"Exhibit A" on Netflix is a look at the use and abuse of supposedly scientific evidence to get criminal convictions. They look at blood spatter, residual DNA, video analysis and cadaver dogs. The latter was the most troubling for me. A Detroit man was convicted of murdering his. daughter based on a signal from a dog. They never found the child's body. The video episode to me inadvertently illustrates a bigger problem of having ineffective lawyers who either don't have the time or resources to prepare a cross examination or are just incompetent. The blood spatter brings up a problem I have with these shows and podcasts about wrongful convictions. They say only one speck of blood on a nightgown tested positive for blood. There were other specks. I'm making an inference here that while all the other specks did not test positive for blood, they did not test positive for anything. In fact all the other specks could have been blood. The documentary implies a woman was convicted of killing her husband based on a single speck of blood. Still, it's a troubling look at how some evidence is used.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/CAH5J8ywosiz2y-yLmV2VLjUJOFtfjbL3_%3DCdYWxFuz_jyf1Xwg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
