[ SECRET POST #3304 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3304 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Law & Order SVU]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Leonardo DiCaprio]


__________________________________________________



04.
(Penny Dreadful: Caliban/John Clare)


__________________________________________________



05.
[Star Wars]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Kumail Nanjiani, The X-Files]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Shin Megami Tensei X Fire Emblem]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Love Live!]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Severus Snape and the Marauders]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Sherlock Holmes]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Making a Murderer, Dean Strang and Jerry Buting]


__________________________________________________



12.
[Colony]















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 027 secrets from Secret Submission Post #472.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[philstar22]

I honestly don't know. He may have and he may have not. But the behavior of the prosecutors was abhorrent, the investigation was botched and he never should have been convicted. His guilt or innocence is not the point.

[(Anonymous)]

Have you ever heard of the case around the murder of Stephanie Crowe?

Basically they decided that her brother Micheal did it, based on his interests and the fact that he reacted in a certain way to it. Then they did all sorts of illegal shit trying to manipulate him into confessing. At some point it stopped being about finding the truth and more about trying to confirm their first assumption.

That's what this case kinda reminds me off.

[philstar22]

No I hadn't heard of that one. But I've heard of similar cases. It happens. Because prosecutors have decided that rather than being about the job, their job is about winning. No. The defense attorney's job is to represent their client. Your job is to represent the state, and the state's interest is in the truth. Maybe that's a conviction, maybe it isn't.

Ugh. I have so many thoughts on prosecutors in general and the whole culture. I wanted to be one for a long time until I realized I could never be a part of that and wasn't the type of person who could buck the system in the way that a good prosecutor should. It is a job. Someone has to do it. Some people do belong in prison. But the way it is done a lot of the time today is just so awful.

[(Anonymous)]

So agreed on your first paragraph in particular. I've heard about that sort of railroading happening a LOT in cases involving children being killed or serial killers roaming about. Obviously, I understand people being scared to know there's a killer like that in their town, and I also understand that law enforcement is under lots of pressure in those situations to catch the killer. And sometimes, depending on the situation, prosecutors don't always have a lot of obvious evidence to work with to build a case, too.

But unfortunately, a lot of people forget that solving a case often takes a LOT of time. It isn't like the crime dramas, where everything's solved in a day or so. And it's especially important in these situations that law enforcement catches the right person, or prosecutors have a strong enough case to prove this is indeed the person who's guilty.

Because if they don't, then an innocent person has been accused/convicted of a heinous crime and the person who IS actually responsible for the crime is still out there and continuing to kill people. Doesn't exactly scream "winning" to me.

[philstar22]

When you learn about the system, you start to realize how fucked up it is. For starters, so many cases, even ones prosecutors would never be able to prove in court, end up settled. Because prosecutors scare defendants, even ones who may be innocent, with higher than necessary charges and threats and then offer settlements. So you have people settling cases where they aren't even guilty.

Really, there are so many problems with the system as it is set up now. And that is even more true in more Conservative states and/or states where judges are elected. In many southern states Judges consider themselves colleagues with prosecutors and favor them. And judges who are elected feel the need to be "tough on crime." So prosecutors have it easier from the get-go often.

[(Anonymous)]

That doesn't surprise me, sadly. They, and police officers, definitely know how to intimidate people. And ugh, yes, the "tough on crime" people. They definitely don't help matters, either.

I also can't stand the prosecutors who create such flamboyant, dramatic presentations of their cases in the courtroom. I've seen a few of those on some true crime stories, too, and they drive me nuts. They practically act out the crime the way they imagine it happened, they make intense accusations towards the defendant, pointing at them, they get up in the jury's faces, etc. It's like, hi, you're not auditioning for a role on a TV series, you're here to prove a case. Quit making it all about you.

To say nothing of the emotional manipulation some people have pulled out, too.

[(Anonymous)]

I would argue that it's not just the personal decision of the prosecutors, but the structure of career, political, financial, etc incentives that we've built around our legal system

like, the behavior is the logical outcome of the system. it's almost inevitable that it would function like this.

[philstar22]

Oh, I completely agree with that. Although, the problem is that prosecution is different. Some of those setups are fine in other areas of the law. We want attorneys to want to win most of the time. Defense attorneys should represent their clients to the best of their ability. The problem is that the system has forgotten that there should be differences and sets up the incentives the same for prosecutors. They advance in their career based on the number of cases they win. That's not the way it should work for prosecutors.

[(Anonymous)]

I haven't seen this particular documentary (I really want to, but I don't have Netflix), so I can't comment on how this case was handled. But I've seen a lot of similar situations when watching other true crime stories. Even if I do believe the accused could've committed the crime in question, if they're found not guilty/there's a hung jury/etc., people will get so angry, and all I can think is, "Yeah, well, that's what you get when you fuck up an investigation and don't do your jobs properly." This isn't the sort of job where people can afford to make much, if any, mistakes.

[(Anonymous)]

For what it's worth, the first episode is free on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34M2zdLc-2U

Seeing only one part might make it worse but at least you'd be able to tell if it's something you'd be interested in.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, cool, thanks for the info! I'll definitely check it out.

[(Anonymous)]

Yep.

The American criminal justice system is fundamentally broken. Because of shit like this.

[(Anonymous)]

It really is messed up in a lot of ways, yeah. One of many reasons why I'm against the death penalty.

[philstar22]

Yup. I'm against the death penalty for moral reasons. But even if I wasn't I would still be against it as practiced in this country. And I actually know people who believe in the idea of the death penalty but thing it should be banned until the system gets sorted out.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I can understand the victim's family having a, "I want to kill them/see them dead" reaction to the criminal who took their loved one away. They're angry, they're grieving, they're hurt, it's a logical reaction (though, having said that, I've also seen stories where victims' loved ones have shown remarkable levels of forgiveness, too, so...).

And there are some crimes that are so especially abhorrent that I will find myself sometimes thinking, "Yeah, not exactly weeping over that creep being gone."

But that's a personal, visceral reaction, and that shouldn't be our criteria for deciding who should or shouldn't be put to death. I'm very uncomfortable with society as a whole/the government having that sort of attitude, and deciding who gets to live and die. Add in the amount of innocent people that have found themselves on death row, and the cost involved, and so on, and...yeah. It's not a good solution to the issue at all.

[(Anonymous)]

It's absolutely the tip of the iceberg but yeah

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, that was my takeaway too. Even if he did it (and we don't know), that entire trial was so horribly put together that he shouldn't have been convicted.

If anything, the cops and the prosecution fucked up any chance to properly find out what REALLY happened with their overzealous and transgressive behavior.