Preuves d'innocence

A shocking expose of the extremely flawed American criminal system, with great in depths of the unique cases. After watching this series, I realised how tricky eyewitness testimony and is and that bite mark analyses is almost unusable in most cases. You can also see how the American justice system takes a extremly long time to get someone out of prison while they have a ton of evindence to proof their innocence, and whilst the extremely unlucky people basiclly are rotting away in prison. In conclusion: Netflix made a eye opening, in depth documentary about the many flaws in the American justice system. Good job, the Innocence Project!

This is in response to the person who discounted this documentary (and The Innocence Project, in general, I guess) entirely because ex-O.J. Defense Atty. Barry Scheck is the cofounder and Director of The Project. Here's what a lot of observers, me included, think about that. This doc series is about how unreliable certain forensic evidence (e.g., bite-mark analysis) and eyewitness testimony is, and how innocent people have been wrongly convicted as a result. Now Scheck is justly (in)famous for popularizing the phrase "cesspool of contamination" to describe the Crime Lab in L.A., and thereby helping O.J. (who the majority of people, me included, still think was guilty of 1st Degree Murder) be acquitted. Assuming these opinions are true, that essentially means Scheck used the unreliability of certain forensic evidence to help acquit a guilty person. But some of us believe he started The Innocence Project to use some of the same legal (and scientific) arguments to go back in history and get truly (and as some watching this doc, including me, would say, OBVIOUSLY) innocent people released from long prison sentences, incl. on Death Row. Also part of this, the theory would be, is that Scheck may still feel some guilt over his role in the Simpson acquittal, and this is a way to atone, at least in part. Does this lessen the relevance or impact or validity of the points made in The Innocence Files documentary? I'd submit o you: No. It doesn't. So watch it and judge for yourself it's significance. As for me, I'd give it a solid 8 out of 10!

To date I don't think there's been a series that has infuriated me so much. Following cases taken on by the innocence project to clear the names of falsely accused and wrongfully imprisoned. I was actually open mouthed listening to the details of what had been done to these victims by people who abused their power, or hid behind the label of "expert" to get convictions and let people languishing in jail for decades, knowing full well they were innocent. They not only destroyed the lives of the people they imprisoned but the byproduct of their lies and deceit was letting the true perpetrator of these horrendous acts be free to commit more crimes. It perfectly addresses racism, cultural lines and social issues, all in all it's a very well made documentary that is tragic and heartbreaking but manages to project a message of hope. Side note. I wanted to throat punch that fat dentist so bad!!!!! How does he sleep at night!!!

My big take away from this documentary was that it was kind of scary, these people went to jail for many years based on bogus science and circumstantial evidence. It certainly makes you think how many people incarcerated are innocent, and how many people have gotten away with murder.

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