3 ms·

But only because of a pure fluke. If not for that extraordinary evidence, would they have been exonerated? I'm not saying justice is useless and broken (at leas

by RevEng 2y ago

But only because of a pure fluke. If not for that extraordinary evidence, would they have been exonerated? I'm not saying justice is useless and broken (at least not in this way), but innocent people being found guilty on insufficient evidence does happen and far more often than people would think. It's a serious problem that needs to be addressed, but the people it happens to are usually the kind of people who others are already biased against and are unlikely to want to help, e.g the poor, drug addicts, and minorities.

1659447091 2y ago
Cellphone location data is not extraordinary evidence, he was not cleared based on walking into frame of the show as it was taped and hour and 22 minutes before the murder; giving him time to still do it. It was his girlfriend calling him 20 minutes before the murder placing him at the stadium. He also had a strong motive as the victim testified against his brother in an unrelated gang murder in which he attended and his brother is serving time for. He also had a record and an eye witness (found later to be wrong) giving a description that could have been him. Add it all together and it was not about a poor minority being targeted by the system. The due process worked here. There is nothing extraordinary about this particular case--except--as promotion for a Netflix documentary that was promoted in the NYPost article: "As covered in the Netflix documentary “Long Shot,” out Friday, Juan’s innocence would ultimately rest on a near brush with fame — more specifically, with Larry David and “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” The real injustice is how “Curb Your Enthusiasm" is taking the spot light from a very real problem that was exposed here. The "clerical error" that had him sit in jail for 2 weeks after being cleared of charges. He won a settlement, but it never should have happened and is a larger problem facing the poor, drug addicts, and minorities, wrt the system. I am somewhat surprised so many are skipping over this very real issue present in this very story for virtue signaling over death row that has nothing to do with this story other than unfounded speculation.
- ktallett 2y ago
  The evidence proved he wasn't there. The evidence they were trying to use to prove he should be charged was rather worthless. Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable and this didn't even give him, just someone sort of similar but not someone similar who definitely committed the crime. Motive without evidence is meaningless, you can't fit evidence to a person, evidence should lead you to a person. If it doesn't then you don't have a case
  - 1659447091 2y ago
    I see I should have worded my statement better. The article say the eye witness ID'd him, not someone like him. But he obviously saw someone like him and thought it was him since it was not. But we only know that after the fact. It is enough, with all the rest added, to charge someone. Luckily we have due process in the US, and it worked exactly as it was meant too and the charges were dismissed, standard operating procedure. All the fanfare is because the show decided to exploit the story for a documentary where they wrongly claim they are the reason for the charges being dismissed.

by RevEng 2y ago

1659447091 2y ago

Cellphone location data is not extraordinary evidence, he was not cleared based on walking into frame of the show as it was taped and hour and 22 minutes before the murder; giving him time to still do it. It was his girlfriend calling him 20 minutes before the murder placing him at the stadium. He also had a strong motive as the victim testified against his brother in an unrelated gang murder in which he attended and his brother is serving time for. He also had a record and an eye witness (found later to be wrong) giving a description that could have been him. Add it all together and it was not about a poor minority being targeted by the system. The due process worked here. There is nothing extraordinary about this particular case--except--as promotion for a Netflix documentary that was promoted in the NYPost article: "As covered in the Netflix documentary “Long Shot,” out Friday, Juan’s innocence would ultimately rest on a near brush with fame — more specifically, with Larry David and “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” The real injustice is how “Curb Your Enthusiasm" is taking the spot light from a very real problem that was exposed here. The "clerical error" that had him sit in jail for 2 weeks after being cleared of charges. He won a settlement, but it never should have happened and is a larger problem facing the poor, drug addicts, and minorities, wrt the system. I am somewhat surprised so many are skipping over this very real issue present in this very story for virtue signaling over death row that has nothing to do with this story other than unfounded speculation.

ktallett 2y ago
The evidence proved he wasn't there. The evidence they were trying to use to prove he should be charged was rather worthless. Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable and this didn't even give him, just someone sort of similar but not someone similar who definitely committed the crime. Motive without evidence is meaningless, you can't fit evidence to a person, evidence should lead you to a person. If it doesn't then you don't have a case
- 1659447091 2y ago
  I see I should have worded my statement better. The article say the eye witness ID'd him, not someone like him. But he obviously saw someone like him and thought it was him since it was not. But we only know that after the fact. It is enough, with all the rest added, to charge someone. Luckily we have due process in the US, and it worked exactly as it was meant too and the charges were dismissed, standard operating procedure. All the fanfare is because the show decided to exploit the story for a documentary where they wrongly claim they are the reason for the charges being dismissed.