Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown
Wait, what?
We do know he wasn't guilty of the rape he served 18 years for. He was exonerated based on DNA evidence.
Think I was pretty clear. Yeah I don't know if he did it or not. All I know is he got let go because of DNA evidence. Problem is DNA is everywhere. Like I said it's not a smoking gun even in a rape case.
But we will be happy to revisit this in 20 years when people are being released from prison because the only evidence against them was DNA.
I literally know almost nothing about his original trial and conviction except he was freed after 18 years because of DNA evidence. That is great and all but that doesn't magically tell me he didn't actually commit the crime. I have no idea one way or another. I don't know enough about it or about the guy whose DNA it was. I suspect you don't either.
We already have too many highly falliable guilty locks in the criminal justice system (eyewitness testimony, taped confessions) we don't need more. It's okay if we all expect more from prosecutors then DNA DNA DNA. As someone noted earlier the same person who analyzed the DNA on the bullet compared hair samples in the rape case and testified they were likely Avery. That used to be considered strong physical evidence.
I didn't say he shouldn't have been released from prison I simply said I didn't know if he did it or not. Part of me feels like he should have a gift card for 18 years off any future crime. Which all circles back to what I was talking about to begin with, this documentary is not about anyone's guilt or innocence.