Was the evidence really lost/destroyed and then recovered?
Or was this just Hollywood writing, and the DNA evidence existed all along and was never an issue?
Anybody know?
I'm not sure what you mean, but whenever he was convicted, DNA testing had not been invented yet.
Or -
After 10 years,they destroy evidence, maybe the destroyers weren't as efficient as they'd want to be and the evidence wasn't destroyed afterall. In some cases, every ten years, there is a push to get caught up, or clear up space and maybe the last time they destroyed everything 10 years and older, Kenny's evidence was only eight years old.
==============================
He lifts me clear to the sky, you know he taught me to fly.
I am just wondering how realistic the entire evidence recovery process was, with respect to how it played out in the movie. How much was Hollywood writing and how much was actually real. Did the situation actually exist where they thought the evidence had been destroyed, and against all odds, it wasn't and it was found?
shareI think the story was a true one, but that some license was taken to make things more dramatic.
shareFrom the Wikipedia article on Conviction.
Martha Coakley, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, who was portrayed in the film, commented after seeing a pre-screening on October 12, 2010, that it was a compelling film but there were legal inaccuracies or temporal exaggerations.As goldshine44 says above, it is a true story with some dramatic license occurring, which is par for the course with this sort of film. share