TexasCHLforum.com

Sorry if this has been posted already. I looked and didn't find it.

I have watched the first episode of this documentary on Netflix. My son has watched 5 episodes and it is all he is talking about. My brother has watched the whole thing and says it is very powerful.

It revolves around a man who was wrongly convicted of rape in the '80's. He spends 18 years in prison and refuses to confess and get early parole. The innocence project tests the DNA in 2001 and sure enough, it matches a local sex offender that the police knew about way back then. This rapist is already in prison for the sex crimes he committed after this man was wrongly convicted. It seems the local Sheriff took special interest in this case and despite the local city police telling him about the real rapist, the Sheriff continues to pursue the wrong man.

Once freed the man returns home and files a lawsuit against the County for 35 million for the apparent intentional mistakes the police and the DA made.

But before his civil trial begins, he is accused of the murder of a woman he barely knew. Evidence seems conveniently at his doorstep pointing to his guilt.

Other suspects like boyfriends and exboyfriends, etc. are not investigated. His DNA is everywhere for the police to find. But of course a vial of his blood from the original evidence in the rape case seems to be tampered with.

The civil law suit it is settled for almost nothing, because the man needs money to pay the new attorneys in the murder case.

His is convicted of this murder and is now still in prison. He is not allowed, by court order, to see the documentary.

The Huffington Post seems to think there is nothing to see here, move along.

But everyone else who has watched the series thinks this guy was framed for a second time and are outraged at the governments conduct.

From what I have seen, he certainly was framed the first time. I'll let you know as I watch more.

I don't want to bust things for you, in fact I haven't watched the full season yet. But I do know a few crucial blows to the entire story.

The producers wanted a good story. If they made a show about a rapist who got wrongly convicted for murder or vice versa would anyone be outraged? Doubtful.

There is definitely more to the story but I think it's pretty clear that this guy was not a good man wrongfully convicted. At best he is a bad man who most likely committed the crime but would probably "get off" if retried due to the shadyness of the prosecution.

I have watched several episodes and find it very intriguing. There is still much controversy regarding this guy and his cases.

VMI77 wrote:

philip964 wrote:Once freed the man returns home and files a lawsuit against the County for 35 million for the apparent intentional mistakes the police and the DA made.

I don't know anything about this case or whether what is represented is fact or fiction. However, what you're describing aren't "mistakes." An "intentional mistake" is not a mistake, it's a deliberate act and in the context of obtaining a conviction it is a criminal act.

That said, I am very skeptical of the motivation of those behind documentaries like this. There is some new doc out, ostensibly about Anthony Wiener, but apparently it's really a propaganda piece intended to promote the political aspirations of his wife. Not mentioned in the usual coverage is who financed it: George Soros.

Most filmmakers are leftists. As others have commented, docs like this have a tendency to exaggerate "innocence" and elide any information that undermines a perception of "innocence." Often those who may be wrongly convicted got the attention of police to start with because they have a history of either being arrested for or committing similar crimes.

I'm not endorsing wrongful convictions by any means, even of those guilty of other crimes. Those who abuse their authority by fabricating evidence or withholding exculpatory evidence in order to obtain a conviction are also criminals and should go to prison with their brethren. OTOH, I'm also not going to lose any sleep hearing that someone who has committed crimes equally as bad or worse for which they were never caught or convicted, went to prison for one he didn't actually commit.

Coincidentally, we just watched episode 1 last night. I avoided reading your complete post as to avoid any spoilers. So far interesting story. I hope it's not a matter of leftist twisted facts to make a good story though.

I've watched all 10 episodes of it and found it interesting and confusing. Without spoiling it for anyone all I will say is I think he is guilty of the murder but can't understand how a jury could convict him on the evidence presented in the series. It make me curious about the evidence that was edit out of the production.

Estand wrote:Coincidentally, we just watched episode 1 last night. I avoided reading your complete post as to avoid any spoilers. So far interesting story. I hope it's not a matter of leftist twisted facts to make a good story though.

Remember Huffington Post thinks he is guilty along with most of the mainstream media. I would like to know the party affiliation of some of the key government players in this.

I haven't seen it, that said, I've heard enough about it from friends who have seen it that I might as well have seen it. Nothing I've heard surprises me, I lived in Williamson county in the late 90's through the early 2000's, I've seen "corrupt DA" first-hand.
I do however, based on my reading, and other things, believe the guy is guilty, I just think the cops decided they needed to "help" things along.