Could you imagine losing your only child, and on top of that, being accused, charged, and convicted of murdering that child? The mere thought makes my soul implode.
Yep. I found out the hard way that you should always exercise your "right to remain silent". Cuz when they say "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law", they mean EXACTLY that. Even if they have to reorganize your sentences, cut&paste your words, use things out of context, etc.. they WILL use anything you say against you.
@You Wish Simple rule of thumb. Comply with commands (put your hands here. Step out, etc.) Never answer questions (how much have you had to drink. Where are you going. Is there any money in the car)
One of the big lessons we learn when we leave our childhood, grow up and enter the real world is the ridiculous fact that most of what we were told as a child was just opinionated bullshit. I resent quite of few of my teachers for that reason.
How brave are you to find the truth? What if depression and anxiety are mostly junk science? What if self-love and empathy have been debunked? What if there's no such thing as is introverts or extroverts? We wonder why nothing makes sense. Maybe now it does
@@lkae4 It certainly feels like that sometimes. Some of depression and anxiety are junk science as both emotions are just a part of the human condition etc. I would not equate the junk science debated here with that though. You do make a valid point. Last. TY for making a solid point and not attacking.
There's something captivating about listening to a really articulate person talk about something they feel strongly about. I'm off to look up his podcast now. (Junk science wrongful convictions)
Yeah it's like you ever arguing with your girl and half way through realise your wrong and you tone it in like yooo why all the emotion girl we good? Yeah these guys don't do that. They manipulate us.
High conviction rates justify higher law enforcement budgets. Last time I was almost on a jury it was a DV case where the witness recanted their story but DA still pursued prosecution. When it was my turn to answer the question if I’d have an issue potentially handing a guilty verdict where the witness recanted I said damn right I would. I’m guessing this was a lover’s quarrel that got out of hand, she called the cops to show him he would, now you’re speaking a conviction to pad your numbers. “Thank you you’re service is done for the day.” I wanted to be on it tho. Never once been on a jury lol maybe it would help it I loved government
About blood splatter, blood isn't a newtonian fluid, meaning its viscosity changes when under force, so it gets even harder to tell how it would move since its viscosity isn't costant
I used sweat to profusely during job interviews. I started mediating beforehand so I could be a little more relaxed. There's no way I'd pass a lie detector test...
Yeah, lie detectors will prosecute the considerate (innocent) introverts and exonerate the (guilty) psychopath extroverts. "Thank for coming in today Mr Killer, you're free to go." haha
Excuse me...not everyone that has lost teeth is due to drugs!! I have a severe disease that took away my teeth, I was born with no enamel...I have shitty medical assistance...they pulled my teeth...now everyone just assumes I’m a meth head
@@jeanakatherine9369 I'm sorry to hear that, that's terrible. I feel you tho I started balding in middle school due to a medical condition and looking like a fat balding middle aged man at 10 years old is pretty rough.
Mainly if they can convince you that the polygraph works though. I had a friend who's father was a retired forensic psychophysiologist. I took the test 3 times, was completely honest, and "failed" all 3 times.
@@Subfightr I took it once and passed. All you have to do is take half a Xanax and you can can pretty much lie about anything...And that`s one of the problems with it. I hate it when people call it a `lie detector` as it doesn`t detect lies! It detects vital signs in your body and an examiner decides if the changes constitute a deception or not. Polygraphs are also inadmissible in a court of law, because they don`t actually work.
Oh, you mean the LIE BOX? I took it when I applied to the NSA. The administrator said I had smoked weed. I never had. He let me do it again. This time, he said I had given classified info to the enemy and committed murder. 😐🙄
Haha but ye sometimes he's already explaining some super intense shit, and then drops the "watch this", and I'm thinking "holy fucking fuck this is wild as a motherfuck"
When I was nineteen years old I got jury duty and I still feel like it was the most important thing I've ever been asked to do. The case was fucking crazy and there was so much outrage that some people, including some jurors, didn't care about the evidence, they just wanted to see someone get punished. But it was all bullshit, and because of a few people taking time and care, the guy didn't have his life destroyed. Everyone should do jury duty, whatever the verdict they'll be changing someone's entire world, and it's important to take that responsibility seriously.
My ex wife ended up on jury duty she told me everything that was going on in it I restrained myself from giving my opinions and simply listened because I didn't want to interfere as it is illegal! She convicted a homeless man found passed out that woke in the hospital freaking out trying to sit up looking for his bag the emt forced him back down and the man landed a glancing blow to the emt the emt wasn't hurt but told his boss who forced him to press charges regardless of the fact that he didn't want to and was uninjured! She convicted him of assault to a health care worker and was sentenced to be sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison! I regret not giving her feedback she just kept saying that the law was the law and had no concept of temporary insanity or jury nullification that the main reason we have juries is that if we don't believe it's just we can prevent government from destroying people's lives!
I studied “forensic engineering” in the UK for four years which is far removed from this BUT the first thing we were taught was the damage of mis-conviction and how it was way way worse for a system to create false positives than to let guilt people go.
There is a confusion for odontological evidence between dental records for identification and bite marks. Dental records for identification of remains is pretty accurate.
I had Jury Duty early this year, and the guy was accused of Auto Burglary. The detectives said they had the person admitting to the crime on tape, but wouldn’t show us the tape after we requested it, so there was 0 evidence shown tying this guy to the burglaries so we found him innocent. Innocent until PROVEN guilty.
@@bp56789 nah he wasn’t beat up or anything. I think they were trying to throw the charges on him because it was a wealthy neighborhood whose cars were getting burglarized. They said he admitted to the crimes so his nephew wouldn’t get charged, but wouldn’t provide us with he recording smh.
About ⅔ of the way through, one of the biggest problems is touched on briefly, 'Brady violations'. For those who don't know, a Brady violation occurs when prosecutors withhold potentially exculpatory evidence from the defence. It's a _huge_ problem. The prosecution is required to give the defence all the evidence they're planning to present at trial.
You have it right about the Brady violation. Just the last sentence added is wrong. They have to share the evidence regardless if they want to present it or not.
@@ashersmith1326 I'm not sure about a 'steel man' take on the matter or even what the word is that describes such terms lol But surely not sharing the evidence you plan to present means that the defense cannot properly prepare to explain or defend your statements on certain matters. So for that piece of evidence to be addressed it would either have to be postponed, or make the defence look like they have no explanation or alibi for the surprise evidence presented; even tho it could have been a completely explainable, non-convicting, piece of evidence.
@@ashersmith1326typically the ruse is ‘we lost this evidence!! Therefore we could not have known it needed to be turned over, or the strength of the argument it presented!’ Along with gibberish about it not be logged into evidence, typically. I have lost count how many times I’ve heard this excuse, but suffice to say it’s the new ‘my dog ate my homework’. What’s terrifying is the sheer volume of cases that the DA/prosecutor is aware of and knows these convicted are innocent and still defiantly stand behind a bogus conviction. It’s horrifyingly rare to see one who does right by those falsely convicted, and terrifying how easily it occurs.
depends on the kind of lawyer you are. If you are one that cares more about winning cases and getting money, then whatever evidence helps you. If you are like these guys that care about the truth and helping the innocent, then you'd want to dismiss evidence that has no scientific backing.
A trial isnt about finding the truth. Its about convincing a jury. And whether the state is going to lose. Spoiler alert. They will win at ANY COST,and if you dont think that, you have never seen the amount of cases thats been brought against corrupt DA's. For every 5 DAs, there are 4 that promotion at any cost, ie conviction at and cost, is their whole life. You dont matter. Just your name added to the others in their conviction rate.
@@rickp46 That's exactly what I think when I hear about people that brag about their "100% conviction rates" when running for offices and etc (Judge Pirro, Kamala Harris, etc, that brag about conviction ratings like they're some kind of badge of honor). I think, "You mean to tell me... That EVERY person you went after, every single one, happened to be guilty??? Not a single time in umpteen years of your career, not once, did you make a mistake or have a false assumption against the defendant?!? .... Rigghhtttt..." That's impossible, unless you're convicting at all costs, using illegal tactics to hide exonerating evidence, or just straight up refusing to let an innocent person walk and offering ridiculous pleas JUST to get the conviction out of them to not ruin your prosecution rate that you're treating as a fucking batting average.... Source: Started out as a prosecutor, then turned criminal defense attorney, once I seen and realized how bad the fuckery was with the DA and all other ADA's.. I could tell you shit that would blow your mind, that happens every day across the country in police stations, courtrooms and DA offices, that trample on the premise of finding the truth and serving justice... Sadly, just like you've said, it's all about personal promotion, selfish desires for self wealth, and people trying to get ahead at all costs - with people's lives at stake and being ruined over it all.
He’s wrong about DNA. They use one of two test, neither of which match 100%. The first is a fast and cheap test that matches to 1 in 4800, the other match’s to 1 in 48,000. That means that if you live in a city of 1 million people, there are 208 match’s to the first test, and at least 20 to the second. In a court of law, if your lawyer does not ask if the prosecution had located the other 200 people the test matched to, them your lawyer F’d up. This is why there are innocent people in prison that were convicted with DNA evidence, and why District Attorneys do not want DNA convictions retested.
Yes but the point is if there is any other evidence that links you to the crime and your DNA also matches to 1 in 48000, then there is a high likelihood that you’re guilty. DNA evidence shouldn’t be enough on its own but alongside any other evidence linking you to the crime (which is usually the only way you’d have your DNA tested in the first place), it is compelling.
@@criert135 Incorrect. All it does is put you in a pool of suspects. It could be transfer DNA, it could anyone of 200+ per million or so other people the test also identified. Without more, such as motive, opportunity, witnesses, and a demonstration that you would have committed that specific crime, you can in fact challenge the DNA findings.
*If* you can afford a decent lawyer, they can request the “stats” for that particular K9...I’m not sure if there is any kind of benchmark but the worse the stats (successful ‘hits’ vs unsuccessful), but it’s more reasonable doubt you’ve created. Now the problem of course is how much actual oversight or verification exists for such statistics...when a dog supposedly hits but nothing turns up, how often Does that officer just omit the K9s participation entirely ?
Dogs are dodgy af. They might be good under the right conditions, but they suffer from smell fatigue and their 'accuracy' drops of over a few hours. I spent 2 hours being questioned and search at Hamburg Airport because a dog 'detected' something on me. I'd been clean for years at the time.
I have been pulled over and my car was sniffed by a k9 unit. The dog "indicated" the officers searched , found nothing , told me my car matched a description . it's was back in 2000, I was driving a pontiac sunfire, it matched a million descriptions at the time. Also I had just bought the car about 5 hours before it was searched. When the police found nothing they became angry with me like it was my fault that they were wrong. One of them kept asking me where "it" was. It, meaning drugs. I've never taken a single illegal drug in my entire life. Eventually they let me go, after completely destroying the inside of my car and didn't even offer help to repair anything , they told me they weren't liable . fucking idiots.
Doesn't presumption of guilt start in the home and schools when your a kid? I remember a principle in my middle school that flat out told me perception is 9/10 of the law in "his" school. I was told the same thing when I was in the military. People are taught to presume guilt from the start.
Schools and the Army are not a court of law. "Innocent until proven guilty... IN A COURT OF LAW." Never watched Cops? Different circumstances, different rules. You confused them.
19:43-19:53 does this guy really not think that a parent would kill their own kid? They have buddy, sorry to burst you bubble. Agree there is a lot of fuckery going on to convict innocent people but do these guys think everybody is innocent?!
@@TheZachary86 I am not talking about a particular case, or denying the science seems questionable. I am pointing out this guy seems to think you have to suspend disbelief in order to think a woman/mother would kill ever thier own kid... He is clearly 100%wrong. And the bullshit about not being able to hold a baby out at arms length because they are too heavy, that was bullshit science. Pot kettle right there. Infanticide tragically has happened and will continue to happen.
@@yomo1690 that is the point, you SHOULD think everybody is innocent until proven otherwise. Parent would not kill their own child, that is right assumption. Criminal system should not treat everybody as a psychopath by default.
Babies delivered with forceps or suction cup can die of brain damage even a couple of years after birth. In many of these cases a parent is convicted of shaken baby syndrome. It’s ridiculous
@@evilestmonkeey The point of this quote is to express that a justice system isn't just if it convicts the innocent. To answer your question, can't really say. But if the innocent practice their second amendment then not many.
@Classes S Yes, in an ideal world, we would have all guilty people locked up and innocent people free. But unfortunately, we are human and we are prone to errors. So when I say a just justice system, it is one within reason. To expect our judgement to be right 100% of the time is unreasonable. I believe this ideal would only be possible with 24/7 monitoring and an AI justice system but even then there would be some flaws. We would have to sacrifice a whole lot of freedoms and put our trust in an AI system that was designed by humans. That's right, by us, so that may even be murky aswell.
@Classes S Maybe, maybe not. Quantity wise, yes. There would be more victims letting 10 guilty free. But suffering wise? I think the he innocent going to jail suffers the same, if not more, amount as the sum total of victims that the freed guilty create. But we can't quantify suffering. Another imperfection of humans is that we are obsessed with what we can quantify or with what we can hold. It's hard to see past the tangible and look at the immeasurable.
The only thing I know about John Stossel is that he got the shit slapped out of him by Dr. D David Schultz and it was absolutely hilarious what a big pussy he was about it
@@rocky7895 If I remember right his own tag team partner said it was fake and started it and Vince used him as a throw away pitbull after telling him to do it getting rid of him like the trash I think john looked like a bitch at the moment but it doesn't matter vs his work good and bad in showing the dark side of shit
@@Apolloneek i mean he got sued by John Stossel in court for real so i dont think it was fake or he wouldnt have lost the case. And i honestly just thought it was hilarious. I've never seen any of his other work so idk lol maybe ill check it out
@@rocky7895 Yeah I get it watch the dark side of the ring on vice that's where I was able to repeice alot I had forgot from seeing on 20/20 and honestly him sueing Vince and WWF for half a million looks good to me because of how big a p.o.s vince is glad dave didn't pay a dime. Also I wouldn't fan girl for john stossel in a million years but he does uncover alot of bullshit no other reporter does
These two made me suspect that they were shady when they talked about Kamala Harris' past, but would still vote for her. They really lost me on the "shaken baby" syndrome. I am am old emergency dept RN and know what people are capable of. Sometimes there are monsters out there.
I completely support these guys and what they do. As a cop and a human being, I am devastated by the fact that there are flaws which convict innocent people. That said, becareful. He is only speaking from one side of the story. A defense attorney will try to discredit anything other than DNA. And once they are all discredited, they will go after DNA next. All evidence, even a direct confession, is open to interpretation by the jury.
As it should be. We’ve seen plenty of cases in the US alone where direct confessions were obtained under duress or by other questionable means. All evidence needs to be carefully scrutinized, because we know junk science exists, corrupt police and prosecutors exist, frame up jobs do happen. We can’t assume people in authority or “experts” are telling the truth any more than we can assume the accused is telling the truth. It’s not about the objective truth, it’s about what we can prove is true. I’m sure police, prosecutors, and defense attorneys all have tough jobs. But they also have the power to destroy peoples lives, and need to always be conscious of the fact that their actions have real world ramifications. Accountability isn’t just for civilians, it should be for everyone.
Depends if the confession is in front of a courtroom or not, confession in front of a police officer is inadmissible as an evidence if I'm not mistaken? Or maybe it could be used for corroboration.
AND theyre talking about how arson science is complete BS, then praised the "actual expert" who proved that it was an electrical fire in the ladys case. What science did they use? Either its BS or its not, whats the deal?\
Listen to what he says carefully. They're gripe is arson "experts" who don't fully investigate things evidenced by the fact you can be an arson expert with a 40 hour only course. The first arson expert claimed she did it using kerosene fuel left over from previous owners of the trailer. But a more thorough investigation done 17 years later proved there was no fuel accelerants there and that the only possible cause would have been electrical which while you set up an arson attempt that way would almost never be done when simply using fuel is much easier. They arent saying there is no science behind arson, bite marks etc just that some forms of accepted science behind them have proven to be not concrete yet in court are admissible as if they are and thats the problem.
The point is that in criminal court ANY reasonable doubt means the jury isn't supposed to convict. So, if multiple experts disagree THAT IS reasonable doubt. Further, if such experts consistently disagree and can't determine cause in experimental setups (like explained for bite mark and blood spatter) then it's absolutely unreliable. It's just fake mob justice.
Everyone should be able to call BS when he says all you need is a 40 hour course to be come certified and in a court for blood splatters. Otherwise any competent lawyer would argue that and have the testimony thrown out. Googled it, turns out he was highly exaggerative. 40 hours is the course length for the board that certifies your competency, buuuuut they won't let you into the course unless you have a bachelors with a few year blood splatter experience (or associates with even more years of blood splatter experience). Even then, I found quite a few places that said you need a masters to be competitive for hiring and highly credentialed for court work. Edit: Wanted to add the link to the certifications requirements. theiai.org/bloodstain_certification_requi.php Tldr: Lawyer man argues like lawyer to discredit credentialing and not actual science regarding blood spatters
@LJTherimin It makes a big difference. Id have been happy to look into the science, but instead of going into that he degrades a 6-7 year process of study into one week and moves on. Even moreso he thinks you're idiotic enough to believe it. He's speaking like a lawyer and being as dishonest as the science he rails against. I would have been perfectly happy to believe everything he said as I believe the justice system is fucked up, but when you make a blatantly misleading statement like that, you lose a lot of credibility as far as Im concerned.
@LJTherimin They're incredibly smart guys, they know what they said and both agreed to it. Why say something so incredibly wrong? Its not like they were off a year or six months, they literally told Joe anyone can be in a court room after a 40 hour online course explaining blood splatters when it's going to take someone upwards of 7 years just to become certified let alone reputable enough. I would have loved to hear them talk about why blood splatters are bad science, but they just chose to lie about such a simple detail instead. Edit: also, this isn't an argument. They were factually wrong on a gross scale that can't be chalked up to simply forgetting or smudging numbers.
Connor S While I agree that there may be more to the idea that only a 40-hour course is needed to become a blood splatter expert, I’d like to point out that during the podcast, they do mention some reasons for blood splatter science being inaccurate
Great post. They also are presenting admissable evidence like juries are told these are indisputable facts. The credentials of an expert and the science itself can be argued against. Any lawyer can point to the same committees and studies they cite here to create reasonable doubt. The irony is it's actually part of what makes our justice system work. The problem of inequalities in legal representation because of available economic resources is a different argument all together.
You either get a legal system that convicts lots of innocent people with improper evidence or have lots of guilty people not convinced because is super hard to get appropriate evidence. Before you give an answer think that your neighbor can easily accuse you of something you aren't guilty, you may have a high chance to go to jail and have a ruined life. Just because there's not really a presumption of innocence.
Shaking babies is a real thing. Babies die from it and many times the killers admit that’s what they did. You 💯 % can kill a baby by shaking it. If you believed everything this guy said you wouldn’t think anyone would kill a baby bc he pretty much said that too. Happens all the time
I think the problem is there are people who are convicted of doing that but it turns out they didn't. I've seen cases where an autopsy shows what seems to be "Shaken Baby Syndrome" but video evidence from camaras show the child fell and hit their head and died from that. Had there not been video footage they would have been convicted of killing a child, and that happens.
What else do you expect from defense lawyers? Most of them are disgusting, money grubbing charlatans who defend the worst kinds of people. They lie constantly.
Josh: "people always ask me, well what did he do?" and then laughs Joe: yeah right, what was he accused of Josh: "he didn't do anything, he was sueing someone who screwed him over" shouldn't it be he was sueing someone because he accused someone of screwing him over?
Polygraph not admissible in court but if you want to work for a Police/Fire/EMS Dept. then strap that 100 year old faulty equipment on or you won’t get hired.
I watch shows like Forensic Files and think to myself if I was a juror in these trials when they present forensic science as evidence that it would be hard for me to believe it.
I was accused of a 5 year felony, mdop Prosecuted for almost a year. Harrassing me to take a plea and refusing for me to have a jury trial. I feel the jury of their voters would have known cleaning my backyard wasn't a crime. They spent almost a year trying to cover up their crimes of conspiring to shake us down for 16 grand or put us in prison. My own cousin thinks I must have done something.... We attempted to clean our backyard of garbage on property where we had already cleaned 70 yards of garbage. No welcome wagon, just a paddy wagon. My name is tarnished, charges stay on a permanent record without any explanation as to what really happened.
‘Arson experts are stupid....also later they proved it was an electrical fire’. Pick one. I’m with these guys for the most part but at the same time they sound like any lawyer: I like the evidence that frees my client.
Im guessing a more reliable scientific method was used 17 years later. Like chemical composition tests that could prove lack of kerosene in the recovered materials, or presence of something from electrical components burning as opposed to some guy sifting through the fire and claiming it arson based on a stain he found on a wall.
Judges and prosecutors need to be held legally liable for their mistakes in a VASTLY MORE SEVERE WAY, the threat of consequences for their misconduct to the JIB, prosecutor misconduct board, and the ARDC is nearly non-existent and it needs MUCH MUCH MUCH SHARPER TEETH. The consequences need to be so severe that these parasites rising off co-signed loans and bullshit degrees don’t ever think about hijacking’s a persons freedom or constitutional rights ever again.
Yup just start the fire near a fire hazard such as an electrical socket or oven, anything like that and it becomes literally impossible to determine if the fire was intentional or not.
Dad's best friend's son got locked up for 5 years on shaken baby syndrome. His wife at the time (who was white by the way) got off but he had to serve even though she agreed he didn't do it. This system is so fucked.
@Steven Farmer It just wasn't his character whatsoever. Wasn't his kid but he was nothing but nice to him from what I've seen. No prior convictions. Nothing but a calm and nice person. I don't think he did it. They just decided to throw the book at the black guy. As always.
This was all good until he started using generalizations at 19:45. Still really interesting stuff and i would like someone to come on and "dispute" or attempt to "negate" some of these arguments just to see what the defense would be.
I agree. I obviously recognize that there are huge flaws in the legal system and that it seems to be more of "guilty till proven innocent," but it doesn't help when you have 2 guest that can just present whatever they want however they want. It's interesting, because they bring up confirmation bias, yet someone could sit across the table and accuse them of the same thing. Just because you had one journalist prove your point, it means everyone else is wrong? Now, I am not saying that it is probably unreliable, but in order for their arguments to be more concrete, they needed someone who is knowledgable to negate them, see how the actual discussion plays out.
He is definitely appealing to emotions and the status quo... which is silly, because obviously murder is the exception, not the norm. By the same logic you could argue: 'You and I would never kill somebody - how could anybody do that? That's ridiculous! Therefore, innocence'. The other point about 'Why shake when you can punch' is similarly ludicrous. You could argue it like this: 'Punching babies does not come naturally to normal human beings, whereas shaking people - including babies - does. Often times when we see a friend who is unresponsive, or not responding in a way we would like, our first instinct is to shake them, not blast them in the face with a right hook.'
@Will.J he didn’t really do a good job of explaining I don’t think so either. There are people that hurt their kids but there’s also many that do not. There’s Drs and scientist that are pushing back on the theory now since many of its consensus of yesterday are coming out false. Where in many cases the baby was misdiagnosed or had conditions that drs couldn’t explain. In many cases a family was jailed for it. There’s a ted talk by a Dr. that explains the phenomenon very well. m.ruclips.net/video/O5FyTFs7P7U/видео.html
@@harvestpnw3511I agree with you, and always come at everything first from a contrarian position. My first thought is always to try and find the holes in an argument or theory, even if I can envision the logical progression personally. You should always acknowledge / address the weakness' of your own proposition. However, the real issue we face in this day and age is everyone has their own facts, their own sources. Study outcomes are bought and paid for. The public is manipulated through an avalanche of rapidly dispersed information. Nowadays, it seems, if you can just get passed the event horizon, that critical mass of having JUST enough people to believe what you want them to, it will take on a life of its own. We devolve into sects of continuously opposing forces. Thats why nothing changes and nothing gets solved. Nothing is straightforward. Nothing can be taken for face value.
Holy shit. This stuff is fascinating. I've watched every episode of Forensic Files and only two or three times did I hear them utter the phrase "There is no such thing as a match when it comes to bite marks" Totally going to check out that podcast. That's my next few months of travel to and from work taken care of. :D
"Shaken Baby Syndrome" "A serious brain injury resulting from forcefully shaking an infant or toddler. Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a child in frustration or anger, often because the child won't stop crying. Permanent brain damage or death may result."
Remember when Norm MacDonald was on Conan and he kept repeating that “Andy does not like GAY PoRN at all. Andy and gay porn? no no. Gay porn does is not seen near Andy, Andy and gay gay porn, nope.”. The human mind just associates the two and slanders Andy.
He’s full of shit. Ppl shake babies all the time. They oftentimes admit to it bc they got frustrated at the child. And guy says it’s unbelievable someone would hurt their own child. It happens all the time
The jury that found her guilty as well as the judge and district attorney should all be in prison for ruining that woman's life. Guess what America? This type of false imprisonment happens every day to good and innocent people.
Oh man, this is one of the rare occassions I want to spend time listening to a whole episode (no offense, mister Rogan!) - but it isn't available here on RUclips!?
Man people should really listen to their common sense if they are gifted with it. Ever since I was little I was questioning the validity of how they can possibly know how tall someone was, how they were killed, what types of objects were used to such a degree of certainty. It is probably one of the many reasons i grew up not trusting or respecting the law because even as a child I seen numerous flaws, heard horrific stories, and experienced several traumatic experiences in which every time the 'justice' system made the issue worse and as a result my life more difficult.
It's incredible the amount of stuff we just take for granted because we don't stop to really analyze it. A lot of stuff that we know, when I asked how we know, we have no idea, and a lot of it can have serious doubt cast upon it with even the most basic thought experiments.
I've heard stories about police convincing someone to admit guilt, and that person was innocent. After watching this, I wonder how we can convict anyone of these types of crimes. Seems like a crap shoot , getting the right person convicted.
There can be no perfect system. But I'd rather see capital punishment brought back. Overwhelming evidence should skip you from a trial to the firing squad
As someone who is studying fire protection and safety engineering. I can assure you, that you need much more than 40 hours of training to become an arson investigators. Please look up the CFI and IAAI qualifications to even take the test.
Perhaps a question we all should consider is WHY all this "Junk Science" is allowed to be utilized in any way shape, form or fashion? I suspect one of the reasons is the privatization of prisons and the monies related.
He said it’s junk science and it’s impossible to definitively prove how something may have been the cause of a fire... than 16 years later it was proven to be an electrical fire by an actual expert.. based on the first statement it would also be impossible to prove it started from something electric. Unless of course there is a scientific way to prove these things, and if there is then it can’t be junk science lol..
The consensus of certain sciences changes. This has always been the case with science since for ever it’s how we make progress The problem is people are victimized during this process now because of the legal system. These experts will swear that this is the only cause and there could be no other possibility when it comes to a crime. And Bam someone goes to jail, prosecutors get a win. 20 years later the consensus change. so now this IMPOSSIBLE scenario where the person jailed was actually innocent now becomes a possibility. That’s the problem with junk science it’s 100% fact until years later turns out it’s not OR someone puts the theory to the test and finds it highly unreliable. It’s not just one area of science but it’s many many areas of science to this day. And hundreds of people who are innocent are jailed and prisoned because of it
I saw an episode of Forensic Files years ago where a guy almost went to prison on bullshit bite mark evidence. Turns out he had an uncannily similar bite to the actual perpetrator.
Some things they said make sense, some made no sense. They kept going back to the bite marks, because that's the most solid evidence they have. The other stuff is stretching it.
Actually they didn't even get to everything. For example there is no way to match a single bullet to a box of bullets. Can't be done total bullshit. Yet many people are in jail with just that as evidence. Fingerprints with a small number of points are absolutely useless and total bullshit. Matching carpet fibers bullshit. Tire tread matching like shoe tread matching bullshit. As they mentioned about the only thing in forensics that's reliable is DNA but only when done right and we've seen labs cheat. Then there is the eyewitness very unreliable. Most people are not good observers and memory is very unreliable often filling in gaps based on trying to reach a certain conclusion. So they barely scratched the surface of bullshit.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Could you imagine losing your only child, and on top of that, being accused, charged, and convicted of murdering that child? The mere thought makes my soul implode.
“We all innocent boss”
This is why lawyers tell you to shut up when you're arrested. They know what a joke the legal system is.
Yep. I found out the hard way that you should always exercise your "right to remain silent". Cuz when they say "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law", they mean EXACTLY that. Even if they have to reorganize your sentences, cut&paste your words, use things out of context, etc.. they WILL use anything you say against you.
@You Wish if I remember correctly, pleading the 5th can only be used if it would incriminate yourself. 🤔
I tell people the same thing. I used to be a federal law enforcement officer.
@You Wish Simple rule of thumb. Comply with commands (put your hands here. Step out, etc.) Never answer questions (how much have you had to drink. Where are you going. Is there any money in the car)
You Wish there’s shitty cops. As with any profession.
One of the big lessons we learn when we leave our childhood, grow up and enter the real world is the ridiculous fact that most of what we were told as a child was just opinionated bullshit. I resent quite of few of my teachers for that reason.
When I meet them in modern life, I crucify them. This includes my father a lifetime teacher.
@Vincent Morrison HOLY CRAP! 9-11 anniversary in 3rd grade? wow. you were 8 when I was 30. Oh yeah, and your teacher was an ass.
How brave are you to find the truth? What if depression and anxiety are mostly junk science? What if self-love and empathy have been debunked? What if there's no such thing as is introverts or extroverts? We wonder why nothing makes sense. Maybe now it does
@@lkae4 It certainly feels like that sometimes. Some of depression and anxiety are junk science as both emotions are just a part of the human condition etc. I would not equate the junk science debated here with that though. You do make a valid point. Last. TY for making a solid point and not attacking.
@@josephbussen4365 Depression, ADHD, and anxiety are highly marketable, instead we should embrace these aspects and understand WHY we think like that
While watching this I'm like "damn, this guy can talk". Then I saw he was a lawyer.
dude sick profile pic! one of my favorite albums!
@@JeffWithAnF Me too! Megadeth for life.
My favorite megadeth album, charizard
Lennox is represented by him
There's something captivating about listening to a really articulate person talk about something they feel strongly about. I'm off to look up his podcast now. (Junk science wrongful convictions)
The fact that evidence can be withheld during trial makes me nervous.
Yeah it's like you ever arguing with your girl and half way through realise your wrong and you tone it in like yooo why all the emotion girl we good?
Yeah these guys don't do that. They manipulate us.
Absolutely
Duke lacrosse, Branch Davidians, Ghislaine Maxwell, DONALD TRUMP... think about the ones we don't know....
@@jacknapier6668that example you gave literally is manipulative…. Or is that supposed to be the joke ?
@@caitybug. did you live near some power lines when you were just a tot?
Prosecution in America seems to be going for convictions instead of truth and justice
If someone goes to jail, the victims and the public believe justice was served.
No legal system wants to admit that the bad guy got away.
Bingo
High conviction rates justify higher law enforcement budgets. Last time I was almost on a jury it was a DV case where the witness recanted their story but DA still pursued prosecution. When it was my turn to answer the question if I’d have an issue potentially handing a guilty verdict where the witness recanted I said damn right I would. I’m guessing this was a lover’s quarrel that got out of hand, she called the cops to show him he would, now you’re speaking a conviction to pad your numbers.
“Thank you you’re service is done for the day.” I wanted to be on it tho. Never once been on a jury lol maybe it would help it I loved government
"The walls of justice are painted green"
Metallica
Thats right thats all it is. Once youre accused and put in jail you are guilty already.
About blood splatter, blood isn't a newtonian fluid, meaning its viscosity changes when under force, so it gets even harder to tell how it would move since its viscosity isn't costant
Isn't it blood spatter?
Also in a cadaver the blood is coagulated.
@@doritodip8410 Yep spatter is the correct term, ALOT of people call it splatter, however I still find Michelle's comment interesting 🙂
This guy never lost an argument with his wife.
There is no winning an argument with your wife, even when you win you lose.
@@2011blueman yep, the best way to 'win' an argument with a woman is to exaggerate or avoid
@@2011blueman they argue like lawyers instead of scientists
klaus 420 hahahaha
Watch this, honey
I get nervous talking to anyone, a lie detector would destroy me lol
I used sweat to profusely during job interviews. I started mediating beforehand so I could be a little more relaxed. There's no way I'd pass a lie detector test...
Same here
@Jon L -George Costanza
You do not have to do a lie detector test (5th amendment) if police ask you. Unless you’re dumb enough to say yes
Yeah, lie detectors will prosecute the considerate (innocent) introverts and exonerate the (guilty) psychopath extroverts.
"Thank for coming in today Mr Killer, you're free to go." haha
The contempt he has for the people he’s talking about is incredible, this guy is amazing
You know that this guy is a major fraud right ?
@@ladsd679 you must be an odontologist he put out of work
@@ladsd679 how so? Never seen these before and am curious to learn more
@@ladsd679 yeah they both seem full of crap. People don't shake babies? What about all of the times it was recorded on hidden nanny cameras?
@@ladsd679 explain
"They did a study where they had people with no teeth bite human skin." - Imagine doing the recruitment of volunteers for that study. ;-)
meth den
Excuse me...not everyone that has lost teeth is due to drugs!! I have a severe disease that took away my teeth, I was born with no enamel...I have shitty medical assistance...they pulled my teeth...now everyone just assumes I’m a meth head
@@jeanakatherine9369 I'm sorry to hear that, that's terrible. I feel you tho I started balding in middle school due to a medical condition and looking like a fat balding middle aged man at 10 years old is pretty rough.
Baby take your teeth out, give it a try
@@jeanakatherine9369 Wow!! That's too bad......but also too rare for any of us to give a fuck.
The joke was still funny. Sorry.
Polygraphs were designed as an interrogation tool to make you confess to something. For that they work really well!
Mainly if they can convince you that the polygraph works though. I had a friend who's father was a retired forensic psychophysiologist. I took the test 3 times, was completely honest, and "failed" all 3 times.
@@Subfightr I took it once and passed. All you have to do is take half a Xanax and you can can pretty much lie about anything...And that`s one of the problems with it. I hate it when people call it a `lie detector` as it doesn`t detect lies! It detects vital signs in your body and an examiner decides if the changes constitute a deception or not. Polygraphs are also inadmissible in a court of law, because they don`t actually work.
@Marten Dekker the inventor of the polygraph is named William Moulton Marsten and he also created Wonder Woman
Oh, you mean the LIE BOX?
I took it when I applied to the NSA. The administrator said I had smoked weed. I never had. He let me do it again. This time, he said I had given classified info to the enemy and committed murder. 😐🙄
@@greeneyedbandit528 yeah, that didn't happen
This dude just crushed Dexter's fanbase. 😂
Not really, dexters a TV show. No one thinks of it as academic fact.
I mean it takes him a season to catch the bad guy so I guess the shows pretty accurate lmao
Meh, does anyone watch Dexter for crime analysis lmao?
When they killed off the Black detective, that was the last episode for me.
@@aadezo4607 He was anoying . I quess you do not like that he killed only one black man in the show.
All you have to do is play one round of Among Us to see how easily people get wrongly convicted
Or how unreliable eyewitnesses are
Whenever he says "watch this", im all focused in.
Haha but ye sometimes he's already explaining some super intense shit, and then drops the "watch this", and I'm thinking "holy fucking fuck this is wild as a motherfuck"
When I was nineteen years old I got jury duty and I still feel like it was the most important thing I've ever been asked to do. The case was fucking crazy and there was so much outrage that some people, including some jurors, didn't care about the evidence, they just wanted to see someone get punished. But it was all bullshit, and because of a few people taking time and care, the guy didn't have his life destroyed.
Everyone should do jury duty, whatever the verdict they'll be changing someone's entire world, and it's important to take that responsibility seriously.
My ex wife ended up on jury duty she told me everything that was going on in it I restrained myself from giving my opinions and simply listened because I didn't want to interfere as it is illegal! She convicted a homeless man found passed out that woke in the hospital freaking out trying to sit up looking for his bag the emt forced him back down and the man landed a glancing blow to the emt the emt wasn't hurt but told his boss who forced him to press charges regardless of the fact that he didn't want to and was uninjured! She convicted him of assault to a health care worker and was sentenced to be sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison! I regret not giving her feedback she just kept saying that the law was the law and had no concept of temporary insanity or jury nullification that the main reason we have juries is that if we don't believe it's just we can prevent government from destroying people's lives!
And I bet they were all white who wanted to see someone get punished for absolutely nothing guaranteed.
Here come the angry Odontologists
ruclips.net/video/6XA5SMNfCJw/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/7KxSUM9B-ak/видео.html
All that comes is a spammer from india xD
@@thekito4623 hahahaha
Cops, lawyers n judges who wrongfully convict people should be brought up on charges themselves!!
That would be the definition of justice!!
Check it out, a % of child support payments go towards judicial retirement funds ...
Jury decides 🤷♀️ so... 🙄
I thought that other dude was an old ray romano haha
I've felt this way since the 1st time I got in trouble back in the early 90s. I'm glad people like this exist. I wish I could work for this dude.
@Shaun Lowe Call him---see if he's got an opening. Seriously.
I studied “forensic engineering” in the UK for four years which is far removed from this BUT the first thing we were taught was the damage of mis-conviction and how it was way way worse for a system to create false positives than to let guilt people go.
I think the American system is far more.. problematic, shall we say, that the UK or other places.
There is a confusion for odontological evidence between dental records for identification and bite marks. Dental records for identification of remains is pretty accurate.
So Dexter makes more sense now. He wasnt just hiding it with hidden rooms and plastic but he was also feeding his coworkers poopoo evidence
The plot thickens….
He was always disposing, planting and manipulating the evidence and how it was interpreted
God please type like an actual adult
@@ey3z4ya no fys, its the internet not an essay leave your public education indoctrination behind.
Unfortunately we have a justice system that's priority is convictions not finding the truth.
0:40 "And what if you're a chimp? Can chimps beat polygraph tests? Jamie pull that up"
"Will the results change if you take DMT before the test?"
@@xyzmediaandentertainment8313 Make me
I always feel weird when people besides Joe ask Jamie to look something up lol
I agree. Like someone asking for a bite of food off of your plate, but they hit it with a fork before you answer.
Lmfao
Why? That's Jamie's job to pull up shit
Same. Except when Gavin did it.
I had Jury Duty early this year, and the guy was accused of Auto Burglary. The detectives said they had the person admitting to the crime on tape, but wouldn’t show us the tape after we requested it, so there was 0 evidence shown tying this guy to the burglaries so we found him innocent. Innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Sounds like they beat the shit out of him.
@@bp56789 nah he wasn’t beat up or anything. I think they were trying to throw the charges on him because it was a wealthy neighborhood whose cars were getting burglarized. They said he admitted to the crimes so his nephew wouldn’t get charged, but wouldn’t provide us with he recording smh.
Sheldon Johnson just destroyed Josh Dubin's whole business model, and im here for it.
About ⅔ of the way through, one of the biggest problems is touched on briefly, 'Brady violations'. For those who don't know, a Brady violation occurs when prosecutors withhold potentially exculpatory evidence from the defence. It's a _huge_ problem. The prosecution is required to give the defence all the evidence they're planning to present at trial.
What would the steel man reason for them not giving it be?
You have it right about the Brady violation. Just the last sentence added is wrong. They have to share the evidence regardless if they want to present it or not.
Nah man
@@ashersmith1326 I'm not sure about a 'steel man' take on the matter or even what the word is that describes such terms lol
But surely not sharing the evidence you plan to present means that the defense cannot properly prepare to explain or defend your statements on certain matters. So for that piece of evidence to be addressed it would either have to be postponed, or make the defence look like they have no explanation or alibi for the surprise evidence presented; even tho it could have been a completely explainable, non-convicting, piece of evidence.
@@ashersmith1326typically the ruse is ‘we lost this evidence!! Therefore we could not have known it needed to be turned over, or the strength of the argument it presented!’ Along with gibberish about it not be logged into evidence, typically.
I have lost count how many times I’ve heard this excuse, but suffice to say it’s the new ‘my dog ate my homework’.
What’s terrifying is the sheer volume of cases that the DA/prosecutor is aware of and knows these convicted are innocent and still defiantly stand behind a bogus conviction. It’s horrifyingly rare to see one who does right by those falsely convicted, and terrifying how easily it occurs.
I bet Ted Bundy wishes he had that info on bite marks.
Thought the same thing.
He’s innocent 😤
I've been through our court system many times its a mockery of justice
I’m sure every lawyer has different kinds of evidence they hate. Different kinds they love.
depends on the kind of lawyer you are. If you are one that cares more about winning cases and getting money, then whatever evidence helps you. If you are like these guys that care about the truth and helping the innocent, then you'd want to dismiss evidence that has no scientific backing.
A trial isnt about finding the truth. Its about convincing a jury. And whether the state is going to lose. Spoiler alert. They will win at ANY COST,and if you dont think that, you have never seen the amount of cases thats been brought against corrupt DA's. For every 5 DAs, there are 4 that promotion at any cost, ie conviction at and cost, is their whole life. You dont matter. Just your name added to the others in their conviction rate.
@@rickp46 That's exactly what I think when I hear about people that brag about their "100% conviction rates" when running for offices and etc (Judge Pirro, Kamala Harris, etc, that brag about conviction ratings like they're some kind of badge of honor).
I think, "You mean to tell me... That EVERY person you went after, every single one, happened to be guilty??? Not a single time in umpteen years of your career, not once, did you make a mistake or have a false assumption against the defendant?!? .... Rigghhtttt..."
That's impossible, unless you're convicting at all costs, using illegal tactics to hide exonerating evidence, or just straight up refusing to let an innocent person walk and offering ridiculous pleas JUST to get the conviction out of them to not ruin your prosecution rate that you're treating as a fucking batting average....
Source: Started out as a prosecutor, then turned criminal defense attorney, once I seen and realized how bad the fuckery was with the DA and all other ADA's.. I could tell you shit that would blow your mind, that happens every day across the country in police stations, courtrooms and DA offices, that trample on the premise of finding the truth and serving justice...
Sadly, just like you've said, it's all about personal promotion, selfish desires for self wealth, and people trying to get ahead at all costs - with people's lives at stake and being ruined over it all.
He’s wrong about DNA. They use one of two test, neither of which match 100%. The first is a fast and cheap test that matches to 1 in 4800, the other match’s to 1 in 48,000. That means that if you live in a city of 1 million people, there are 208 match’s to the first test, and at least 20 to the second. In a court of law, if your lawyer does not ask if the prosecution had located the other 200 people the test matched to, them your lawyer F’d up. This is why there are innocent people in prison that were convicted with DNA evidence, and why District Attorneys do not want DNA convictions retested.
Reference please? Would appreciate it.
Yep he’s wrong
@@Cryptum404
I linked 12 articles, which appear to have been removed. Interesting, that.
Yes but the point is if there is any other evidence that links you to the crime and your DNA also matches to 1 in 48000, then there is a high likelihood that you’re guilty. DNA evidence shouldn’t be enough on its own but alongside any other evidence linking you to the crime (which is usually the only way you’d have your DNA tested in the first place), it is compelling.
@@criert135
Incorrect. All it does is put you in a pool of suspects. It could be transfer DNA, it could anyone of 200+ per million or so other people the test also identified. Without more, such as motive, opportunity, witnesses, and a demonstration that you would have committed that specific crime, you can in fact challenge the DNA findings.
Refering for his first example of his dental analysis to case 1690 😂😂😂
From top to bottom our judicial system is tragically dangerous.
Everything in our society needs to be examined. That's where we are
No it doesn’t.
I’ve always wondered if drug sniffing dogs are more than 50% accurate. Should they count as probable cause?
*If* you can afford a decent lawyer, they can request the “stats” for that particular K9...I’m not sure if there is any kind of benchmark but the worse the stats (successful ‘hits’ vs unsuccessful), but it’s more reasonable doubt you’ve created. Now the problem of course is how much actual oversight or verification exists for such statistics...when a dog supposedly hits but nothing turns up, how often Does that officer just omit the K9s participation entirely ?
Dogs are dodgy af. They might be good under the right conditions, but they suffer from smell fatigue and their 'accuracy' drops of over a few hours. I spent 2 hours being questioned and search at Hamburg Airport because a dog 'detected' something on me. I'd been clean for years at the time.
Its not even 15%
anyone can trick a dog to hit. Dirty cops
I have been pulled over and my car was sniffed by a k9 unit. The dog "indicated" the officers searched , found nothing , told me my car matched a description . it's was back in 2000, I was driving a pontiac sunfire, it matched a million descriptions at the time. Also I had just bought the car about 5 hours before it was searched. When the police found nothing they became angry with me like it was my fault that they were wrong. One of them kept asking me where "it" was. It, meaning drugs. I've never taken a single illegal drug in my entire life. Eventually they let me go, after completely destroying the inside of my car and didn't even offer help to repair anything , they told me they weren't liable . fucking idiots.
Doesn't presumption of guilt start in the home and schools when your a kid? I remember a principle in my middle school that flat out told me perception is 9/10 of the law in "his" school. I was told the same thing when I was in the military. People are taught to presume guilt from the start.
Management of Perspectives or perceptions 👍 Shakin that Bush Boss
The phrase is " possession is x/xths of the law". So either you heard wrong/misremembering or your principal is an idiot
Schools and the Army are not a court of law. "Innocent until proven guilty... IN A COURT OF LAW." Never watched Cops? Different circumstances, different rules. You confused them.
19:43-19:53 does this guy really not think that a parent would kill their own kid? They have buddy, sorry to burst you bubble. Agree there is a lot of fuckery going on to convict innocent people but do these guys think everybody is innocent?!
Right. I've seen it on video when nannies or parents get frustrated with a crying baby
Minnie Robinson www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/shaken-baby-syndrome/Doctors-who-defend-shaking-diagnosis-dismiss-scientific-challenges.html
Can you prove the woman did it? Or are you presuming guilt?
@@TheZachary86 I am not talking about a particular case, or denying the science seems questionable. I am pointing out this guy seems to think you have to suspend disbelief in order to think a woman/mother would kill ever thier own kid... He is clearly 100%wrong. And the bullshit about not being able to hold a baby out at arms length because they are too heavy, that was bullshit science. Pot kettle right there. Infanticide tragically has happened and will continue to happen.
@@yomo1690 that is the point, you SHOULD think everybody is innocent until proven otherwise. Parent would not kill their own child, that is right assumption. Criminal system should not treat everybody as a psychopath by default.
The real reason Dexter went into hiding
Babies delivered with forceps or suction cup can die of brain damage even a couple of years after birth. In many of these cases a parent is convicted of shaken baby syndrome. It’s ridiculous
I'm sick. That was all just sad and sick
And I’m sure someone is gonna try telling me that isn’t Ray Romano
Rather have 10 guilty go free then have one innocent suffer
How may innocent will suffer at the hands of those ten?
@@evilestmonkeey The point of this quote is to express that a justice system isn't just if it convicts the innocent.
To answer your question, can't really say. But if the innocent practice their second amendment then not many.
@Classes S I don't believe my logic to be twisted and if you find it wrong the please explain. Btw, What ratio do you think is best?
@Classes S Yes, in an ideal world, we would have all guilty people locked up and innocent people free. But unfortunately, we are human and we are prone to errors. So when I say a just justice system, it is one within reason. To expect our judgement to be right 100% of the time is unreasonable.
I believe this ideal would only be possible with 24/7 monitoring and an AI justice system but even then there would be some flaws. We would have to sacrifice a whole lot of freedoms and put our trust in an AI system that was designed by humans. That's right, by us, so that may even be murky aswell.
@Classes S Maybe, maybe not. Quantity wise, yes. There would be more victims letting 10 guilty free. But suffering wise? I think the he innocent going to jail suffers the same, if not more, amount as the sum total of victims that the freed guilty create. But we can't quantify suffering.
Another imperfection of humans is that we are obsessed with what we can quantify or with what we can hold. It's hard to see past the tangible and look at the immeasurable.
This is like the stuff the country needs but doesn't know it needs.
John stossel talked about this years ago I remember
I love John Stossel despite not being a libertarian myself.
The only thing I know about John Stossel is that he got the shit slapped out of him by Dr. D David Schultz and it was absolutely hilarious what a big pussy he was about it
@@rocky7895 If I remember right his own tag team partner said it was fake and started it and Vince used him as a throw away pitbull after telling him to do it getting rid of him like the trash I think john looked like a bitch at the moment but it doesn't matter vs his work good and bad in showing the dark side of shit
@@Apolloneek i mean he got sued by John Stossel in court for real so i dont think it was fake or he wouldnt have lost the case. And i honestly just thought it was hilarious. I've never seen any of his other work so idk lol maybe ill check it out
@@rocky7895 Yeah I get it watch the dark side of the ring on vice that's where I was able to repeice alot I had forgot from seeing on 20/20 and honestly him sueing Vince and WWF for half a million looks good to me because of how big a p.o.s vince is glad dave didn't pay a dime. Also I wouldn't fan girl for john stossel in a million years but he does uncover alot of bullshit no other reporter does
These two made me suspect that they were shady when they talked about Kamala Harris' past, but would still vote for her. They really lost me on the "shaken baby" syndrome. I am am old emergency dept RN and know what people are capable of. Sometimes there are monsters out there.
“Watch this”
Proceeds to talk
I completely support these guys and what they do. As a cop and a human being, I am devastated by the fact that there are flaws which convict innocent people. That said, becareful. He is only speaking from one side of the story. A defense attorney will try to discredit anything other than DNA. And once they are all discredited, they will go after DNA next. All evidence, even a direct confession, is open to interpretation by the jury.
As it should be. We’ve seen plenty of cases in the US alone where direct confessions were obtained under duress or by other questionable means. All evidence needs to be carefully scrutinized, because we know junk science exists, corrupt police and prosecutors exist, frame up jobs do happen. We can’t assume people in authority or “experts” are telling the truth any more than we can assume the accused is telling the truth. It’s not about the objective truth, it’s about what we can prove is true. I’m sure police, prosecutors, and defense attorneys all have tough jobs. But they also have the power to destroy peoples lives, and need to always be conscious of the fact that their actions have real world ramifications. Accountability isn’t just for civilians, it should be for everyone.
As if you didn’t know about innocent people being stitched up by the police😏
Depends if the confession is in front of a courtroom or not, confession in front of a police officer is inadmissible as an evidence if I'm not mistaken? Or maybe it could be used for corroboration.
My ex girlfriend must have been a Hickeytologist because she knew that the hickey I had on my neck wasn't made by her. 😂
When your lawyer & the judge both own stock in a private prison:
AND theyre talking about how arson science is complete BS, then praised the "actual expert" who proved that it was an electrical fire in the ladys case. What science did they use? Either its BS or its not, whats the deal?\
Listen to what he says carefully. They're gripe is arson "experts" who don't fully investigate things evidenced by the fact you can be an arson expert with a 40 hour only course.
The first arson expert claimed she did it using kerosene fuel left over from previous owners of the trailer. But a more thorough investigation done 17 years later proved there was no fuel accelerants there and that the only possible cause would have been electrical which while you set up an arson attempt that way would almost never be done when simply using fuel is much easier.
They arent saying there is no science behind arson, bite marks etc just that some forms of accepted science behind them have proven to be not concrete yet in court are admissible as if they are and thats the problem.
Arson experts are always disagreeing with each other, that should tell you something
The point is that in criminal court ANY reasonable doubt means the jury isn't supposed to convict. So, if multiple experts disagree THAT IS reasonable doubt. Further, if such experts consistently disagree and can't determine cause in experimental setups (like explained for bite mark and blood spatter) then it's absolutely unreliable. It's just fake mob justice.
You gotta love the interdimensional guests like “Yeah, I’ve been here the whole time.”
Everyone should be able to call BS when he says all you need is a 40 hour course to be come certified and in a court for blood splatters. Otherwise any competent lawyer would argue that and have the testimony thrown out. Googled it, turns out he was highly exaggerative.
40 hours is the course length for the board that certifies your competency, buuuuut they won't let you into the course unless you have a bachelors with a few year blood splatter experience (or associates with even more years of blood splatter experience). Even then, I found quite a few places that said you need a masters to be competitive for hiring and highly credentialed for court work.
Edit: Wanted to add the link to the certifications requirements.
theiai.org/bloodstain_certification_requi.php
Tldr: Lawyer man argues like lawyer to discredit credentialing and not actual science regarding blood spatters
@LJTherimin It makes a big difference. Id have been happy to look into the science, but instead of going into that he degrades a 6-7 year process of study into one week and moves on. Even moreso he thinks you're idiotic enough to believe it.
He's speaking like a lawyer and being as dishonest as the science he rails against. I would have been perfectly happy to believe everything he said as I believe the justice system is fucked up, but when you make a blatantly misleading statement like that, you lose a lot of credibility as far as Im concerned.
@LJTherimin They're incredibly smart guys, they know what they said and both agreed to it. Why say something so incredibly wrong? Its not like they were off a year or six months, they literally told Joe anyone can be in a court room after a 40 hour online course explaining blood splatters when it's going to take someone upwards of 7 years just to become certified let alone reputable enough.
I would have loved to hear them talk about why blood splatters are bad science, but they just chose to lie about such a simple detail instead.
Edit: also, this isn't an argument. They were factually wrong on a gross scale that can't be chalked up to simply forgetting or smudging numbers.
Good work, Connor.
Connor S While I agree that there may be more to the idea that only a 40-hour course is needed to become a blood splatter expert, I’d like to point out that during the podcast, they do mention some reasons for blood splatter science being inaccurate
Great post. They also are presenting admissable evidence like juries are told these are indisputable facts. The credentials of an expert and the science itself can be argued against. Any lawyer can point to the same committees and studies they cite here to create reasonable doubt. The irony is it's actually part of what makes our justice system work.
The problem of inequalities in legal representation because of available economic resources is a different argument all together.
Thank you for bringing this to light
So according to them what evidence should be used to convict someone?
You either get a legal system that convicts lots of innocent people with improper evidence or have lots of guilty people not convinced because is super hard to get appropriate evidence. Before you give an answer think that your neighbor can easily accuse you of something you aren't guilty, you may have a high chance to go to jail and have a ruined life. Just because there's not really a presumption of innocence.
thats not our problem, the burden of proof is on the State
I would absolutely NOT want myself as a juror.
Shaking babies is a real thing. Babies die from it and many times the killers admit that’s what they did. You 💯 % can kill a baby by shaking it. If you believed everything this guy said you wouldn’t think anyone would kill a baby bc he pretty much said that too. Happens all the time
when a baby is crying people will often resort to shaking it to shut it up. hell, even when a grown person is crying people will try to shake them!
I think the problem is there are people who are convicted of doing that but it turns out they didn't. I've seen cases where an autopsy shows what seems to be "Shaken Baby Syndrome" but video evidence from camaras show the child fell and hit their head and died from that. Had there not been video footage they would have been convicted of killing a child, and that happens.
What else do you expect from defense lawyers? Most of them are disgusting, money grubbing charlatans who defend the worst kinds of people. They lie constantly.
Andrew and prosecutors are power hungry amoral people who care far more about convictions then getting the right man by any means necessary
@@Andrew-hk8qi They all lie to win, playing games with dumbass technicalities.
I have failed 2 lie detector tests and I was telling the truth.
The Green River Killer passed two tests years before they arrested him. I would never take one, innocent or guilty
Me too. It was for a job. A cousin who would steal from family passed and was hired.
Him: So watch this!
Me: Okay!
No matter what way we go, ALL of it HAS to be scrutinized each and every time no exceptions.
Josh: "people always ask me, well what did he do?" and then laughs
Joe: yeah right, what was he accused of
Josh: "he didn't do anything, he was sueing someone who screwed him over"
shouldn't it be he was sueing someone because he accused someone of screwing him over?
He was making a statement post trial instead of asking a question. He won so the manager had screwed his client over.
Polygraph not admissible in court but if you want to work for a Police/Fire/EMS Dept. then strap that 100 year old faulty equipment on or you won’t get hired.
I watch shows like Forensic Files and think to myself if I was a juror in these trials when they present forensic science as evidence that it would be hard for me to believe it.
I was accused of a 5 year felony, mdop
Prosecuted for almost a year.
Harrassing me to take a plea and refusing for me to have a jury trial.
I feel the jury of their voters would have known cleaning my backyard wasn't a crime.
They spent almost a year trying to cover up their crimes of conspiring to shake us down for 16 grand or put us in prison.
My own cousin thinks I must have done something.... We attempted to clean our backyard of garbage on property where we had already cleaned 70 yards of garbage.
No welcome wagon, just a paddy wagon.
My name is tarnished, charges stay on a permanent record without any explanation as to what really happened.
‘Arson experts are stupid....also later they proved it was an electrical fire’. Pick one. I’m with these guys for the most part but at the same time they sound like any lawyer: I like the evidence that frees my client.
BobbyG The world’s leading expert? You’d figure someone like that would have a name.
omnivore gains And it was also apparently ‘proved’ seventeen years prior.
Im guessing a more reliable scientific method was used 17 years later. Like chemical composition tests that could prove lack of kerosene in the recovered materials, or presence of something from electrical components burning as opposed to some guy sifting through the fire and claiming it arson based on a stain he found on a wall.
As a fire investigator I agree. Any profession had worthless whores that are willing to testify to anything.
Judges and prosecutors need to be held legally liable for their mistakes in a VASTLY MORE SEVERE WAY, the threat of consequences for their misconduct to the JIB, prosecutor misconduct board, and the ARDC is nearly non-existent and it needs MUCH MUCH MUCH SHARPER TEETH. The consequences need to be so severe that these parasites rising off co-signed loans and bullshit degrees don’t ever think about hijacking’s a persons freedom or constitutional rights ever again.
When my cousin became an Arson Investigator I remember asking him how easy is it to get away with arson. Incredibly easy.
Yup just start the fire near a fire hazard such as an electrical socket or oven, anything like that and it becomes literally impossible to determine if the fire was intentional or not.
This is terrifying.
I have watched a boatload of True Crime Shows. This man is a wakeup call!
“I’ve seen it in movies. That’s all bullshit?”
Dad's best friend's son got locked up for 5 years on shaken baby syndrome. His wife at the time (who was white by the way) got off but he had to serve even though she agreed he didn't do it. This system is so fucked.
@Steven Farmer It just wasn't his character whatsoever. Wasn't his kid but he was nothing but nice to him from what I've seen. No prior convictions. Nothing but a calm and nice person. I don't think he did it. They just decided to throw the book at the black guy. As always.
This was all good until he started using generalizations at 19:45. Still really interesting stuff and i would like someone to come on and "dispute" or attempt to "negate" some of these arguments just to see what the defense would be.
I agree. I obviously recognize that there are huge flaws in the legal system and that it seems to be more of "guilty till proven innocent," but it doesn't help when you have 2 guest that can just present whatever they want however they want. It's interesting, because they bring up confirmation bias, yet someone could sit across the table and accuse them of the same thing. Just because you had one journalist prove your point, it means everyone else is wrong? Now, I am not saying that it is probably unreliable, but in order for their arguments to be more concrete, they needed someone who is knowledgable to negate them, see how the actual discussion plays out.
He is definitely appealing to emotions and the status quo... which is silly, because obviously murder is the exception, not the norm. By the same logic you could argue: 'You and I would never kill somebody - how could anybody do that? That's ridiculous! Therefore, innocence'. The other point about 'Why shake when you can punch' is similarly ludicrous. You could argue it like this: 'Punching babies does not come naturally to normal human beings, whereas shaking people - including babies - does. Often times when we see a friend who is unresponsive, or not responding in a way we would like, our first instinct is to shake them, not blast them in the face with a right hook.'
@Will.J he didn’t really do a good job of explaining I don’t think so either. There are people that hurt their kids but there’s also many that do not. There’s Drs and scientist that are pushing back on the theory now since many of its consensus of yesterday are coming out false. Where in many cases the baby was misdiagnosed or had conditions that drs couldn’t explain. In many cases a family was jailed for it.
There’s a ted talk by a Dr. that explains the phenomenon very well.
m.ruclips.net/video/O5FyTFs7P7U/видео.html
@@harvestpnw3511I agree with you, and always come at everything first from a contrarian position. My first thought is always to try and find the holes in an argument or theory, even if I can envision the logical progression personally. You should always acknowledge / address the weakness' of your own proposition. However, the real issue we face in this day and age is everyone has their own facts, their own sources. Study outcomes are bought and paid for. The public is manipulated through an avalanche of rapidly dispersed information. Nowadays, it seems, if you can just get passed the event horizon, that critical mass of having JUST enough people to believe what you want them to, it will take on a life of its own. We devolve into sects of continuously opposing forces. Thats why nothing changes and nothing gets solved. Nothing is straightforward. Nothing can be taken for face value.
Have four letters after my name, MSFS, in criminology. Paid hired guns. One of the lectures that I had in college was, "Make sure you GET PAID"
Holy shit. This stuff is fascinating. I've watched every episode of Forensic Files and only two or three times did I hear them utter the phrase "There is no such thing as a match when it comes to bite marks"
Totally going to check out that podcast. That's my next few months of travel to and from work taken care of. :D
“People don’t shake babies”
*Me shaking a baby:* 👀
"That fancies themselves as bite mark specialists" oooooOO
Other then losing a child being wrongfully convicted of a serious crime is the worst thing I can imagine. And it happens all the time in the U.S.
So nobody has ever shaken a baby, ever, in desperation, trying to make it stop crying?
That’s what I’m thinking. I know for damn sure it happens sometimes
"Shaken Baby Syndrome"
"A serious brain injury resulting from forcefully shaking an infant or toddler.
Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a child in frustration or anger, often because the child won't stop crying. Permanent brain damage or death may result."
According to these guys, no one has ever committed a crime.
Remember when Norm MacDonald was on Conan and he kept repeating that “Andy does not like GAY PoRN at all. Andy and gay porn? no no. Gay porn does is not seen near Andy, Andy and gay gay porn, nope.”. The human mind just associates the two and slanders Andy.
What an eye opening clip. I never knew any of this. Thank you so much for sharing!
He’s full of shit. Ppl shake babies all the time. They oftentimes admit to it bc they got frustrated at the child. And guy says it’s unbelievable someone would hurt their own child. It happens all the time
Bite marks not convictable? I now have 32 reasons to smile, right ladies?
---Ted Bundy
The jury that found her guilty as well as the judge and district attorney should all be in prison for ruining that woman's life. Guess what America? This type of false imprisonment happens every day to good and innocent people.
The man, the myth, the legend, the wizard of all wizards, thank you Jamie for another great clip homie.
Oh man, this is one of the rare occassions I want to spend time listening to a whole episode (no offense, mister Rogan!) - but it isn't available here on RUclips!?
This one was from last year before moving to Spotify, the link is in the description
@@donny9078 The link doesn't work, and I can't find the episode by searching RUclips either, that's why I'm asking.
Man people should really listen to their common sense if they are gifted with it. Ever since I was little I was questioning the validity of how they can possibly know how tall someone was, how they were killed, what types of objects were used to such a degree of certainty. It is probably one of the many reasons i grew up not trusting or respecting the law because even as a child I seen numerous flaws, heard horrific stories, and experienced several traumatic experiences in which every time the 'justice' system made the issue worse and as a result my life more difficult.
It's incredible the amount of stuff we just take for granted because we don't stop to really analyze it. A lot of stuff that we know, when I asked how we know, we have no idea, and a lot of it can have serious doubt cast upon it with even the most basic thought experiments.
Polygraphs aren’t admissible? I had no idea because I haven’t watched a true crime show EVER 🙄
I've heard stories about police convincing someone to admit guilt, and that person was innocent. After watching this, I wonder how we can convict anyone of these types of crimes.
Seems like a crap shoot , getting the right person convicted.
There can be no perfect system. But I'd rather see capital punishment brought back. Overwhelming evidence should skip you from a trial to the firing squad
As someone who is studying fire protection and safety engineering. I can assure you, that you need much more than 40 hours of training to become an arson investigators. Please look up the CFI and IAAI qualifications to even take the test.
Podcast people like to pretend they’re experts on everything
Perhaps a question we all should consider is WHY all this "Junk Science" is allowed to be utilized in any way shape, form or fashion? I suspect one of the reasons is the privatization of prisons and the monies related.
He says it was determined by actual experts to be an electrical fire what makes them actual experts
More than a 40h correspondence course at a real university?
Electrical engineering degrees maybe?
He said it’s junk science and it’s impossible to definitively prove how something may have been the cause of a fire... than 16 years later it was proven to be an electrical fire by an actual expert.. based on the first statement it would also be impossible to prove it started from something electric. Unless of course there is a scientific way to prove these things, and if there is then it can’t be junk science lol..
So you also heard what they said about Kamala Harris then...amazing. Lawyers really are scum.
The consensus of certain sciences changes. This has always been the case with science since for ever it’s how we make progress
The problem is people are victimized during this process now because of the legal system. These experts will swear that this is the only cause and there could be no other possibility when it comes to a crime. And Bam someone goes to jail, prosecutors get a win.
20 years later the consensus change. so now this IMPOSSIBLE scenario where the person jailed was actually innocent now becomes a possibility.
That’s the problem with junk science it’s 100% fact until years later turns out it’s not OR someone puts the theory to the test and finds it highly unreliable. It’s not just one area of science but it’s many many areas of science to this day. And hundreds of people who are innocent are jailed and prisoned because of it
My house fire was ruled an electrical fire. We were on a year-long vacation, so we had the power turned off. It didn't even have a meter in the base.
I saw an episode of Forensic Files years ago where a guy almost went to prison on bullshit bite mark evidence. Turns out he had an uncannily similar bite to the actual perpetrator.
I just commented about that episode, great show and bite mark "evidence" is such BS.
Anecdotes do not make entire fields junk
Some things they said make sense, some made no sense. They kept going back to the bite marks, because that's the most solid evidence they have. The other stuff is stretching it.
Actually they didn't even get to everything. For example there is no way to match a single bullet to a box of bullets. Can't be done total bullshit. Yet many people are in jail with just that as evidence. Fingerprints with a small number of points are absolutely useless and total bullshit. Matching carpet fibers bullshit. Tire tread matching like shoe tread matching bullshit. As they mentioned about the only thing in forensics that's reliable is DNA but only when done right and we've seen labs cheat. Then there is the eyewitness very unreliable. Most people are not good observers and memory is very unreliable often filling in gaps based on trying to reach a certain conclusion. So they barely scratched the surface of bullshit.
Polygraphs are absolutely admissible in court. Not in every situation and not in every state but they are used in court.
Dexter just got furloughed.
Sherlock Homes (a fictional character) said it best:
_"Twist the theories to fit the facts, instead of the facts to fit the theories"_