyewitness was a 6 year old child!
I'd like to see the cops reaction if a 6 year old child accused -them- of something with no evidence. They'd laugh it off.
Goes to show that all the prosecution wants to do is find someone to blame and they will let a man they KNOW is innocent rot in jail because it makes
their reputation look bad for imprisoning the wrong man. The poor guy spent 6 years in jail (the real perp was in the same jail for raping a different
child). I'm sure he got no apology or any compensation.
In fact the prosecutors were smiling and patting themselves on the back at the press conference where it took the attorney general of their state to
over turn their lame inaction.
The actual prosecutors thus never had to admit they were wrong for prosecuting a guy with NO evidence and on the word of a confused child (who had
also been strangled and beaten during the crime, so was probably vulnerable to suggestion).
In addtion you have to wonder what the HE-double hockey sticks the jury was thinking for convicting someone with no evidence, not circumstantial, no
blood evidence, no trace and the guy had a pretty good alibi. Buncha morons.
[edit on 27-11-2007 by Badge01]