Délit de preuve

I watched the first two episodes. The first episode starts out in what looks like a backyard in Florida, then jumps to Texas, with absolutely no coherent connection.It seemed like both episodes presented opposing opinions regarding different types of crimes. Then, each episode just stops. No sort of conclusion, resolution, opinion, whatever you want to call it.There are completely mixed messages for both cases where each side accuses the other of pseudo science. I seriously thought episode two would pick up where episode one left off, but completely unrelated.

A few notes worth making:

1) our criminal Justice system is so far out of whack, it's a wonder anyone without substantial means to hire incredibly experienced defense attorneys receives a fair trial.

When someone isn't up for a death penalty case, they're stuck with someone who may have never defended anyone in front of a jury, much less someone being tried for murder. The system screws those with limited income to luck of the draw and no amount of pleading, begging, or crying will get an inexperienced lawyer removed from the case. Only in cases where the death penalty is being employed does the county's budget allow for a more strenuous defense, then it is eligible for federal funding.

2) there's far too many junk science 'experts' floating around this world- from blood spatter to photograph/video, to canines, to dna, etc., this notion that working in a particular field lends you to be an expert is ridiculous. There's loopholes to everything these so-called experts claim as definitive evidence, and their lack of willingness to admit to such only bolsters my claim.

A liquid spatter can have many explanations, and just as with fingerprints, everyone's blood is quite different; ask any supposed spatter expert the difference between anti-coagulated blood and blood and I doubt they'd know the difference. AC blood is more likely to be 'thinner' and thusly travel further, leave an entirely different spray pattern, form longer run trails down a surface, etc., but these pros will say 'oh, it was substantially more blood than that of other scenes because there's far more evidence to the naked eye!', but that's not even close to the truth. Some people have a much higher INR naturally, some tends to run 'thicker', and some are on medication that can drastically change the composition and alter what an 'expert' would determine to be factual.

There's a reason that so many states are now beginning to outlaw these types of expert testimony, and they're finally seeing the fallacy of it all. You could theoretically have an expert who truly is an expert, but these people tend to be more honest and willingly admit that it's their own interpretation and subject to assumptions. Science is NEVER settled, and what was once though to the the end-all-be-all in evidence has now been completely wrong and seriously flawed.

Another issue I wish they'd focus on is the issue with overzealous prosecution by DAs and LEOs who become so ensconced on a particular subject, only to convict said person based on nothing but flimsy circumstantial evidence, to discover later that the wrong person had been imprisoned, and in some cases, executed. Juries can be incredibly naïve- I've served on 2 county, 1 federal, and 1 federal grand jury, and I can say that in my experience, even though it's merely anecdotal, that most jurors tend to play for the prosecution more than the defense. There's an underlying bias (particularly as their age increases) to believe that an innocent person doesn't get to that point, an innocent doesn't ask for an attorney from the outset (which is so inconceivably moronic), there's no such thing as a false confession, and law enforcement doesn't go after the wrong people. Time and again you'll get to deliberations and are stunned at the split in opinions. Given that many of older generations still cling to an outdated opinion and will see much of this pseudoscience as factually accurate, and you begin to understand how innocent people find themselves incarcerated.

If you want a closeup view of what's fundamentally flawed in our legal system, watch this series and keep an open mind. Like the guy who's a self-appointed expert in video evidence- his tells are obvious and there's not much I'd believe of his testimony- or the people with canines who are super-convinced their dog is the best dog at finding decomposition? When your dog can't differentiate different smells, received no certification from an independent body sufficiently experienced in that particular area, your dog is no better than my lab who is about as intelligent a Hunter as you'd find. She can find prey (such as ducks) from 500 yards, following nothing but scent, but I'd never dream of trying to certify her as a cadaver dog because she's too easily fooled by other scents when not followed by the shotgun blast.

Please help to convince every single state legislature and federal government that these are not sciences, and suggesting as much is just as wrong as convicting an innocent person.

If you are familiar with Loudenberg's other Netflix show The Confession Tapes, you know that there is going to be some bias toward the accused (sorry to burst your bubble but ALL documentaries are biased). However, there is no satifactory conclusion in these episodes because the point is to make viewers think about the real grey area in sciences that are generally considered reliable. If all we ever see is CSI and the like we will just assume that the investigators are always in the right and that is simply not the case. Loudenberg is trying to raise awareness about the questionable use of science to get convictions and I think she nails it in a way that keeps you interested.

It's an interesting series, entertaining and easy to watch. But just as many crime documentaries on Netflix (looking at you "Making a Murderer"), it clearly has a defense advocacy narative and often ignores fairly important details of the cases it uses as evidence of the misuse of forensic science.

For example, in the "Cadaver Dogs" episodes key aspects of the prosecution's case are left out and the series wrongfully implies the defendant was found guilty based on the cadaver dog alone. This is a blatant mischaracterization of the case against D'Andre Lane. The victim's mother, D'Andre's ex, claimed he had been in trouble with the law but that it was never for violent crimes. This is wrong, but the show never challenges this claim, giving the viewer the false impression it is true.

D'Andre had gang affiliations and was sentenced to four years probation for assault with intent to commit armed robbery. And he had been arrested numerous times after on drugs and firearms charges, even spending over 3 years in prison for one charge. He had 7 kids with 7 different women, and cheated on most of them. His current girlfriend heard him hitting his daughter the night before for wetting the bed and said the girl's cries were intense and then went silent. Two witnesses saw the defendant driving the car at the time the car was allegedly hijacked. One actually spoke to the defendant while he was in the car and made a statement saying the little girl wasn't in the vehicle with the defendant. Another witness saw the defendant park the car in the alley it was found a few blocks from the alleged crime scene and saw the defendant get out of the car and walk away alone. The alley where the car was found was a block away from the girl's mother's house where the defendant went right after the alleged hijacking and the mother was the one that had to call police.

This is an entertaining series that does give some idea of the pitfalls of forensic science and how it can be misused or misinterpreted. However, the series does not give a fair representation of the cases against the defendants and gives the impression the prosecutions' cases were far weaker than they really were.

Almost as good as The Confession Tapes. You will want to plea bargain even if innocent if charged with a crime after watching this