When you see this, you may think that I look at this case with a strong subjective color and personal opinion, and I want to say, yes. But I am not saying SA is innocent or guilty, what I feel is the powerlessness and despair of a man, a poor man, in the midst of a huge government machine and judicial system. I just finished watching the documentary "The Simpsons: Made in America" a few days ago. I have a certain concept and view on reasonable doubt and inference of innocence, and I also have a certain understanding of the procedural justice upheld in the American judicial system. In SA's case, however, the thought that popped up the most while watching was: what? How is this? How can this be? WTF? What are you doing? In a judicial system where precedents can have a certain degree of influence on the outcome of a trial, making such a ruling, I can't help but wonder, what's going on here?
Among the facts I have seen, what I want to say is
1. When the Toyota RAV4 of TH (the victim) was discovered for the first time, it was the victim's family. It took 10 to 20 minutes to be found in the car junkyard, and it happened that the victim's ex-boyfriend told them to go to Avery's junkyard to search, and happened to give them a digital camera. Later, Cousin testified in court. At that time, the defense lawyer asked if you had ever thought about why it was so coincidental, and she said that I thought it was God's guidance, grace, God's guidance. That's right, can this coincidence happen? It's possible, but I don't think the probability is too high.
2. The blood in the RAV4, the prosecutor said that the blood in the car belonged to SA, and later DNA tests also proved that it was indeed SA. Coincidentally, when the defense lawyer asked to see the blood sample of the 1985 case, it was found that the sample had been opened. , no one knows who opened it, what a coincidence I think. The defense lawyers asked to test whether the blood contains EDTA (a chemical reagent that prevents blood from deteriorating, generally found in blood samples collected in test tubes), and it is known that this test method takes a long time and generally requires After a few months, the FBI suddenly developed a new test method that can detect whether blood samples contain EDTA in a very short period of time. I still want to say, what a coincidence you developed it. The test results showed that the blood samples extracted from RAV4 did not contain EDTA, and the chemist invited by the defense later made it clear that the use of this test method can only show that under this test method, it is possible to find no EDTA, But just saying that EDTA is not detected does not mean that it does not contain EDTA. In other words, one day you are going to go out and find that the key cannot be found. You search at home and find that the key is not found, but you will think that the key must not be at home, and must be outside? I don't think every sane person thinks that way. Post a picture of a foreign netizen
Look at this shape, not much to say, but this can only be a guess, and it does not mean that the blood is later
3. The key to RAV4, which is the most crucial evidence in this case,
This string of keys has never been found in the previous 6 searches, and it appeared in a very conspicuous position in the seventh search of SA's house. Wow, was it also found under the guidance of God this time? I remember the prosecutor Ken told the jury when the defense lawyer suspected that the police had planted something. I was very angry at this suspicion. Our police are very professional and have a high moral level. I want to say, it's really professional TMD, Professional police did not find such crucial evidence in the 6 searches, but this time they just found it. I don't know what kind of professional this is, is it a slap in the face? Please look at this photo
, From the photo, it can be seen that the victim TH is holding a bunch of keys, not just one. zoom in locally
. This. . Should it also be considered? What amazed me even more is that a car key that has been used for many years has only the DNA of SA on it, not even the DNA of the victim. Please make up your own black question mark.JPG.
4. The prosecution claimed that TH was shot in SA's garage, and that 5 months after the crime, in early March or February 28, 2006, I can't remember, a bullet was found in SA's garage, magic bullet, infer that TH was shot by SA, I want to say again, wow, really professional, I blocked the scene for so long when the crime happened, I didn't find it, and now I found it, I still want to say that this is not also the guidance of God . Then the defense asked if the victim's blood or anything was found in the garage, and the answer was no, then I was thinking, if SA is the murderer, then he must be a thoughtful and extremely skilled murderer who can get close to The blood sprayed from the shot in the human head was so clean that investigators for defense attorneys later said it was unlikely even a professional on-site police investigator would have done that level of cleanup. And according to the testimony of his nephew, Brandon, he cut the victim's throat in SA's bedroom, but it was cleaned up. I want to say two words awesome! Then we went back to the victim's car. The prosecutor said that SA's fingerprint information was not found in the RAV4. It can be seen that SA's methods are very capable and leave no traces, and it is such a very professional murderer who is cleaning up all the Fingerprints in the car and blood in the garage and bedroom later left their own blood in the car. ? ? ? What, he has made such a low-level mistake, and the junkyard he owns has professional equipment for handling vehicles, which is enough to destroy this key evidence, but he still did not do so, so he put the car in There may be discovered there, not only doesn't make sense, it's really people, how to say, can't understand. It makes me feel like a battle-hardened veteran who made all preparations for a life-and-death confrontation with the enemy, but turned the gun on himself at the last moment, unless he wanted to die, how could it be Well.
5. My question to the county police department, why was there a person present when the key evidence such as vehicles, car keys, bullets, and bloodstains appeared. That person was named Lenk.
He was also a very important police officer in the 1985 unjust case. According to the regulations, he himself should refrain from this case, but he still offered to search Steven's residence, car, and blood. Do the facts I want to say really have nothing to do with the case itself? No, the prosecution said.
There are also things such as police officer Andrew, lenk's testimony doesn't match the timeline, and Bobby and his uncle's testimony doesn't match the time given by the school bus driver later, police officer Andrew's inconsistency in the call recording released by the defense attorney, etc. I won't explain it in detail, I believe that everyone who has seen it has an impression.
The prosecution said in the closing statement that it is impossible for our police team to do such things as frame-up, so can I understand that the jury's verdict is based on this statement, that the police have nothing to do? It is possible to do such a thing, no matter how much evidence points to the possibility of being related to the police, it is impossible for the police to do such a thing, because our police are absolute justice, absolute morality, absolutely no mistakes, absolutely no prejudice, um, our police That's it, just like the earth is round and impossible to be square. I was shocked again, why, why wouldn't the police do such a thing, please, the police are human too, I really hope someone can answer me why the police wouldn't do such a thing. I believe everyone who knows the Simpson case knows that Simpson was acquitted largely because of the contamination of the evidence in the investigation and evidence collection stage, and the possible bloodstain at the crime scene was added later, as well as the police officer Foreman’s Racial hate speech affects the judgment of the jury, and if someone says it has nothing to do with it, then I don't think you will believe it yourself. In the Simpson case, the police officer Foreman was eventually fired from the police force, and I wonder if that means there are bad people in the police. So I'm wondering how in the SA trial did you come to the conclusion that the police can't be wrong? And what happened later, I think someone also learned that the prosecutor KK at the time was fired for sexual harassment. How ironic.
Let's take a look at the 1985 case where SA was wrongfully sentenced to 18 years in prison. Although these two cases should not be looked at together, I would like to ask everyone here, when SA was sentenced because of new DNA evidence After innocence, do you think the police and DA in Macun are responsible for this case? If you think this unjust case has nothing to do with them, they have no responsibility, then I think you can only say sorry when you see this, I wasted your time. If you feel responsible, then I would like to ask, if you are a relevant officer of the police station at that time, do you think that when SA is ready to sue you after being released from prison, you will really feel your conscience and say that you will maintain a high degree of justice in this process. , without prejudice, without the slightest sense of self-protection, let him sue, no matter what the consequences are, will I bear it? Anyway, I am not, if I am, then I want to say, it is really noble, I feel that I am really too far from you, if I were them, then I will definitely find a way to see how to protect myself, and horses The village police station is made up of so many selfless and noble members from top to bottom without exception. However, I don't believe it. Ask me why I don't believe it, because I can't believe that there were frequent inconsistencies in the previous court trials, and the police officers who have clues to the suspicion of planting and that can be said to have considerable conflicts of interest are all people of such noble quality. Do you believe it? I don't talk about logic or reason, just in this matter, with your purest sensibility, or feeling, do you say that they are such people? And I hope, who feel they are completely fair and have no wrongdoing in the slightest, I want to say to you, I hope you can say the same if you get something like SA someday. And the jury's verdict is also based on this. The verdict made on the premise that the police can't frame the crime, what a great jury, that is to say, all the members of the jury imagined themselves to be those police officers, and they would also do it in that situation. To be extremely fair and flawless. To say something very personal is that I may really be too narrow-minded and have too little knowledge, but to be honest, I have never seen such a person. In my life, I have never seen such a noble and selfless person. People, and in our Macun police station and the jury, everyone is like this. Seriously, I have learned a lot. Probably the last 2 or 3 episodes, with an interview with a jury member who was forced out at the last minute of the verdict. He also expressed regret for this case, and it could be heard that he was very guilty, and he had great doubts about the verdict made by the jury. When we interviewed him again in 2014, we could see that the camera was filming his clenched fingers for a long time. Are you disturbed? Guilt?
Then I would like to ask you a question. In your opinion, is it possible that the murderer is not SA? Is there such a possibility? In my opinion, yes, so why is it still possible to be convicted of guilt? It is said that there is reasonable doubt, it is said that there is no doubt that there is no guilt, and that it is procedural justice. Sorry, no.
I can't help but think of an interview with a jury member at the time in the Simpson case
Well, this is our jury, an unbiased, fair jury.
What I want to say is that it's not that I think SA must not be the murderer, but that he was convicted on the premise that he might not be the murderer. Why? I don't know much about the American judicial system, but according to my knowledge You know, in a criminal case, as long as the prosecutor doesn't have 100% confidence and evidence, even 99%, then a person cannot be convicted, so why is SA guilty? In case, I mean what if he really didn't do it. Whenever I see SA's parents, I really feel very uncomfortable. You and I are both people who have parents. If SA is you, but not really. What you did, I think that kind of despair, that kind of mood, I really can't imagine what they would have endured if he hadn't done it. Everyone is saying so you think if he did it then if we let him out he will continue to harm society and you are just being misled by the documentary and they only show us what we want to see then I want to ask, in Have you ever thought about the impact of his actions on their family during the judgment? Some people may say that compared to the whole society, their family is not worth mentioning at all. Don't forget, you and I are both members of a certain family, and you and I both have people we love and people who love us. I would also like to quote the SA defense lawyer's sentence "Actually, I really hope SA did it, because if not, then he is too miserable!"
Those who say that the editing of this film and the content presented are incomplete, the prosecution Some important evidence of Fang was not mentioned. I searched for relevant information on the Internet after the incident, and I also saw these so-called evidences. So I want to say yes. These evidences show that SA may be the murderer. However, please take a look. There are also evidences. Show that SA is not the murderer.
This is the first time to write such a long article, there may be some confusion in the structure and the words are not expressive. Please bear with me. If there is anything wrong, you can leave a message and let us discuss it together.
No one is a self-contained,
isolated island,
everyone is part of a vast continent.
If the waves wash off a rock,
less Europe.
It's like losing a corner of a promontory,
like losing a piece of your friend or your own realm.
Everyone's death is my grief
because I am a human being.
So
don't ask for whom the death knell is tolling,
it is tolling for you!
John Donne
View more about Making a Murderer reviews
