Forensic Files
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:47 pm
I watched about ump episodes of this show over the weekend (staying up almost all night). It's quite addicting.
I found two episodes particularly compelling. One was about a man suspected of killing his estranged wife. He seemed to have both motive and opportunity, but forensic evidence exonerated him: His wife's murder was a random killing by a man who didn't want to be arrested "merely" for molesting his three-month-old daughter! Another man was suspected of killing his mother, who lived alone in the house next door to him. He said he had given a lift to a man and, being suspicious of him, made him leave his car about half a mile from his house and then rode past it (to mislead the hitchhiker in case he followed him) and then rode around for a while before finally going home. Someone broke into his mother's house and killed her. The police didn't buy his story (how had the man found his mother's house?), but subsequent forensic evidence established that he was telling the truth. (The hitchhiker stumbled on his mother's house accidentally.)
How many people have been convicted of crimes they didn't commit or lived the rest of their lives under a cloud of suspicion because the truth was bizarre and forensic science was not sufficiently advanced at the time (or not correctly applied if it was)?
I really don't think this was the case with Lizzie (there were too many clues pointing in her direction), but who knows?
I found two episodes particularly compelling. One was about a man suspected of killing his estranged wife. He seemed to have both motive and opportunity, but forensic evidence exonerated him: His wife's murder was a random killing by a man who didn't want to be arrested "merely" for molesting his three-month-old daughter! Another man was suspected of killing his mother, who lived alone in the house next door to him. He said he had given a lift to a man and, being suspicious of him, made him leave his car about half a mile from his house and then rode past it (to mislead the hitchhiker in case he followed him) and then rode around for a while before finally going home. Someone broke into his mother's house and killed her. The police didn't buy his story (how had the man found his mother's house?), but subsequent forensic evidence established that he was telling the truth. (The hitchhiker stumbled on his mother's house accidentally.)
How many people have been convicted of crimes they didn't commit or lived the rest of their lives under a cloud of suspicion because the truth was bizarre and forensic science was not sufficiently advanced at the time (or not correctly applied if it was)?
I really don't think this was the case with Lizzie (there were too many clues pointing in her direction), but who knows?