> You're clearly talking out of ignorance based on your own interpretation of how policing is done I am someone who knows someone who was convicted over purely

> You're clearly talking out of ignorance based on your own interpretation of how policing is done I am someone who knows someone who was convicted over purely circumstantial evidence, and I am only making the claim that we've built a system that leads to wrongful convictions in the face of incomplete evidence. The sibling comment gave 60 cases that would back this claim up, and you responded with "well that's just going to happen by law of large numbers." It's very easy to say it just happens when it hasn't happened to you. Don't be an ass.