MovieChat Forums > Cold Justice (2013) Discussion > Bogus

Bogus

posted 11 years ago by darkavenger77
11 replies | jump to latest

Just watched the first episode. A whole bunch of bogus material:
Telephone interviews are not under oath and cannot be used in court. How do they even know who they are talking to?
Detailed memories from first responders from 12 years ago are not reliable- unless they wrote a report or had notes from the incident.
What did they expect for friends & family of the deceased to say about a prior suicide attempt? How about checking with police/EMS where she used to live?

The main red flag here:
The lack of the victim's DNA on the gun excluded her. The lack of the SUSPECT'S DNA on the gun would exclude him as well. That is not "neutral" as depicted, it is exculpatory- it basically clears him.

A grand jury indicted, but what happened at the trial- if there was one?

Hey you! Is done by TV cops for foot chases. Real cops don't do this.

[–] cosmic_surveyor 11 years ago

That is not "neutral" as depicted, it is exculpatory- it basically clears him.

Glove!

The only interview that mattered, Ronnie's, was conducted in person, before he asked for a lawyer.

I raised the point about memories in another thread.

The grand jury indictment was in 2012. This episode would not have aired if there wasn't a lawful satisfactory resolution.

________

When animals forage, is it for grocery, hardware or medicine?

[–] sparksfire1 9 years ago

I am watching this show for the first time. They had already blame someone before they got started. They are bias and just gather bias evidences.

[–] novastar_6 9 years ago

Yes so bias that tonight they dismiss the sex offender AND the teenaged murderer and go for the very unlikely seeming simple thief whose ONLY evidence of being there found over the last 10 years were his fingerprints on the front door, until they retested the DNA and found his DNA on a blood soaked ring stolen off the corpse, in the victim's body, under her nails, yes that's very biased given he was never a major person of interest compared to the sex offender stalking her and the 16 year old murderer who lived a block away from her.

[–] macguffin54 8 years ago

I'm sorry, but I can't read your post and not respond. Your grammar/spelling is horrendous. I would not have pointed it out but it is so glaring and pervasive to your short post I just couldn't not do it. Lord.

[–] McQualude 9 years ago

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

|Statistics show that 100% of people bitten by a snake were close to it.|

[–] darkavenger77 9 years ago

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

While I'd tend to agree, note what I posted:

The lack of the victim's DNA on the gun excluded her. The lack of the SUSPECT'S DNA on the gun would exclude him as well.

If you can exclude one person solely based upon a lack of DNA, then you can exclude another. Certainly there may be other evidence, but that is not how the show presented this item, it was presented as an absolute.

Then note the title of this thread: Bogus

RIP Ron Swanson. Writers created your awesomeness in S1 and killed it in S7

[–] McQualude 9 years ago

I don't remember the specifics and may not have seen that episode but I get your point they were jumping to conclusions. If the victim was not wearing gloves or had some other way to prevent their dna from getting on the gun that would suggest she didn't handle it.

It sounds like a case that was on Forensic Files, the woman attempted suicide several times and was then found dead, shot in the abdomen with a rifle. Her prints were on the scope but her husbands were all over the rifle. He went to prison and was later released on appeal when a better trained/equipped forensics team reviewed the evidence.

|Statistics show that 100% of people bitten by a snake were close to it.|

[–] slou61 9 years ago

You can say what you want but this show has helped solve two unsolved murders in and around my hometown in Indiana in the last 2 years. Families are finally getting justice and closure. Whatever you might think of the show, they are working with local law enforcement agencies to get the job done.

[–] darkavenger77 9 years ago

You can say what you want but this show has helped solve two unsolved murders in and around my hometown in Indiana in the last 2 years. Families are finally getting justice and closure. Whatever you might think of the show, they are working with local law enforcement agencies to get the job done.

I'm all for justice, and sometimes some publicity is exactly what is needed to push a lazy prosecutor into action. When I worked in law enforcement, if a homicide case was high-profile, or the victim's family complained/stayed on the prosecutor, it was much more likely to be tried by the prosecutor.

I observed in some instances law enforcement had to make a case against the suspect and also against the prosecutor. For example, a real question that was asked about one of my cases: Is there case law for that?

There was, I found it and cited it. They did not want to prosecute the case, so I started including case law citations in my homicide case reports, and the response was to stop doing that since I was giving the defense too much information. Darned if you don't, and darned if you do.

It certainly was not like what is shown on TV, however if I had a TV crew following me around back then I think the outcome would have been different.

The point of this thread was to comment on some activities they portrayed as to why they were invalid as portrayed.

Joe "We're authorized" Fontana: I can do this all day, Mitch. How about you?

[–] luvlch869 9 years ago

When they talk to people on the phone they ask if they are willing to testify in court- I think that the EMS and others they do have the original statements and reports, but want to talk to them to see if they remember anything. If the crime is horrendous chances are they will remember it.

Kelly was a prosecutor and never lost a case, I am sure she know what is admissible and what is not. I think they just want to interview everyone again. After years of talk, the suspect may talk.

Also, their assumption of guilt is based on everything they have read in the case files, what they are doing is proving them innocent, or finding tangible witness and evidence to find the guilty. I am sure there was evidence before just not enough to convict, so they bring them in to help with the loose ends so to speak.

[–] darkavenger77 9 years ago

When they talk to people on the phone they ask if they are willing to testify in court- I think that the EMS and others they do have the original statements and reports, but want to talk to them to see if they remember anything. If the crime is horrendous chances are they will remember it.

Phone interviews hold no weight legally. Even a recorded sworn statement is of limited use due to the confrontation clause of the 6th Amendment- witnesses must be in court to be confronted.

12 years is a long time and human nature is to embellish a memory, even a strong one. Given that time gap, if you were to interview a first responder and then re-interview them after they had read their run report, you'd get two different stories. When I interviewed this type of witness (in person), I made sure they had their reports with them so I'd get the most accurate statement.

Kelly was a prosecutor and never lost a case

That right there indicates she cherry-picked her cases. I had the misfortune to work with a prosecutor's office with that mindset, which is why I often had to work two cases- one against the criminal and one against the prosecutor as I noted in a prior reply. I worked a fraud case once and obtained a confession (in addition to the state records and victim/witness statements proving the fraud well beyond any reasonable doubt). The prosecutor refused to file so I got an arrest warrant. They filed a complaint with my supervisor, who properly dismissed it. I mused once what would happen if law enforcement told victims we won't investigate your case since we don't think we can make an arrest. That's BS- we each had a job to do, and cherry-picking cases was just being lazy.

TV cops & prosecutors are usually nothing like the ones in real life.

Also, their assumption of guilt is based on everything they have read in the case files, what they are doing is proving them innocent, or finding tangible witness and evidence to find the guilty. I am sure there was evidence before just not enough to convict, so they bring them in to help with the loose ends so to speak.

Time can be a significant benefit for investigators. As examples, spouses/significant others that covered for a suspect leave them and then have an axe to grind. Fugitives think they are safe in their new identity after years have passed. In that respect, these "cold case" type of shows are great.

My initial comments related to the pilot episode I watched. I didn't watch any others, so hopefully the quality improved.

Joe "We're authorized" Fontana: I can do this all day, Mitch. How about you?