MovieChat Forums > Forty Eight Hours (1988) Discussion > It makes me SO ANGRY when...

It makes me SO ANGRY when...

posted 12 years ago by skinny_school_girl
10 replies | jump to latest

police, investigators, D.A's, etc. KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY convict an innocent person while the perpatrator is still out there. They play with these people's lives like it's a game to them. Case in point: Bruce Lisker, convicted of killing his mother, set free because the evidence against him didn't exist. The shoe prints at the crime scene were not his. And the police officer who went after him lied about talking to the new homeowners about finding 150$ in their attic.

Another case in point: Tim Masters, convicted of the murder of Peggie Hettrick, freed on false evidence. The police officers went after him because of DRAWINGS!
Not because DNA, finger prints, etc., linked him to her murder, but because of drawings!

Granted, these men weren't exactly angels but it's been proven that they didn't kill. People always assume that someone who is convicted of murder is actually guilty (and for a while, I assumed that too). But the fact is that innocent people get convicted of murder. People can say "They're humans and they make mistakes." That is true but there are some cases, like the two I mentioned above (and I can name two others), where they KNOW there's no shred of evidence against the defendant that ties them to the crime and they still get convicted.

Money isn't the root of all evil. Love of money is.

[–] kaysild 11 years ago

I know the police get tunnel vision and instead of getting justice for the victim the make ANOTHER VICTIM! Getting a conviction is NOT justice UNLESS the conviction is the actual perpetrator!! I know I wouldn't be happy if someone was convicted of a crime on someone I love and they didnt even do it or evidence points away and not AT THEM! I mean yeah who wouldn't want justice but sending an innocent person to jail while the real perp is free is NOT justice and is helping NO ONE! I couldn't sleep knowing I out someone away and wants sure it was really them! And I am ALL FOR FRYING THE GUILTY SICK BASTARDS who deserve it! But first there needs to be absolute proof they are the one bc I sure as hell want the person who did it to suffer not some innocent weirdo that society just blames bc they're a little different! Typically it's the ones who you think are normal that are the most guilty! Seriously it's like 1/2 of the world or more, are morons!

[–] vicvonfate 10 years ago

This is why OJ went free. Use real evidence to convict istead of being sure and manufacturing evidence.

[–] ggiroux3 10 years ago

Have another glass of Kool-Aid.

[–] LETumEAT 10 years ago

It is so sad and scary.Its a business,if they don't close,they don't advance/get a pay grade.

It is Monopoly with people's lives

[–] adouthit-1 10 years ago

I agree. I was just watching an episode the other night where there was definite proof that they had the wrong girl convicted and it's like nobody cared. She was in jail and it was gonna be her no matter what. Even the surviving victim wouldn't accept that it was the wrong person in jail. I understand the cops want the case to be closed, and the victims families need someone to blame, but I just don't understand why you would want someone in jail paying for a crime they didn't commit while the real murderer is out free. Just makes no sense to me. How does this help anyone? Letting the real murderer get away with it just puts other people's lives in danger.

[–] MovieLoverHannah 10 years ago

That is absolutely terrifying to me. Have you heard the story of Ryan Furgeson? He was released from prison after being locked away for a decade for a crime he did not commit. He got arrested because his friend that admitted he was on crack and a janitor who admitted he lied both said that he killed the victim.

Also the other night there was an episode where Christopher Wilson was arrested because he was considered strange in his small town and the police and jury convinced themselves that he did it. After getting a poll from the jury he found out that 85% of them thought he was guilty. After already rejecting a plea deal (rejected because he was innocent) his lawyers made him take the next deal of 14 years in prison because it was better than if he had followed through with the trial.

In short, it is awful how the police are so quick to convict someone just to convict them. It's really a problem.

Keep Calm and Love Supernatural

[–] fab4_gal 10 years ago

I just watched a competing show (Dateline Mysteries) where it centered around the Higher brothers and Facebook...they were convicted of killing someone named Old Man Bob (drug dealer, loan shark) and they were sent to prison and had been sitting there for 25 years when someone (a lawyer) casually read a Facebook post by someone that jogged his memory about the two brothers...one thing led to another and they realized that the brother's weren't the two who were running away from Old Man Bob's house...an eye witness (gotta love those) picked them out of a group of photos and then add a sloppy court case to the matter and here those two guys have been sitting there rotting in jail...due to the new evidence (people admitting that they were actually the ones running away, not the brothers) the judge ruled for a new case and let them out on bail...and of course the prosecution wanted to try them again but in the eleventh hour decided not to pursue the charges but left it open to retry them should any further evidence come about...WTF? The evidence that was shown in the hearing for the possible new trial proved they most likely did not do the crime...once again you have the system just wanting to convict someone...

If I were involved with the prosecution, I would have said that they've already been in jail for 25 years and consider it time served, save face and drop it instead of ramping up for a new costly trial like they did...I mean, that's a long time to be in the klink and longer than most current sentences that people get BUT still, the fact of the matter is they didn't do the crime...the prosecution just looks dumb for being so harda$$ed about it...

This crime happened in Detroit...there is no compensation that they can go for because they were wrongly convicted...

[–] tbone382001 8 years ago

You would think that the lawyer who found out 25 years later about the wrongful convictions and was there that day would have followed the case. He was at the house where a guy got murdered and didn't bother seeing if and who got arrested for it? Especially since he was going to school to be a lawyer.

Had he spoken up at the time the brothers don't spend 25 years in jail for a murder they didn't do. At least he spoke up after finding out and got them freed.

I never met Old Man Bob but I had a few friends that bought from him. I can remember asking questions about him after hearing his name being brought up from multiple friends. Just can't get that well known in Detroit, someone's going to rob you. Especially an older white guy living in the hood.

[–] JurijFedorov 8 years ago

One thing though. I have seen a lot of these "wrongly convicted" episodes. And every single time I look up the cases I always find out that 48 Hours or whoever made the episode only presented one part of the full picture. A lot of evidence are never shown. Like for example in Making a Murderer they only show the evidence that make him out to be innocent even though it is one of the most clear cases I have seen in any of these kind of mystery episodes. And no matter what case I look up the murderer is nearly always a huge and violent *beep* which they never say anything about in the episodes. Of course being violent or an *beep* doesn't mean that they killed someone, but I think it should be part of the episode nonetheless. And it makes me think the whole case presentation is very biased when I discover they didn't include such important facts. The police very seldom plant evidence unless the case is very certain anyway, or unless the person accused is violent or a criminal but innocent. A random person seldom has evidence planted against them - in my opinion.

[–] peacockblue 7 years ago

That one about Catherine Woods and Paul Cortez puzzled me, it was on this morning. I dunno about that conviction. The jury made the final decision under duress based on the shoe vs boot in a video. Both of those footwear types look pretty similar. They also said he left a fingerprint. Ehh. im just not sure

◘ Help control the pet population, have your pet spayed or neutered ◘