That, and the threat of civil lawsuits. They might be afraid that any admission on their part could be used in a civil suit against them[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]even if they are sorry for what they did (which I doubt).I'm no lawyer and there very well could be a legal explanation for this. But, outside of the law, I think part of it is ego. Put yourself in the prosecutor's shoes - you spend months, sometimes years, where the whole point of your job is to provide evidence that someone committed a crime. You're also charged with refuting every attempt by the defense to clear their defendant's name. You're also facing a lot of pressure from higher-ups and local law enforcement to build a case that sticks. And, instead of presuming the person you're trying to convict is innocent, you're trying to prove (and operating under the mentality) that this person is guilty.I have not seen it yet but hope to soon. I have heard the prosecution come out and denounce it, but that means little to me. I do have a question for any lawyer types though, as I know we have a few on the board. Why does it seem like the prosecution almost never admits to mistakes in what is or appears to be wrongful convictions? I will use the Duke Lacrosse scandal with Mike Nifong as one extreme example, but I think I have seen other times when it puzzled me how much they stuck to their position regardless of evidence, new or old.
If and when you win your case, the law is now officially on your side backing you up. You're not going to be easily swayed of your opinion or quick to believe the person you convicted is innocent. We have a tendency in this country to make sure someone is blamed and held accountable rather than making sure it's the correct person. A lot of people also don't like to admit they're wrong, particularly when murder is involved.
When you do get a chance to watch the documentary, you'll notice law enforcement officials STILL refuting Avery's innocence in the rape case he served 18 years for. Deputies, under oath, questioning DNA evidence that exonerated Avery. It's a pretty incredible sight to see.
I thought the very same thing about the victims brother. They somehow just magically figured out her cell phone password? Then on top of that her (the victims) voice mails were magically deleted?Dewiz said:Both my wife and I think that there is something odd about the victims brother. He's always the spokesperson for the victim rather than the parents lol seems odd? Both him and the victims ex boyfriend were in charge of the search.
I'm close to my sister but I don't know my sisters password to her phone so for him to guess the password on her phone to listen to the voicemails was really odd and for one of the voice messages to have been deleted too was odd.
Also the victims ex boyfriend figured out his ex girlfriends Cingular password on the cell phone companies website was odd too
Can't speak for any States but Iowa and Nebraska, but they would have to show pretty high standards to sue the prosecutor, most if not all government actors are protected from personal law suites. Have to act with actual malice or reckless disregard.That, and the threat of civil lawsuits. They might be afraid that any admission on their part could be used in a civil suit against them[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]even if they are sorry for what they did (which I doubt).I'm no lawyer and there very well could be a legal explanation for this. But, outside of the law, I think part of it is ego. Put yourself in the prosecutor's shoes - you spend months, sometimes years, where the whole point of your job is to provide evidence that someone committed a crime. You're also charged with refuting every attempt by the defense to clear their defendant's name. You're also facing a lot of pressure from higher-ups and local law enforcement to build a case that sticks. And, instead of presuming the person you're trying to convict is innocent, you're trying to prove (and operating under the mentality) that this person is guilty.I have not seen it yet but hope to soon. I have heard the prosecution come out and denounce it, but that means little to me. I do have a question for any lawyer types though, as I know we have a few on the board. Why does it seem like the prosecution almost never admits to mistakes in what is or appears to be wrongful convictions? I will use the Duke Lacrosse scandal with Mike Nifong as one extreme example, but I think I have seen other times when it puzzled me how much they stuck to their position regardless of evidence, new or old.
If and when you win your case, the law is now officially on your side backing you up. You're not going to be easily swayed of your opinion or quick to believe the person you convicted is innocent. We have a tendency in this country to make sure someone is blamed and held accountable rather than making sure it's the correct person. A lot of people also don't like to admit they're wrong, particularly when murder is involved.
When you do get a chance to watch the documentary, you'll notice law enforcement officials STILL refuting Avery's innocence in the rape case he served 18 years for. Deputies, under oath, questioning DNA evidence that exonerated Avery. It's a pretty incredible sight to see.
I have not nor will I probably watch this, however I have been asked about this at nauseum by friends who do not work in the field. I would just keep in mind both sides know more then the jury ever will due to the rules of evidence.