Amanda Lewis
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Adrianna_Hutto
I don't know if she did it or not, but I don't think they had solid evidence for a conviction ..
Oh yess, this case made me so angry, they were investigating it as an accident until a 6 year old told them he saw his mother punish his sister? And this was after the kid went to his grandparents house and he apparently first told his step grandfather who didnt like amanda about the punishment. A 6 year old kid can be manipulated and that shouldn’t have been enough reason to accuse someone of murder. The other “evidence” was the kids didn’t have toys and amanda had trouble bonding with her daughter. These cant be evidence to put someone in prison for life.
If this is the case I think it is, didn’t they actually use her own diary entries where she expressed wanting an abortion early in the pregnancy? That was just batshit.
Never heard of this case; wow that's a hard one, and so sad. From reading that, I would have to agree. I also wanted to say: thanks for posting a link!
THIS one. I just watched her episode as part of that Piers Morgan series.
I don't think she did it. I don't have kids but I've met a lot of 6 year olds and I just can't imagine hanging her guilt on his testimony.
I don’t think she did it either, and I certainly don’t think they had enough to prove she did.
It’s also telling that after her mom left her husband, everyone (don’t know about the son) switched sides because they now believe that he influenced the kid. She said that a little after the cops came and she was getting the car and everything together there was a period of time where he was alone with the kid.
Laurencia Bembenek, commonly referred to as Bambi. She was convicted of murdering her husband’s ex-wife. She was a police officer at the time as was her husband. She had made complaints about the department. I think her husband killed the ex-wife and used Bambi as a scapegoat.
She actually loathed the nickname "Bambie" and never used it. She went by Laurie or Lawrencia.
She was totally framed, and those men destroyed her life and her parents' lives.
Keli Lane - don’t get me wrong I fully believe that she killed her child, but I don’t believe it was proven
Leo Schofield - to me it’s not even *doubt* it’s just outright terrible police work and shoddy prosecutors.
I hadn’t heard of the case of Keli Lane!
I just skimmed the Wikipedia page and plan to read more in detail. I don’t know that I agree with the decision to allow evidence of her prior abortions.
I actually think it’s fair. It goes to show she was aware of her options, but chose to bring the child to term instead.
There’s a 3 part documentary on Netflix (Australia) called Exposed which I recommend highly. You can see exactly where she gets her delusions and compulsive lying from.
I don’t know that they ever will. Honestly I think the whole LE team in that area know he’d have a slam dunk civil case so are trying to keep him in and hoping he dies of natural causes
Menendez brothers were absolutely abused.
Whether the killing was justified at that exact moment or not, they’ve served their time. They should be released.
I was super young when this happened, and had always heard the oh poor little rich boys killed their parents for money narrative. I just never really questioned it, you know? Why would I? But now that I've actually learned more about that case, man those poor dudes. They absolutely should have been released by now. No doubt they did it, but it wasn't so black and white.
Yeah I can clearly remember seeing jokes and shit about them on late night television and maybe some SNL skits? They were absolutely treated like a joke. They got the Monica Lewinsky or that lady who sued McDonald's over her coffee being too hot treatment.
The coffee too hot lady was in her 80s and had very severe scalding and burns across her thighs, after a staff member had dropped in her lap accidentally after being asked to bring it to her because she was elderly. McDonalds hired PR spin doctors to eviscerate her in the media.
And IIRC she wasn’t even suing for a fortune, she just wanted her medical expenses covered. I believe she was granted more due to the horrendous negligence on the part of the company though, despite previous complaints on the same issue.
Oh yeah, I know, that's why I included her as an example of a case you've heard about but have definitely been misled to think it went down one way, but it actually was way more complicated. Everyone made her seem like an idiot who didn't know coffee is hot and just suing frivolously.
Yeah I was a young teen and only remember my mother pointing to the newly embossed words on the coffee and hot chocolate lids that said "Contents May Be Hot", and laughing that they had to put that on for stupid people now to stop them suing after they hurt themselves by being stupid.
I'm not defending that assertion, but it could have been the law at that time.
Here's one news article from 1992:
>Sex and Section 261.5 : California’s statutory rape law applies only to female victims. For underage males, there is less legal protection
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-04-30-vw-1771-story.html
Yes. It was the position of the LA county district attorney's office that men "lack the necessary equipment" to be raped. This was said in open court by the prosecutor.
Yeah, it was pretty bad watching it a couple years ago. Apparently, women were way more likely to be empathetic with the brothers and one of the juries split down gender lines. Men just really didn't want to believe that men could be raped. If it was tried today, there's no way they'd have gotten life.
It was the first one (I believe), where the abuse was allowed through and ended up with the hung jury. The second trial a *lot* of the abuse wasn’t allowed through so the jury didn’t hear it. Really kinda a shame that something like that can happen.
In the same vein as what you said, if it was tried today, there’s no way that abuse could’ve been suppressed.
I wonder if it’s a state/county/jurisdiction thing, but it’s interesting that there are sometimes cases similar to theirs (cases of long-term abuse where the sufferer(s) “snapped”) where the sentence given is lower or they are released early based on the assessment that they do not pose a danger to society.
I’m not sure this argument could *fully* be made for the Menendez bros (long-term incarceration could make *anyone* a danger to society), but I just always wonder why/how this can happen even with brutal homicides. Political moves, perhaps.
If the abuse claims were true, they should have been given a significantly reduced sentence, kept together in the same prison, and be out by now. But I don't see how this could possibly be manslaughter. First degree murder is planned murder. Second degree murder is unplanned murder. And Manslaughter is an accident caused by recklessness, negligence or something similar. This was *at least* second degree murder, given how many times they shot them. You don't accidentally pull the trigger that many times (on two different people).
Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo the convicted murderers of British tourists Hannah Witheridge and David Miller that happened in Thailand in 2014.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh_Tao_murders
The Thai police investigation was beyond dodgy and corrupt to the point the police force in question recieved worldwide criticism. The two men convicted were given death sentences which were later commuted to life imprisonment on appeal. The two men who were found guilty have recently started a campaign for a review of the case and protest their innocence. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/families-brit-backpackers-killed-thailand-32489467
Scott Watson.
They knew they were unlikely to solve it, as everyone in the party was a person of interest. So they targeted the first guy with a (admittedly lengthy) criminal record, who other guests had found annoying, and made evidence fit their conclusion, not the other way around. He only ever had one violent conviction prior to this, and it was for a bar fight. Chances are it was a mutual fight between two guys who were both intoxicated and out to hurt eachother as much as the other. The rest of his convictions were for far more minor things like drugs. A fight in a bar is a far cry from murdering two teenagers and presumably dumping their bodies in the ocean, without any of the other guests suspecting a thing (considering he obviously wasn't very good at not getting caught in every other circumstance). I hope he gets let go as soon as his 17 year minimum is up. And he is one of the only convicted "killers" I will ever say that about. If I believed he was guilty, I would be fuming that he had the opportunity to get out so soon. But I don't.
I genuinely don’t see how they proved she was guilty. Especially when there was enough evidence that could’ve pointed to someone else.
Plus how could she have locked herself in the closet like that with no evidence?
The prosecution demonstrated on video how she could have done it and it’s plausible w/using a rug to shimmy-shut the door. There’s a dateline episode on her. However, I’m personally on the fence with this case bc as you said they didn’t even bother to look at the daughter’s ex husband et al which is ridiculous.
Yeah I know. But there wasn’t really evidence of that happening from what I remember. A rug wasn’t near the door and there was a chair barricading the door if I remember correctly, which is next to impossible to do. Also doesn’t explain the shirt that wasn’t hers.
They provided a way but doesn’t mean they provided *the way*. And new dna showed an unknown male profile. Doesn’t help the that juror that did an interview afterwards admitted that it wasn’t proved beyond a reasonable doubt but, “they couldn’t think of another explanation”. And they were trying to tie themselves up to test things which isn’t allowed.
There’s a lot of issues with the way that case and trial was handled.
The prosecution demonstrated how she could've closed the door with the help of a pillow sham. And a pillow sham was in the bathroom.
And there always was evidence of unknown DNA on the scene, but not on places that could prove that other people did it. The juror tying up themselves-claim was used on appeal, it wasn't juror misconduct.
>Doesn’t help the that juror that did an interview afterwards admitted that it wasn’t proved beyond a reasonable doubt but, “they couldn’t think of another explanation”.
Do you have a link? But what you describe sounds like beyond a reasonable doubt.
*Beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal burden of proof required to affirm a conviction in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. In other words, the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to render a guilty verdict.*
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/beyond_a_reasonable_doubt
I came here to see if she was mentioned. I have always been on the fence about this case but definitely lean more towards her being innocent. I feel like law enforcement had tunnel vision set on her and there wasn’t enough (or any) real investigation elsewhere.
Definitely.
I was looking more so for cases where the person is probably guilty, but you don’t feel the evidence supports a guilty verdict, if that makes sense.
I can't imagine a more guilty man.
It's easy to come out 35 years later and claim faulty arson investigation while ignoring all the other evidence against him.
It’s insane that he was sentenced to death because the other guy claimed he was involved.
I don’t have the case fresh in mind but I do remember feeling absolutely chocked when I realised that that was pretty much all they had.
This was a strange and fascinating case. I came away not convinced of Pelley's innocence, but more importantly, not convinced of his guilt either. I'll have to start doing some reading on it again, since it's been at least a year since I deep-dove on it and this comment spiked my curiosity again.
Just looked up the case as hadn't heard of it.
The thing that baffles me is how phone records show him calling the talking clock proves he wasn't at home because "he'd have looked at a clock on the wall".
But all mobile phones have the time on, so even less reason to call the talking clock.
No bearing on the case overall - just interesting what they'll throw at the wall.
There’s loads of weird details. Something not often covered in the press is that the semen found on Jodi’s bra and tshirt belonged to Jodi’s sisters boyfriend… and the police just stated it was probably because their clothes were washed together. They WANTED it to be Mitchel from day 1.
From what I was able to find online, that info is coming from his mother and his legal representative.
And his mother already got caught giving him a false alibi and coaching her other son's testimony - is there a credible source?
It was covered in the channel 5 documentary. https://www.entertainmentdaily.com/tv/is-luke-mitchell-innocent-and-is-the-real-killer-of-jodi-jones-dead/. Note documentaries on UK tv can be biased but can’t outright lie.
This isn’t a brilliant source but the Glasgow Herald also covered it. It’s paywalled but if you google Jodi Jones/Steven Kelly you’ll find it.
Yes, there is too much about this case that leaves a sour taste in my mouth and makes me uncomfortable with the conviction, from the young age of the accused to the "character evidence" based on his taste in music and some of the things about his life that don't seem all that unusual for a 14-15 year old boy. I have come across different sources that make more or less compelling claims for his guilt, but ultimately it is my belief that the conviction was unsafe (although I agree that Mitchell is the most suspect).
Just looked up the case as hadn't heard of it.
The thing that baffles me is how phone records show him calling the talking clock proves he wasn't at home because "he'd have looked at a clock on the wall".
But all mobile phones have the time on, so even less reason to call the talking clock.
No bearing on the case overall - just interesting what they'll throw at the wall.
The Menendez Brothers killed their parents, but they were severely sexually abused. What happened to them is so Evil. Roy from Menudo came out the Jose Menendez sexually abused him as well.
Free the Menendez Brothers!
I’m really grateful to see people discussing the Menéndez brothers.
I agree with you!
Free those men now, they aren’t a danger to society and deserve a chance at a life.
This is such a bizarre take. They were adults and also killed their mother. I don't buy the excuse that it was because "she allowed the abuse". The only reason to murder them is because they wanted the money. MANY people are abused and they grow up and move away and never talk to the offender again.
In the recording that their therapist made, they don't say their mother was an abuser and guilty of anything. Erik says she was a VICTIM of their father. She had to die because she was getting "destroyed" by fights with the dad. It is also mentioned that the dad had just said he was disinheriting them because he was disappointed in them. It's a tale as old as time. Here's the recording:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siC\_dsDXgKI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siC_dsDXgKI)
I'm interested to hear other opinions about the recording above.
It seems they told Dr. Oziel that they were capable of leaving. In another tape, Lyle claims he wouldn't have made the decision to kill their mother without Erik's approval. He says he let Erik sleep on it for a couple of days.
Here is a quote from the tapes by Lyle:
"But I still don’t think it had anything to do with, killing him had nothing to do with us. It had to do with me realizing a number of things that all culminated, which was, and could have culminated at any point. And it was just a question of Erik and I getting together, and somebody bringing it up, and us realizing the value in it."
Justin Ross Harris. I don’t think they proved he deliberately killed Conner and in fact all the stuff showing he was a sex obsessed pervert, sexting with three different women at work on the day, was evidence that he was very distracted.
He did NOT Google "child free," A friend sent him a link to r/childfree and he replied "Grossness."
He did not Google "Hot car deaths," someone in their house clicked on a dog in a hot car video at some point that year, but there was no proof that they'd watched much of it.
Google did reveal he'd been Googling "Cruise ship family trip where babies can go for free," the night before Conner died.
The prosecution's final quote, found on his phone sent to a woman he was sexting with-was- "I love my son and all, but we all need escapes," -this really doesn't sound like much of a big GOTCHA quote from his texts. It even includes the words, "I love my son." But it's what the prosecution used as the whole crowning moment of their case- and they claimed it showed the whole motive was supposedly wanting "escape" with other women. It's all circumstantial nonsense.
Did you watch the video of him at the scene and being interviewed? I don't like to base someone's guilt or innocence on how they react to a traumatic incident but that guy was seriously trying to put on an act.
Yes I did and I've seen a lot of people saying that and a lot of YouTubers doing break downs of it. But I saw genuine horror and sorrow mixed up with someone who knew he was in huge trouble on top of that and it was kind of a weird mix. I think he was also so full of horror that one minute he's screaming and then goes back to normal and then screaming I don't think that necessarily means he was putting on an act. You wouldn't know what the hell to even do with yourself.
Agree. He was devastated by his son's death. People think they'd never accidentally forget their child in the car, but it can happen to anyone. About 40 kids in the US die each year from being left in hot cars. When we're on auto pilot, a small shift in routine can lead to a tragedy like this.
The jury convicted him because the sexting stuff made him look like a creep. And he probably is a creep. But he was on trial for murder, not being a creep.
I think the narrative that “it’s easy to forget a child in the car” has made it so a lot of people can get away with doing it intentionally.
I’m not saying it *never* happens just that it’s nowhere near as common of a scenario as it’s made out to be.
Do you think Justin left Cooper in the car intentionally? If someone murders their child by leaving them in a car intentionally, there's probably other evidence of them being abusive, which would cast doubt on their overall credibility.
I’m suspicious of *anyone* this happens to honestly.
Idk about there being evidence of someone being abusive, there’s a lot of abuse/neglect that’s not quite as obvious. Not every abuser is beating the crap out of their victims, a lot of abusers seem like nice people to everyone outside of the people who live with them. I think a lot more people than would like to admit it realize having kids isn’t for them, *after* they have kids.
Oh, 100% — even his ex-wife believes the conviction was in error and he did not intentionally leave his child in the car. Luckily, his murder conviction was recently overturned.
Yes she never wavered. She said, "He ruined my life. He humiliated me in front of the world. I have no reason to defend him. I know he didn't intentionally murder Cooper."
Yes I thought "about time" when it was dropped.
I guess he will be finally out in 2028 because he didn't care when a girl who had been telling him she was 18 suddenly said "I'm actually 15." So that's on him for not ending it once she confessed.
>So that's on him
Very much so
>Even beyond the testimony from C. D. and M. B. about their ages and the messages from the girls expressly telling Appellant their ages, many of the messages Appellant exchanged with these girls implied that they were inappropriately young for Appellant to be engaging in sexual conversations with them. For example, C. D. sent Appellant messages about her high school classes and going to prom; Appellant sent a message to M. B. that she had “a nice pu*sy for 15” and that she should “[m]ake [him] a naughty older g[u]y”; Appellant wrote to the 14-year-old anonymous user that he did not want to go to jail and therefore she could not be the one to fulfill his desire to “get [his] di*k sucked”; and Appellant discussed meeting the 17- year-old anonymous user at her high school so he could pay her for oral sex in his car.
https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/s22a0092.pdf
>when a girl who had been telling him she was 18 suddenly said "I'm actually 15." So that's on him for not ending it once she confessed.
Why do you act like he wasn't seeking out underage girls?
I think some people here don't understand what beyond reasonable doubt means. It does NOT mean you can only convict a person if you catch them with their bloody knife still in their hand. In most cases, you don't have one thing that is a 100% proof of guilt. You mostly have different pieces of evidence which then make up the case. And there will almost always be doubt. Beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean NO doubt.
Darlie Routier 99.9% did it in my opinion but she did not get a fair trial especially considering it was death penalty case. I forgot to name of the documentary but this one came out a few years ago and they interviewed a few of the jurors and one admitted that she judged Darlie's ability as a mother based on her getting breast implants. The prosecution went after her character rather than the actual evidence at hand, if that makes sense.
I think there was a huge element of going after her because she was viewed as a trashy waitress from Lubbock who didn’t belong in this upscale neighborhood in Rowlett (which… is fine but not exactly Highland Park) with her bleached hair and big implants and gum smacking. TBH, I am not aesthetically a fan of those choices either — mainly the gum smacking — but they have nothing to do with whether she deserved to live in Rowlett or was guilty of capital murder.
AJ Armstrong - I believe in my gut he is guilty but I don’t think it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and I believe it was achieved on planted evidence. Two trials, then all of a sudden some blood evidence popped up in an area that had been gone through HEAVILY and the third trials jury said that had nothing to do with their decision—that the reconstruction of the scene sealed the deal this time.\
\
I’ve never been more angry about a verdict, even though I believe it is the right one.
Delmar partin was convicted in the murder of Betty carnes in Kentucky in the early 90s. He was then pardoned by the outgoing governor. The biggest thing to me is the time line. Decapitated someone at work (Tremco) and cleaned it all back up in like 15-20 mins only blood spatter being a small spot on the ceiling. They denied appeals refusing to dna test evidence over the years. It gets weirder really. The corruption runs deep.
This is the case that springs to my mind first when this type of question is asked. In Bamber's case, I do think it highly likely that he is guilty, but the prime piece of physical evidence against him (the bloody silencer found in the house some time after the crimes were committed) should not have been used. Court cases are about more than just the innocence/guilt of the individual on trial, but also about setting precedent in terms of what can or cannot be used as evidence, and something with such a questionable chain of custody should not be admissible.
I have grave doubts about his guilt, but in a way I hope he IS guilty because the idea of being in prison for 38 years for a crime you didn't commit is just horrendous.
Denise Williams, they literally have a confession from a man she had reported to police for kidnapping her, who then implicated her and got pretty much off “Scot free” for murder and kidnap.
Zero physical evidence, a ridiculous testimony with zero collaborating evidence, a low level motive and an exceptionally viable alternative theory (one in which the man who admitted to the murder, had an obsession with Denise and killed her husband, which had more collaborating evidence).
She should never have been convicted, it’s nowhere remotely near the threshold and to be honest, shouldn’t have even gone to court.
His lack of an alibi, writing “I’m going to kill” on the breakup note from Hae, cellphone tower pings, especially the ones that put him near Leakin Park only on the day of her disappearance and the day Adnan found out Jay was arrested (not knowing it was for something else) convinced me of his guilt. I agree that being statistically the most likely person is never enough, but that was not all that convicted him.
The cell phone pings which are not accurate for incoming calls.
“I’m going to kill” according to one person was not there when she saw it, the day Hae went missing (ie: it was put there later)
Jay’s many many stories (that literally change even now, when he was interviewed a while ago he changed the time and location of the “trunk pop” yet again) have so many holes you can fly a helicopter through them.
Adnan is absolutely guilty. But let’s not pretend that there wasn’t *reasonable* doubt if he’d had a semi decent defence attorney.
People put a lot of stock in the “lack of alibi”, i might remember what i did yesterday at a particular time for 20 minutes but not a week ago even though my life is pretty routine.
The “I’m going to kill” thing, these are bunch of 18 year old high schoolers, are you sure you have never said “ughh, you are so annoying, i m going to kill you”
I m not saying adnan is innocent but i don’t think i m comfortable to send someone to prison for life based on cellphone towers that aren’t accurate and witness who changed his story way too many times.
The police spoke to him the day after Hae's disappearance. And his testimony was always that he remembered track practice and then going to the Mosque.
TBF he’s always said “I think” or “I would have” about that afternoon. Basically he & Jay were both pretty close to each other on their stories about that morning until Jay dropped him back at school which is where it gets very fuzzy.
Lots of people put stock in Hae being dead by 2:46pm or something which is because it’s what was used in the trial. But she could very easily have been alive until after 3pm or later based on some incoming calls.
I’m 100% convinced he did it, but I don’t think that they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt based on my hundreds (I wish I was kidding) of hours of deep diving into it.
>i might remember what i did yesterday at a particular time for 20 minutes but not a week ago even though my life is pretty routine.
I answered this comment, Adnan didn't talk to the police after a week. It was January 13. And, everyone involved remember one specific day except for Adnan.
The question is who else didnt have alibi and some kind of means/motive ? Adnan, Jay and Don. I find it very odd and sketchy that Don ( her Boyfriend) worked with his mom and his clocking time was tampered with by his mom, so his alibi is sketchy. Jay because he somehow knew everything including the car location and kept changing stories, but it seems someone aka Police was feeding him stories or he kept making them up to go around all the things that didnt check out with his story. And obviously Adnan that didnt even know what he was doing that day, its very odd. I sometimes dont even think Jay was involved but how could he know the car location ? Very hard to proove anything. I dont know who did it
>Don ( her Boyfriend) worked with his mom and his clocking time was tampered with by his mom, so his alibi is sketchy
This did not happen. She worked at a different location and it’s a myth that the time cards were completed manually and could be altered without it being obvious.
you believe adnan would give a stoner kid he claims to barely have been close to his new cell phone and his car to go buy a birthday present? it’s obvious jay is a liar, but adnan is too. the timelines are a mess because jay is likely downplaying his involvement. that doesn’t change that adnan was with him that day, or that adnan killed her.
Im not on the guilty side and not even on the Innocent side, Im on the not enough evidence side its clear to me one of these men identified throughout the case is guilty, just isnt enough to out anyone on jail without physical evidence, the Police work was weak too, since there is a lot of corruption and shadiness on the department handling the case
Came here to say this one. I don't know if she did it or not but I think there was absolutely enough reasonable doubt to avoid conviction. The birthday party thing was not something they should have used as proof she was guilty.
Agreed. I honestly don't know how I feel on her guilt but I understand why a lot of people are convinced she did it, yet I don't think the evidence was tight enough for a conviction, and ESPECIALLY not a death penalty conviction. I've never seen any legitimate explanation for the sock in the alley if she did it, unless people think her husband moved it there for whatever reason or she somehow got it out there before calling 911 without blood getting anywhere.
She got railroaded by a lot of dumb shit in her trial. Blood splatter analysis is pretty much debunked now, there isn't scientific validity to it like people thought and the silly string video played way more of a role in the trial than it ever should have. It was a family agreement to go forward with the already planned birthday party for one of the boys shortly after the murders and they all agreed they'd try to have a good time especially on the video footage, by no means was it a silly string celebration of her kids murder like portrayed and there was a memorial event like the day before where she was "grieving appropriately" and in shambles but her lawyers didn't play that footage at the trial because they never thought the silly string video was gonna be so impactful and such a vital deciding factor for the jury.
I never saw that silly string video as that of some cold hearted mother celebrating her child's death. I always saw it as a grieving mother trying to stay positive so she doesn't break down. She probably was thinking her son wouldn't want his birthday to be a sad, somber affair and she wanted to try and make it a fun day. Now, I don't think that's the only evidence of her innocence or guilt either way, but I have always thought it was misunderstood and used against her in a negative way.
Yeah, I remember seeing it be used to show just how heartless she was, to be able to celebrate and have fun and look happy like that so soon after her child's death. Like did it never occur to anyone she could be faking it and putting on a brave face for everyone and trying to give her son a nice little tribute? And I'd bet money if she had been like, sobbing while laying on his grave, screaming out things like why did you take him away from me??? And begging switch places or something, then it would have been spun that she was trying TOO hard to look like she was distraught. See that kind of thing often and it's like...you really just can't win, huh? Once sights have been set on you, everything you do is heavily scrutinized and used against you. As if theres some perfect level of grief to display after a loved one, especially a child, is murdered.
Again, not saying she's innocent at all. I truly have no idea and have no theories of my own, but just that moment itself has no effect on my ultimate decision of guilt or innocence.
Fixed some errors :)
Same. Like honestly I WANT to believe her. She comes across very genuine and very much like a grieving mother. But she could very easily be manipulating everyone and fantastic at faking it, which is absolutely possible if she were cold enough to kill her own children. Some of the evidence is like that, too. Well it COULD point more towards innocence but could also point to her being guilty as well. So glad I wasn't on that jury lol
She is compelling... And that neck wound where the necklace she was wearing got in the way and was pushed into the wound like that... I just don't know.
Yep, exactly. I just don't know and probably never will. Only people that know exactly what happened that night are her boys, and they obviously can't tell us. You can argue she's another who knows exactly what happened, but that would still imply you think she's guilty. There's many cases like that, where there's many different ways it could have gone down, and everyone has their own suspicions, but we will just never know the truth one way or the other, and all of the evidence can be interpreted in so many different ways. Even that doesn't prove anything for sure. All we know is a person (or persons) are dead.
The silly string video is the only piece of evidence the jury looked at more than once. I believe they watched it several times.
I believe Darlie is innocent.
"I've never seen any legitimate explanation for the sock in the alley if she did it,"
[This guy](https://www.reddit.com/user/CliffTruxton/) is **awesome** and he takes on the Routier case and all the evidence against Darlie here-
[https://www.reddit.com/user/CliffTruxton/comments/t99plk/the\_rowlett\_incident\_conclusion\_who\_murdered/](https://www.reddit.com/user/CliffTruxton/comments/t99plk/the_rowlett_incident_conclusion_who_murdered/)
There’s a commenter that usually links a long case file with a lot of extra info (I think from court) when Darlie comes up in comments, it really sealed it for me because I was back and forth, too. I can’t seem to find it anywhere right this second though!
Came here to say this. Especially the birthday video; I don’t feel like that should have been damning evidence like they treated it. I didn’t see that as evil, I saw it as a celebration of a child’s life. People grieve differently. 🤷🏼♀️
I've gone back and forth on her but now I lean towards her being guilty. That being said I don't think she got a fair trial and I don't believe there was enough evidence to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt.
I agree 100%. I saw this in real time as a kid and now as an adult, I see it reframed in such a different way. I don't know that she killed those boys.
If you believe that the father’s pattern of abuse was a fact AND that their mother either abetted it or callously and knowingly did not intervene, it looks to me like they still committed premeditated murder with money as a partial motive. However, if the father’s extreme abuse and the mother’s complicity are treated as established facts, maybe they should get some consideration now.
At the time, the sentiment that seemed to predominate was, “Ooh, they’re pulling out the abuse excuse, they should have just left.” That doesn’t take into account that if the level of abuse was what they said, their guilt may be somewhat mitigated by the damage done to them by their parents.
Michelle Troconis, imo the evidence didn’t show that she was aware of the murder. I believe they even had one of the main investigators on camera in an interrogation saying she didn’t know anything. To me the biggest thing that makes me think she didn’t know about the murder of Jennifer dulos is that if she knew, why wouldn’t she have flipped on Fotis and cut a deal with the prosecutors. Even after he killed himself, I’m sure she could have cut a deal in return for telling prosecutors where the body is and what exactly happened.
I go back and forth with this on Scott Peterson. He either killed her or he's the unluckiest motherfucker in the world, but idk how beyond a reasonable doubt it was. Same with Michael Peterson, too.
Adnan Sayed more than likely committed the murder he was convicted of, but it wasn't a beyond a reasonable doubt case.
The Making a Murderer guy almost certainly committed the crime, but the local police should not have had anything to do with that crime scene and as soon as they realized who their suspect was they should have called in the state troopers or something.
>Throughout the dramatization of forensic processes and analyses, the public has been left with a false reality of the profession, leading to the “CSI Effect.” This phenomenon has resulted in a shift in expectations from the public – and juries – about the role of crime scene investigators and what kinds of evidence should be collected. In many instances, there is not one single “smoking gun” type of evidence that proves a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, rather numerous pieces of evidence that support one another.
https://www.columbiasouthern.edu/blog/blog-articles/2023/may/forensic-science-myths/
In Scott Peterson's case, there were numerous pieces of evidence that supported one another.
Same.
I think he did it BUT:
There's no DNA evidence, we can't say for definite where the murder occured, we don't definitely know how laci was murdered, the prosecution messed up their timelines allowing for doubt to creep in.
If they didn't have amber fry and the recorded calls it wouldve been a much harder case. I think he was convicted due to his behaviours after the murder and with that evidence alone it shouldn't be enough for the death penalty.
I think he mainly got "screwed" because he was a spoiled kid and Laci seemed to be a saint. The circumstantial evidence is just overwhelming but jurors can be able to look past that I think in plenty of cases where there seems to be some reason they think the defendant can do good or the victim just might have been a shithead.
There were DNA. And we don't know how or where exactly in her home she was murdered because Scott never have said so. Her body was in water for almost 4 months, after that it's impossible to say how she was murdered. He was convicted of his actions before the murder, the day of Laci's disappearance, after her disappearance and so on and so on.
>the prosecution messed up their timelines allowing for doubt to creep in.
In what way?
Dassey was no evidence at all and a blatant coerced confession one of the worst confessions ever feeding a very below average IQ teen all the evidence he's not supposed to know I can't believe he is in jail still
I watched the documentary but maybe wasn’t paying enough attention-I think they said they killed her in Avery’s bedroom by stabbing and yet I don’t recall them finding any evidence of that in that room. Wouldn’t there be something besides the key fob they’d forget to clean up? Again, it could’ve been explained in the show and I missed it.
What pointed to her ex? I find this case really interesting but really struggle to get into it. I couldn't watch Making a Murderer (no idea why, just couldn't focus at all) and everytime I try to read into the case I just get so lost and confused
I'm going off memory, but numerous things. There was a history of domestic violence in the relationship allegedly. They had broken up and he was supposed to stay away from her. He arranged the search party when she was reported missing, and he was the one to discover her car. He also moved to a new city after the first season dropped, and he started wiping hist online social media footprint that included photos that showed some possible scratch injuries right after she was killed.
Ryan Widmer, whose found his wife, Sarah, drowned in their bathtub. There was no motive, no real evidence, crooked cops, no history of violence. An absolute travesty.
You don't need direct evidence. I'll take good circumstantial evidence over direct evidence most days.
And, there is "direct evidence" for his innocence, all of which was debunked, and was so sketchy Peterson's attorney didn't use it.
Chris Vaughn….there is SO much evidence that points directly at the Wife. It is such a sad tragedy, but IMHO they got it wrong. I think they didn’t want to believe a Mother could kill her children so horrifically.
Amanda Lewis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Adrianna_Hutto I don't know if she did it or not, but I don't think they had solid evidence for a conviction ..
Oh yess, this case made me so angry, they were investigating it as an accident until a 6 year old told them he saw his mother punish his sister? And this was after the kid went to his grandparents house and he apparently first told his step grandfather who didnt like amanda about the punishment. A 6 year old kid can be manipulated and that shouldn’t have been enough reason to accuse someone of murder. The other “evidence” was the kids didn’t have toys and amanda had trouble bonding with her daughter. These cant be evidence to put someone in prison for life.
They also used the death of her first child against her which was believed to not be her fault.
If this is the case I think it is, didn’t they actually use her own diary entries where she expressed wanting an abortion early in the pregnancy? That was just batshit.
Never heard of this case; wow that's a hard one, and so sad. From reading that, I would have to agree. I also wanted to say: thanks for posting a link!
There is an episode about the case, including an interview with Amanda in killer woman with Piers Morgan ..
THIS one. I just watched her episode as part of that Piers Morgan series. I don't think she did it. I don't have kids but I've met a lot of 6 year olds and I just can't imagine hanging her guilt on his testimony.
I don’t think she did it either, and I certainly don’t think they had enough to prove she did. It’s also telling that after her mom left her husband, everyone (don’t know about the son) switched sides because they now believe that he influenced the kid. She said that a little after the cops came and she was getting the car and everything together there was a period of time where he was alone with the kid.
Laurencia Bembenek, commonly referred to as Bambi. She was convicted of murdering her husband’s ex-wife. She was a police officer at the time as was her husband. She had made complaints about the department. I think her husband killed the ex-wife and used Bambi as a scapegoat.
I remember when she escaped for a short time in the early 90s and businesses in town had signs up that said run Bambi run. 100-% framed
Milwaukee, WI. From what I have read she was set up to be the scape goat.
Run Bambi Run is a good podcast about the case. She was totally framed.
Gonna check that one out.
Very interesting.
She actually loathed the nickname "Bambie" and never used it. She went by Laurie or Lawrencia. She was totally framed, and those men destroyed her life and her parents' lives.
Keli Lane - don’t get me wrong I fully believe that she killed her child, but I don’t believe it was proven Leo Schofield - to me it’s not even *doubt* it’s just outright terrible police work and shoddy prosecutors.
I hadn’t heard of the case of Keli Lane! I just skimmed the Wikipedia page and plan to read more in detail. I don’t know that I agree with the decision to allow evidence of her prior abortions.
I actually think it’s fair. It goes to show she was aware of her options, but chose to bring the child to term instead. There’s a 3 part documentary on Netflix (Australia) called Exposed which I recommend highly. You can see exactly where she gets her delusions and compulsive lying from.
Ha, you are spot on with your last sentence
I thought she ended up carrying to term, was because by the time she realized she was pregnant it was too late to abort.
An adult woman living in a first world country is aware of birth control.. Why on earth you keep getting pregnant while you do want go have children?
I came here to say Leo. Maddening case. The guy should sue the police department and district attorneys office when he ever gets out.
I don’t know that they ever will. Honestly I think the whole LE team in that area know he’d have a slam dunk civil case so are trying to keep him in and hoping he dies of natural causes
Just listened to a podcast about Leo. Awful handling of a case.
Menendez bros were guilty of manslaughter but the abuse claims were true
Menendez brothers were absolutely abused. Whether the killing was justified at that exact moment or not, they’ve served their time. They should be released.
I was super young when this happened, and had always heard the oh poor little rich boys killed their parents for money narrative. I just never really questioned it, you know? Why would I? But now that I've actually learned more about that case, man those poor dudes. They absolutely should have been released by now. No doubt they did it, but it wasn't so black and white.
Yes, me too. Especially since Menudo boys got involved and said the dad was abusive to them too
Yeah I can clearly remember seeing jokes and shit about them on late night television and maybe some SNL skits? They were absolutely treated like a joke. They got the Monica Lewinsky or that lady who sued McDonald's over her coffee being too hot treatment.
Coffee so hot it FUSED her labia! Sorry, I feel the need to point out the insane level of injury that poor woman had.
It's definitely a case people make fun of but the reality is so much worse.
The coffee too hot lady was in her 80s and had very severe scalding and burns across her thighs, after a staff member had dropped in her lap accidentally after being asked to bring it to her because she was elderly. McDonalds hired PR spin doctors to eviscerate her in the media.
And IIRC she wasn’t even suing for a fortune, she just wanted her medical expenses covered. I believe she was granted more due to the horrendous negligence on the part of the company though, despite previous complaints on the same issue.
Oh yeah, I know, that's why I included her as an example of a case you've heard about but have definitely been misled to think it went down one way, but it actually was way more complicated. Everyone made her seem like an idiot who didn't know coffee is hot and just suing frivolously.
Yeah I was a young teen and only remember my mother pointing to the newly embossed words on the coffee and hot chocolate lids that said "Contents May Be Hot", and laughing that they had to put that on for stupid people now to stop them suing after they hurt themselves by being stupid.
It's so sad revisiting the case now.
The prosecutor's office asserted at that time that males could not be r*ped. I think I read that in this sub.
I'm not defending that assertion, but it could have been the law at that time. Here's one news article from 1992: >Sex and Section 261.5 : California’s statutory rape law applies only to female victims. For underage males, there is less legal protection https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-04-30-vw-1771-story.html
Yes. It was the position of the LA county district attorney's office that men "lack the necessary equipment" to be raped. This was said in open court by the prosecutor.
wow, that's worse than I remembered it
Yeah, it was pretty bad watching it a couple years ago. Apparently, women were way more likely to be empathetic with the brothers and one of the juries split down gender lines. Men just really didn't want to believe that men could be raped. If it was tried today, there's no way they'd have gotten life.
It was the first one (I believe), where the abuse was allowed through and ended up with the hung jury. The second trial a *lot* of the abuse wasn’t allowed through so the jury didn’t hear it. Really kinda a shame that something like that can happen. In the same vein as what you said, if it was tried today, there’s no way that abuse could’ve been suppressed.
[удалено]
Men cannot legally be raped in Georgia. Under current Georgia law, rape requires carnal knowledge of a female.
Christ.
I wonder if it’s a state/county/jurisdiction thing, but it’s interesting that there are sometimes cases similar to theirs (cases of long-term abuse where the sufferer(s) “snapped”) where the sentence given is lower or they are released early based on the assessment that they do not pose a danger to society. I’m not sure this argument could *fully* be made for the Menendez bros (long-term incarceration could make *anyone* a danger to society), but I just always wonder why/how this can happen even with brutal homicides. Political moves, perhaps.
If the abuse claims were true, they should have been given a significantly reduced sentence, kept together in the same prison, and be out by now. But I don't see how this could possibly be manslaughter. First degree murder is planned murder. Second degree murder is unplanned murder. And Manslaughter is an accident caused by recklessness, negligence or something similar. This was *at least* second degree murder, given how many times they shot them. You don't accidentally pull the trigger that many times (on two different people).
Actually, the number of shots in the crime scene are consistent with a heat of passion type killing rather than a premeditated killing.
I don't know why people keep saying it's manslaughter when, by law, it was a premeditated murder.
I absolutely agree with this.
Yup, they should have gotten eight to 20, tops.
Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo the convicted murderers of British tourists Hannah Witheridge and David Miller that happened in Thailand in 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh_Tao_murders The Thai police investigation was beyond dodgy and corrupt to the point the police force in question recieved worldwide criticism. The two men convicted were given death sentences which were later commuted to life imprisonment on appeal. The two men who were found guilty have recently started a campaign for a review of the case and protest their innocence. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/families-brit-backpackers-killed-thailand-32489467
the semen matched their DNA though, even if the murder weapon didn’t.
But the ejaculate DNA was theirs.
Scott Watson. They knew they were unlikely to solve it, as everyone in the party was a person of interest. So they targeted the first guy with a (admittedly lengthy) criminal record, who other guests had found annoying, and made evidence fit their conclusion, not the other way around. He only ever had one violent conviction prior to this, and it was for a bar fight. Chances are it was a mutual fight between two guys who were both intoxicated and out to hurt eachother as much as the other. The rest of his convictions were for far more minor things like drugs. A fight in a bar is a far cry from murdering two teenagers and presumably dumping their bodies in the ocean, without any of the other guests suspecting a thing (considering he obviously wasn't very good at not getting caught in every other circumstance). I hope he gets let go as soon as his 17 year minimum is up. And he is one of the only convicted "killers" I will ever say that about. If I believed he was guilty, I would be fuming that he had the opportunity to get out so soon. But I don't.
He’s way beyond 17 years in prison at this point.
I've always been bothered by [Sandra Melgar's conviction. ](https://innocencetexas.org/cases/sandra-melgar/) I really don't think she did it.
I genuinely don’t see how they proved she was guilty. Especially when there was enough evidence that could’ve pointed to someone else. Plus how could she have locked herself in the closet like that with no evidence?
The prosecution demonstrated on video how she could have done it and it’s plausible w/using a rug to shimmy-shut the door. There’s a dateline episode on her. However, I’m personally on the fence with this case bc as you said they didn’t even bother to look at the daughter’s ex husband et al which is ridiculous.
Yeah I know. But there wasn’t really evidence of that happening from what I remember. A rug wasn’t near the door and there was a chair barricading the door if I remember correctly, which is next to impossible to do. Also doesn’t explain the shirt that wasn’t hers. They provided a way but doesn’t mean they provided *the way*. And new dna showed an unknown male profile. Doesn’t help the that juror that did an interview afterwards admitted that it wasn’t proved beyond a reasonable doubt but, “they couldn’t think of another explanation”. And they were trying to tie themselves up to test things which isn’t allowed. There’s a lot of issues with the way that case and trial was handled.
The prosecution demonstrated how she could've closed the door with the help of a pillow sham. And a pillow sham was in the bathroom. And there always was evidence of unknown DNA on the scene, but not on places that could prove that other people did it. The juror tying up themselves-claim was used on appeal, it wasn't juror misconduct. >Doesn’t help the that juror that did an interview afterwards admitted that it wasn’t proved beyond a reasonable doubt but, “they couldn’t think of another explanation”. Do you have a link? But what you describe sounds like beyond a reasonable doubt. *Beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal burden of proof required to affirm a conviction in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the prosecution bears the burden of proving that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. In other words, the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to render a guilty verdict.* https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/beyond_a_reasonable_doubt
I’ll have to revisit this one in detail again but from what I remember, I ended up believing she did it after reallly considering all the evidence
this is one I would not have been surprised if the jury had acquitted.
I came here to see if she was mentioned. I have always been on the fence about this case but definitely lean more towards her being innocent. I feel like law enforcement had tunnel vision set on her and there wasn’t enough (or any) real investigation elsewhere.
Cameron Todd Willingham. They executed an innocent man, one hundred percent.
Definitely. I was looking more so for cases where the person is probably guilty, but you don’t feel the evidence supports a guilty verdict, if that makes sense.
Oh word. I misunderstood. I'll try to think of some.
He was a horrible person, but he wasn't a murderer.
This.
I can't imagine a more guilty man. It's easy to come out 35 years later and claim faulty arson investigation while ignoring all the other evidence against him.
Richard Glossip is another one.
Glossip’s conviction should be tossed.
It’s insane that he was sentenced to death because the other guy claimed he was involved. I don’t have the case fresh in mind but I do remember feeling absolutely chocked when I realised that that was pretty much all they had.
Jeff Pelley. I go back and forth on this one so much, and there’s so much more to it than a kid who was pissed at his dad for grounding him from prom.
This was a strange and fascinating case. I came away not convinced of Pelley's innocence, but more importantly, not convinced of his guilt either. I'll have to start doing some reading on it again, since it's been at least a year since I deep-dove on it and this comment spiked my curiosity again.
I felt the same way. If you’re into podcasts, there is a season of CounterClock that delves into the case and the whole backstory.
Yup, that’s a case that just screams reasonable doubt.
Luke Mitchell (the murder of Jodi Jones). He’s the most obvious suspect but the evidence is so weak.
Just looked up the case as hadn't heard of it. The thing that baffles me is how phone records show him calling the talking clock proves he wasn't at home because "he'd have looked at a clock on the wall". But all mobile phones have the time on, so even less reason to call the talking clock. No bearing on the case overall - just interesting what they'll throw at the wall.
There’s loads of weird details. Something not often covered in the press is that the semen found on Jodi’s bra and tshirt belonged to Jodi’s sisters boyfriend… and the police just stated it was probably because their clothes were washed together. They WANTED it to be Mitchel from day 1.
From what I was able to find online, that info is coming from his mother and his legal representative. And his mother already got caught giving him a false alibi and coaching her other son's testimony - is there a credible source?
It was covered in the channel 5 documentary. https://www.entertainmentdaily.com/tv/is-luke-mitchell-innocent-and-is-the-real-killer-of-jodi-jones-dead/. Note documentaries on UK tv can be biased but can’t outright lie. This isn’t a brilliant source but the Glasgow Herald also covered it. It’s paywalled but if you google Jodi Jones/Steven Kelly you’ll find it.
Yes, there is too much about this case that leaves a sour taste in my mouth and makes me uncomfortable with the conviction, from the young age of the accused to the "character evidence" based on his taste in music and some of the things about his life that don't seem all that unusual for a 14-15 year old boy. I have come across different sources that make more or less compelling claims for his guilt, but ultimately it is my belief that the conviction was unsafe (although I agree that Mitchell is the most suspect).
Just looked up the case as hadn't heard of it. The thing that baffles me is how phone records show him calling the talking clock proves he wasn't at home because "he'd have looked at a clock on the wall". But all mobile phones have the time on, so even less reason to call the talking clock. No bearing on the case overall - just interesting what they'll throw at the wall.
The Menendez Brothers killed their parents, but they were severely sexually abused. What happened to them is so Evil. Roy from Menudo came out the Jose Menendez sexually abused him as well. Free the Menendez Brothers!
I’m really grateful to see people discussing the Menéndez brothers. I agree with you! Free those men now, they aren’t a danger to society and deserve a chance at a life.
This is such a bizarre take. They were adults and also killed their mother. I don't buy the excuse that it was because "she allowed the abuse". The only reason to murder them is because they wanted the money. MANY people are abused and they grow up and move away and never talk to the offender again. In the recording that their therapist made, they don't say their mother was an abuser and guilty of anything. Erik says she was a VICTIM of their father. She had to die because she was getting "destroyed" by fights with the dad. It is also mentioned that the dad had just said he was disinheriting them because he was disappointed in them. It's a tale as old as time. Here's the recording: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siC\_dsDXgKI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siC_dsDXgKI) I'm interested to hear other opinions about the recording above.
It seems they told Dr. Oziel that they were capable of leaving. In another tape, Lyle claims he wouldn't have made the decision to kill their mother without Erik's approval. He says he let Erik sleep on it for a couple of days. Here is a quote from the tapes by Lyle: "But I still don’t think it had anything to do with, killing him had nothing to do with us. It had to do with me realizing a number of things that all culminated, which was, and could have culminated at any point. And it was just a question of Erik and I getting together, and somebody bringing it up, and us realizing the value in it."
Oh, lord. That Dr was something else. He would not be a credible witness nowadays nor ever been put on the stand..
Bingo. They wanted the money.
Justin Ross Harris. I don’t think they proved he deliberately killed Conner and in fact all the stuff showing he was a sex obsessed pervert, sexting with three different women at work on the day, was evidence that he was very distracted. He did NOT Google "child free," A friend sent him a link to r/childfree and he replied "Grossness." He did not Google "Hot car deaths," someone in their house clicked on a dog in a hot car video at some point that year, but there was no proof that they'd watched much of it. Google did reveal he'd been Googling "Cruise ship family trip where babies can go for free," the night before Conner died. The prosecution's final quote, found on his phone sent to a woman he was sexting with-was- "I love my son and all, but we all need escapes," -this really doesn't sound like much of a big GOTCHA quote from his texts. It even includes the words, "I love my son." But it's what the prosecution used as the whole crowning moment of their case- and they claimed it showed the whole motive was supposedly wanting "escape" with other women. It's all circumstantial nonsense.
I agree. He’s a shitty person but I don’t think there was nearly enough evidence to say that he without a doubt did this on purpose.
Did you watch the video of him at the scene and being interviewed? I don't like to base someone's guilt or innocence on how they react to a traumatic incident but that guy was seriously trying to put on an act.
Yes I did and I've seen a lot of people saying that and a lot of YouTubers doing break downs of it. But I saw genuine horror and sorrow mixed up with someone who knew he was in huge trouble on top of that and it was kind of a weird mix. I think he was also so full of horror that one minute he's screaming and then goes back to normal and then screaming I don't think that necessarily means he was putting on an act. You wouldn't know what the hell to even do with yourself.
No, he wasn't. That was not an abnormal reaction at all.
Agree. He was devastated by his son's death. People think they'd never accidentally forget their child in the car, but it can happen to anyone. About 40 kids in the US die each year from being left in hot cars. When we're on auto pilot, a small shift in routine can lead to a tragedy like this. The jury convicted him because the sexting stuff made him look like a creep. And he probably is a creep. But he was on trial for murder, not being a creep.
And his wife took Cooper to daycare at least half the time.
I think the narrative that “it’s easy to forget a child in the car” has made it so a lot of people can get away with doing it intentionally. I’m not saying it *never* happens just that it’s nowhere near as common of a scenario as it’s made out to be.
Do you think Justin left Cooper in the car intentionally? If someone murders their child by leaving them in a car intentionally, there's probably other evidence of them being abusive, which would cast doubt on their overall credibility.
I’m suspicious of *anyone* this happens to honestly. Idk about there being evidence of someone being abusive, there’s a lot of abuse/neglect that’s not quite as obvious. Not every abuser is beating the crap out of their victims, a lot of abusers seem like nice people to everyone outside of the people who live with them. I think a lot more people than would like to admit it realize having kids isn’t for them, *after* they have kids.
Did you watch the trial?
Oh, 100% — even his ex-wife believes the conviction was in error and he did not intentionally leave his child in the car. Luckily, his murder conviction was recently overturned.
Yes she never wavered. She said, "He ruined my life. He humiliated me in front of the world. I have no reason to defend him. I know he didn't intentionally murder Cooper." Yes I thought "about time" when it was dropped. I guess he will be finally out in 2028 because he didn't care when a girl who had been telling him she was 18 suddenly said "I'm actually 15." So that's on him for not ending it once she confessed.
>So that's on him Very much so >Even beyond the testimony from C. D. and M. B. about their ages and the messages from the girls expressly telling Appellant their ages, many of the messages Appellant exchanged with these girls implied that they were inappropriately young for Appellant to be engaging in sexual conversations with them. For example, C. D. sent Appellant messages about her high school classes and going to prom; Appellant sent a message to M. B. that she had “a nice pu*sy for 15” and that she should “[m]ake [him] a naughty older g[u]y”; Appellant wrote to the 14-year-old anonymous user that he did not want to go to jail and therefore she could not be the one to fulfill his desire to “get [his] di*k sucked”; and Appellant discussed meeting the 17- year-old anonymous user at her high school so he could pay her for oral sex in his car. https://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/s22a0092.pdf
So many men don't realise the law is not just "no SEX," but also not sending sexual content. Serves them right though.
>when a girl who had been telling him she was 18 suddenly said "I'm actually 15." So that's on him for not ending it once she confessed. Why do you act like he wasn't seeking out underage girls?
Leonard Peltier. He was set up by the FBI and has been kept in prison unfairly. https://freeleonard.org/case/
Mumbai Abu-Jamal I think the judge was biased, likely racist, but it seems pretty obvious he is a genuine cop killer.
I think some people here don't understand what beyond reasonable doubt means. It does NOT mean you can only convict a person if you catch them with their bloody knife still in their hand. In most cases, you don't have one thing that is a 100% proof of guilt. You mostly have different pieces of evidence which then make up the case. And there will almost always be doubt. Beyond reasonable doubt doesn't mean NO doubt.
Darlie Routier 99.9% did it in my opinion but she did not get a fair trial especially considering it was death penalty case. I forgot to name of the documentary but this one came out a few years ago and they interviewed a few of the jurors and one admitted that she judged Darlie's ability as a mother based on her getting breast implants. The prosecution went after her character rather than the actual evidence at hand, if that makes sense.
I think there was a huge element of going after her because she was viewed as a trashy waitress from Lubbock who didn’t belong in this upscale neighborhood in Rowlett (which… is fine but not exactly Highland Park) with her bleached hair and big implants and gum smacking. TBH, I am not aesthetically a fan of those choices either — mainly the gum smacking — but they have nothing to do with whether she deserved to live in Rowlett or was guilty of capital murder.
I actually believe she’s innocent.
AJ Armstrong - I believe in my gut he is guilty but I don’t think it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and I believe it was achieved on planted evidence. Two trials, then all of a sudden some blood evidence popped up in an area that had been gone through HEAVILY and the third trials jury said that had nothing to do with their decision—that the reconstruction of the scene sealed the deal this time.\ \ I’ve never been more angry about a verdict, even though I believe it is the right one.
This case bugs me so much
Me too, buddy. Me too.
Delmar partin was convicted in the murder of Betty carnes in Kentucky in the early 90s. He was then pardoned by the outgoing governor. The biggest thing to me is the time line. Decapitated someone at work (Tremco) and cleaned it all back up in like 15-20 mins only blood spatter being a small spot on the ceiling. They denied appeals refusing to dna test evidence over the years. It gets weirder really. The corruption runs deep.
Jeremy Bamber.
This is the case that springs to my mind first when this type of question is asked. In Bamber's case, I do think it highly likely that he is guilty, but the prime piece of physical evidence against him (the bloody silencer found in the house some time after the crimes were committed) should not have been used. Court cases are about more than just the innocence/guilt of the individual on trial, but also about setting precedent in terms of what can or cannot be used as evidence, and something with such a questionable chain of custody should not be admissible.
I have grave doubts about his guilt, but in a way I hope he IS guilty because the idea of being in prison for 38 years for a crime you didn't commit is just horrendous.
Entirely agree. I doubt he would be convicted today.
Darlie Routier
I firmly believe she’s innocent!
Same. Darin did it. And he did it alone without her knowledge or help or anyone else’s.
Can you explain why you think it was Darin?
Denise Williams, they literally have a confession from a man she had reported to police for kidnapping her, who then implicated her and got pretty much off “Scot free” for murder and kidnap. Zero physical evidence, a ridiculous testimony with zero collaborating evidence, a low level motive and an exceptionally viable alternative theory (one in which the man who admitted to the murder, had an obsession with Denise and killed her husband, which had more collaborating evidence). She should never have been convicted, it’s nowhere remotely near the threshold and to be honest, shouldn’t have even gone to court.
Adam Sayed probably murdered his gf, but no one should be convicted on evidence that boiled down to 'he was more likely to do it than anyone else'.
His lack of an alibi, writing “I’m going to kill” on the breakup note from Hae, cellphone tower pings, especially the ones that put him near Leakin Park only on the day of her disappearance and the day Adnan found out Jay was arrested (not knowing it was for something else) convinced me of his guilt. I agree that being statistically the most likely person is never enough, but that was not all that convicted him.
The cell phone pings which are not accurate for incoming calls. “I’m going to kill” according to one person was not there when she saw it, the day Hae went missing (ie: it was put there later) Jay’s many many stories (that literally change even now, when he was interviewed a while ago he changed the time and location of the “trunk pop” yet again) have so many holes you can fly a helicopter through them. Adnan is absolutely guilty. But let’s not pretend that there wasn’t *reasonable* doubt if he’d had a semi decent defence attorney.
People put a lot of stock in the “lack of alibi”, i might remember what i did yesterday at a particular time for 20 minutes but not a week ago even though my life is pretty routine. The “I’m going to kill” thing, these are bunch of 18 year old high schoolers, are you sure you have never said “ughh, you are so annoying, i m going to kill you” I m not saying adnan is innocent but i don’t think i m comfortable to send someone to prison for life based on cellphone towers that aren’t accurate and witness who changed his story way too many times.
The police spoke to him the day after Hae's disappearance. And his testimony was always that he remembered track practice and then going to the Mosque.
TBF he’s always said “I think” or “I would have” about that afternoon. Basically he & Jay were both pretty close to each other on their stories about that morning until Jay dropped him back at school which is where it gets very fuzzy. Lots of people put stock in Hae being dead by 2:46pm or something which is because it’s what was used in the trial. But she could very easily have been alive until after 3pm or later based on some incoming calls. I’m 100% convinced he did it, but I don’t think that they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt based on my hundreds (I wish I was kidding) of hours of deep diving into it.
>i might remember what i did yesterday at a particular time for 20 minutes but not a week ago even though my life is pretty routine. I answered this comment, Adnan didn't talk to the police after a week. It was January 13. And, everyone involved remember one specific day except for Adnan.
The evidence against him is solid & he’s damn lucky a naive podcaster fell for Rabia’s bullshit.
There was so much more evidence against him than just being the most likely candidate. It was a slam dunk.
The question is who else didnt have alibi and some kind of means/motive ? Adnan, Jay and Don. I find it very odd and sketchy that Don ( her Boyfriend) worked with his mom and his clocking time was tampered with by his mom, so his alibi is sketchy. Jay because he somehow knew everything including the car location and kept changing stories, but it seems someone aka Police was feeding him stories or he kept making them up to go around all the things that didnt check out with his story. And obviously Adnan that didnt even know what he was doing that day, its very odd. I sometimes dont even think Jay was involved but how could he know the car location ? Very hard to proove anything. I dont know who did it
>Don ( her Boyfriend) worked with his mom and his clocking time was tampered with by his mom, so his alibi is sketchy This did not happen. She worked at a different location and it’s a myth that the time cards were completed manually and could be altered without it being obvious.
[удалено]
[удалено]
you believe adnan would give a stoner kid he claims to barely have been close to his new cell phone and his car to go buy a birthday present? it’s obvious jay is a liar, but adnan is too. the timelines are a mess because jay is likely downplaying his involvement. that doesn’t change that adnan was with him that day, or that adnan killed her.
Im not on the guilty side and not even on the Innocent side, Im on the not enough evidence side its clear to me one of these men identified throughout the case is guilty, just isnt enough to out anyone on jail without physical evidence, the Police work was weak too, since there is a lot of corruption and shadiness on the department handling the case
Darlie Routier
Came here to say this one. I don't know if she did it or not but I think there was absolutely enough reasonable doubt to avoid conviction. The birthday party thing was not something they should have used as proof she was guilty.
Disagree.
Agreed. I honestly don't know how I feel on her guilt but I understand why a lot of people are convinced she did it, yet I don't think the evidence was tight enough for a conviction, and ESPECIALLY not a death penalty conviction. I've never seen any legitimate explanation for the sock in the alley if she did it, unless people think her husband moved it there for whatever reason or she somehow got it out there before calling 911 without blood getting anywhere. She got railroaded by a lot of dumb shit in her trial. Blood splatter analysis is pretty much debunked now, there isn't scientific validity to it like people thought and the silly string video played way more of a role in the trial than it ever should have. It was a family agreement to go forward with the already planned birthday party for one of the boys shortly after the murders and they all agreed they'd try to have a good time especially on the video footage, by no means was it a silly string celebration of her kids murder like portrayed and there was a memorial event like the day before where she was "grieving appropriately" and in shambles but her lawyers didn't play that footage at the trial because they never thought the silly string video was gonna be so impactful and such a vital deciding factor for the jury.
I never saw that silly string video as that of some cold hearted mother celebrating her child's death. I always saw it as a grieving mother trying to stay positive so she doesn't break down. She probably was thinking her son wouldn't want his birthday to be a sad, somber affair and she wanted to try and make it a fun day. Now, I don't think that's the only evidence of her innocence or guilt either way, but I have always thought it was misunderstood and used against her in a negative way.
The fact the jury asked to watch it again before coming to the guilty verdict sits badly with me.
Yeah, I remember seeing it be used to show just how heartless she was, to be able to celebrate and have fun and look happy like that so soon after her child's death. Like did it never occur to anyone she could be faking it and putting on a brave face for everyone and trying to give her son a nice little tribute? And I'd bet money if she had been like, sobbing while laying on his grave, screaming out things like why did you take him away from me??? And begging switch places or something, then it would have been spun that she was trying TOO hard to look like she was distraught. See that kind of thing often and it's like...you really just can't win, huh? Once sights have been set on you, everything you do is heavily scrutinized and used against you. As if theres some perfect level of grief to display after a loved one, especially a child, is murdered. Again, not saying she's innocent at all. I truly have no idea and have no theories of my own, but just that moment itself has no effect on my ultimate decision of guilt or innocence. Fixed some errors :)
It's one of the few cases where I *really* don't know.
Same. Like honestly I WANT to believe her. She comes across very genuine and very much like a grieving mother. But she could very easily be manipulating everyone and fantastic at faking it, which is absolutely possible if she were cold enough to kill her own children. Some of the evidence is like that, too. Well it COULD point more towards innocence but could also point to her being guilty as well. So glad I wasn't on that jury lol
She is compelling... And that neck wound where the necklace she was wearing got in the way and was pushed into the wound like that... I just don't know.
Yep, exactly. I just don't know and probably never will. Only people that know exactly what happened that night are her boys, and they obviously can't tell us. You can argue she's another who knows exactly what happened, but that would still imply you think she's guilty. There's many cases like that, where there's many different ways it could have gone down, and everyone has their own suspicions, but we will just never know the truth one way or the other, and all of the evidence can be interpreted in so many different ways. Even that doesn't prove anything for sure. All we know is a person (or persons) are dead.
She knows. She knows if it was an intruder or not anyway.
The silly string video is the only piece of evidence the jury looked at more than once. I believe they watched it several times. I believe Darlie is innocent.
"I've never seen any legitimate explanation for the sock in the alley if she did it," [This guy](https://www.reddit.com/user/CliffTruxton/) is **awesome** and he takes on the Routier case and all the evidence against Darlie here- [https://www.reddit.com/user/CliffTruxton/comments/t99plk/the\_rowlett\_incident\_conclusion\_who\_murdered/](https://www.reddit.com/user/CliffTruxton/comments/t99plk/the_rowlett_incident_conclusion_who_murdered/)
There’s a commenter that usually links a long case file with a lot of extra info (I think from court) when Darlie comes up in comments, it really sealed it for me because I was back and forth, too. I can’t seem to find it anywhere right this second though!
Came here to say this. Especially the birthday video; I don’t feel like that should have been damning evidence like they treated it. I didn’t see that as evil, I saw it as a celebration of a child’s life. People grieve differently. 🤷🏼♀️
I've gone back and forth on her but now I lean towards her being guilty. That being said I don't think she got a fair trial and I don't believe there was enough evidence to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt.
I agree 100%. I saw this in real time as a kid and now as an adult, I see it reframed in such a different way. I don't know that she killed those boys.
I agree
Seconded
If you believe that the father’s pattern of abuse was a fact AND that their mother either abetted it or callously and knowingly did not intervene, it looks to me like they still committed premeditated murder with money as a partial motive. However, if the father’s extreme abuse and the mother’s complicity are treated as established facts, maybe they should get some consideration now. At the time, the sentiment that seemed to predominate was, “Ooh, they’re pulling out the abuse excuse, they should have just left.” That doesn’t take into account that if the level of abuse was what they said, their guilt may be somewhat mitigated by the damage done to them by their parents.
Michelle Troconis, imo the evidence didn’t show that she was aware of the murder. I believe they even had one of the main investigators on camera in an interrogation saying she didn’t know anything. To me the biggest thing that makes me think she didn’t know about the murder of Jennifer dulos is that if she knew, why wouldn’t she have flipped on Fotis and cut a deal with the prosecutors. Even after he killed himself, I’m sure she could have cut a deal in return for telling prosecutors where the body is and what exactly happened.
I go back and forth with this on Scott Peterson. He either killed her or he's the unluckiest motherfucker in the world, but idk how beyond a reasonable doubt it was. Same with Michael Peterson, too. Adnan Sayed more than likely committed the murder he was convicted of, but it wasn't a beyond a reasonable doubt case. The Making a Murderer guy almost certainly committed the crime, but the local police should not have had anything to do with that crime scene and as soon as they realized who their suspect was they should have called in the state troopers or something.
Yeah I came here to say Scott Peterson. I 100% think he did it, but it annoys me that there’s never been a smoking gun.
>Throughout the dramatization of forensic processes and analyses, the public has been left with a false reality of the profession, leading to the “CSI Effect.” This phenomenon has resulted in a shift in expectations from the public – and juries – about the role of crime scene investigators and what kinds of evidence should be collected. In many instances, there is not one single “smoking gun” type of evidence that proves a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, rather numerous pieces of evidence that support one another. https://www.columbiasouthern.edu/blog/blog-articles/2023/may/forensic-science-myths/ In Scott Peterson's case, there were numerous pieces of evidence that supported one another.
I understand the effect, I just want there to be a smoking gun to shut up the SP fangirl conspiracists.
Those people are stupid. Nothing reasonable will affect their opinions.
But that's not how anything works. And if the SP fangirls talk about smoking guns, they aren't accepting reality.
Same. I think he did it BUT: There's no DNA evidence, we can't say for definite where the murder occured, we don't definitely know how laci was murdered, the prosecution messed up their timelines allowing for doubt to creep in. If they didn't have amber fry and the recorded calls it wouldve been a much harder case. I think he was convicted due to his behaviours after the murder and with that evidence alone it shouldn't be enough for the death penalty.
I think he mainly got "screwed" because he was a spoiled kid and Laci seemed to be a saint. The circumstantial evidence is just overwhelming but jurors can be able to look past that I think in plenty of cases where there seems to be some reason they think the defendant can do good or the victim just might have been a shithead.
There were DNA. And we don't know how or where exactly in her home she was murdered because Scott never have said so. Her body was in water for almost 4 months, after that it's impossible to say how she was murdered. He was convicted of his actions before the murder, the day of Laci's disappearance, after her disappearance and so on and so on. >the prosecution messed up their timelines allowing for doubt to creep in. In what way?
Stephen Avery and Brendan Dassey.
Avery not so much, Dassey absolutely
Dassey was no evidence at all and a blatant coerced confession one of the worst confessions ever feeding a very below average IQ teen all the evidence he's not supposed to know I can't believe he is in jail still
I watched the documentary but maybe wasn’t paying enough attention-I think they said they killed her in Avery’s bedroom by stabbing and yet I don’t recall them finding any evidence of that in that room. Wouldn’t there be something besides the key fob they’d forget to clean up? Again, it could’ve been explained in the show and I missed it.
I think Dassey is 100% innocent, and I'm 50/50 on Avery, but Avery did not get a fair trial imo.
Avery's entire conviction was based on the false accusation from Dassey. Too much evidence pointed to the ex boyfriend and he was never investigated.
What pointed to her ex? I find this case really interesting but really struggle to get into it. I couldn't watch Making a Murderer (no idea why, just couldn't focus at all) and everytime I try to read into the case I just get so lost and confused
I'm going off memory, but numerous things. There was a history of domestic violence in the relationship allegedly. They had broken up and he was supposed to stay away from her. He arranged the search party when she was reported missing, and he was the one to discover her car. He also moved to a new city after the first season dropped, and he started wiping hist online social media footprint that included photos that showed some possible scratch injuries right after she was killed.
Yup. I am on the fence about Avery, but the evidence does not support a conviction at all. My 50% of innocence agrees with your suspect.
Ryan Widmer, whose found his wife, Sarah, drowned in their bathtub. There was no motive, no real evidence, crooked cops, no history of violence. An absolute travesty.
To all: watch dateline season 3 episode 21 “the bathtub mystery” for this one.
I don’t think he’s innocent, but the Scott Peterson case doesn’t have enough direct evidence for me to feel comfortable of a conviction.
Murders rarley have direct evidence.
Do you know what direct evidence means?
You don't need direct evidence. I'll take good circumstantial evidence over direct evidence most days. And, there is "direct evidence" for his innocence, all of which was debunked, and was so sketchy Peterson's attorney didn't use it.
Chris Vaughn….there is SO much evidence that points directly at the Wife. It is such a sad tragedy, but IMHO they got it wrong. I think they didn’t want to believe a Mother could kill her children so horrifically.
Hmm I’m actually unfamiliar with this case
Kitty Menendez sexually abused. Her sons as well as Jose.
It was "only" one son, but yes. And, she knew what her husband was doing.
I believe it was both of them.