[removed]

Do they have an idea of what caused this explosion?

No, I said coerce. The prosecutor doesn't have to pursue everything anyone asks. I can't just walk over to the city prosecutor's office and demand they lock up my neighbor. Their job is to determine whether something can and should be prosecuted. A victim can't be expected to make those decisions impartially.

Cuz he was a police officer?

Unfortunately there is now a finger on the algorithm at Twitter so that is less effective.

So they had men come over and "rape" his wife and then said the other woman hired the men? What happened to the men?

Memory is incredibly fickle and false memories are very easy to implant by police. Police were convinced he was the rapist, and she believed that he was the man and even began to think that she HAD recognized him. It was a memory error from a victim of rape by a stranger. People are really bad at remembering details of traumatic events, especially when the perpetrator was a stranger, and especially when the perpetrator was of a different race from the victim.

This is why we should never rely on shaky evidence like these types of eyewitness testimonies.

[deleted]

If he's objectively qualified, then yes.

[removed]

Condoms are a wonderful thing. Should try ‘em some day.

What a twisted demented person he is. I had read the story twice to understand it.

Along with a lot of arson investigation "science."

Neat. How is that her fault? Did she coerce the prosecutor into pursuing the conviction based solely on her whims?

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

No. Again, she was mistaken on the stand. Lots of people are, and it has nothing to do with honesty or intent.

hair analysis was extra super bullshit pushed by the govt. hopefully drug dogs will eventually be similarly discredited.

[deleted]

I used to live in an area famous for its legal casinos. The stories about gambling addictions are heart-breaking. It's a joke on the relationship advice subreddit that commenters quickly suggest "you should break up." But after hearing about how half a married couple can unilaterally damage both spouses' finances, I'd quickly suggest "legal divorce" if one spouse has a gambling addiction.

She didn't lie. She was mistaken. The people at fault are the attorneys who apparently based the case on that. Victims of violent crimes are frequently wrong about details and the trauma continues to affect their experience. None of that is her fault, it's just how brains work.