Preuves d'innocence

If you really lile true crime documentaries.. watch the series but sometimes you can get a bit boring due to long lines of narrative..

So it's approximately 5:00 am and I should be sleeping but instead I feel compelled to submit a review for this incredible docuseries. While I appreciate the submission of other reviews, I think many missed the mark in describing the impact of these wrongful convictions. The distortion of evidence was a big part of the series, but I think the overriding message was how reputation and ego were more important than the truth in virtually every case. Not to mention that a strong case could be made that many of these convictions came down to ole fashioned bigotry as well. Corruption on the prosecutorial level is given a close look and scrutinized. Corruptive tactics are widely known to have been used by police in the 80s/90s. However, to see prosecutors aiding and abetting alongside those corruptive tactics was sickening to say the least. Its truly shocking as a viewer and aspiring lawyer to see how flawed our criminal justice system can be. I think a strong case can also be be made that prosecutors should not be granted immunity for their role in wrongful convictions but instead should be punished for their ineptitude / complacency. It's encouraging to see some changes have been made since these convictions were handed down, e.g. the new Philadelphia District Attorney, but there's so much more that needs to be done on a federal level to make sure these types of situations simply cannot happen. The only thing preventing me from giving the series a 10 is I felt the pacing could have been faster. Some of the episodes seemed drawn out and could have been condensed into shorter versions without losing information.

What clearly comes across is the arrogance of that character Dr West, who clearly seems to think he couldn't get anything wrong. Then there's the arrogance of the prosecutor Forrest Allgood. What is it with American "justice"? If something else could account for the impressions, or they could be made by someone else, you can't use it as definitive evidence. And what was the motive for those who were wrongly convicted to do those murders? Nuts. It seems that some police and lawyers in the US are more concerned with getting the result they want rather than finding out who really did the crimes. Do you work properly, guys, and don't just ASSUME anything.

A really shocking expose into the unreliability of bite mark analysis and eye witness testimony.

As the series progresses you see how innocent people were convinced of crimes by a jury of people who innocently believed what they heard in court. Unfortunately, once you hear the backstories, the flaws in the forensics, the influencing of eyewitnesses, you cannot believe these people who were convicted, often on one expert witness, or one eye witness, and nothing more. But that's the beauty of hindsight.

Beware, it would have you believe that all bite mark analysis is hokum and no eye witnesses should be relied upon, when in reality the lesson should be neither should be considered individually sufficient evidence enough go to court.

Otherwise a really well made, often emotional (i cried) insight into injustice and the actual humanity of these convictions. I recommend

This is a gem amongst Netflix documentaries based on crime and wrong convictions. A well directed documentary with deep real stories about people wrongfully convicted. Highlight recommended! 11/10