Could someone help me on this? Spoiler

[deleted]

[deleted]

Yes I don't think they could have telegraphed their intentions any clearer to the audience. They even show Chris, who rarely appears, reacting to the TV broadcast with a close up of his daughter. What's the point of the Roger stuff if not to bring up Chris again?

Despite Trey's history of egregious manipulation and lies, despite evidence of psychopathy, despite his attitude toward Hanna - and women in general - and despite his sudden realization he's a suspect in Hanna's murder, you take his word for it?

Yes, these are reliable sources. There's a lot more if you are interested. Evidence that people confess, and confess more than once, is undeniable. Again, certain people are relatively vulnerable under certain circumstances.

And yes, it is just your opinion. Okay. The obvous question is why you are unwilling to make it an informed one. Because despite evidence you just say "for me" it's the way you want to think regardless.

That is the definition of prejudice: holding to an opinion without proper enquiry, or in spite of evidence.

I want you to read the following. It's just one case of a great many:

"As I wrote this chapter, my attention was drawn to a courtroom in South Carolina, where 41-year-old Billy Wayne Cope was just convicted for the rape and murder of his 12-year-old daughter Amanda. Cope awoke one morning to find the oldest of his three daughters face down, cold and lifeless in her bed. It looked as if she had been strangled to death. Cope’s wife worked the night shift, so she was not home. Immediately he called 911, but when the police arrived they treated him more like a suspect than a griefstricken father. Based on an erroneous first impression that there was no sign of a forced entry and belief that Cope showed “too little emotion,” the police interviewed him twice, sent him to the hospital for a physical examination, and then took him to the station for questioning that would begin late at night and extend into the early morning.

For more than 24 hours, Cope vehemently asserted his innocence despite persistent charges and accusations (e.g., “I swear before God, standing right here . . . I did not do anything to my daughter”). During that time, he waived his rights, volunteered to be examined, and five times offered to take a polygraph test: “So you have faith in the polygraph test?” he was asked. “Yes,” he replied. The next morning, after spending the night in jail, without food or drink, bewildered, still separated from family and friends, and without counsel, Cope was administered a polygraph test by a police examiner who reported to him that he failed (in fact, a leading researcher who later scored the charts indicated that Cope had actually passed).

Devastated by the result, Cope wondered aloud if a person could commit such a heinous act without knowing it—an idea suggested to him the previous night by his interrogators. According to the examiner, Cope broke down and admitted that “I must have done it.” He then allegedly followed this admission with a full narrative story of how he molested and strangled his daughter, cleaned up, and went back to sleep.

Cope spent the next two and half days in jail, alone, still lacking contact with family, friends, or an attorney. He then handwrote a second confession in which he said that he had sexually assaulted and killed Amanda within the context of a dream. At that point, the police took him back to the house, where he reenacted on videotape—and in vivid and gruesome detail—how he had awakened in the middle of the night, molested and killed Amanda while in a dissociated state, suddenly realized what he had done, went back to sleep, forgot what had occurred the next morning, then once again recalled his
actions. This reenactment was followed by a fourth, even more detailed, confession typed by one of the detectives and signed by Cope.

Serving as an expert witness for the defense in this case, I believed that Cope’s confessions were taken under highly stressful circumstances, that police investigators used interrogation tactics that put innocent people at risk, and that Cope’s statements were filled with contradictions and factual errors. None of this meant that Cope was innocent or that his confessions were false.

Shortly thereafter, however, DNA tests revealed that the donor of the semen and saliva found on Amanda’s dead body was not Cope but a sex offender, who was new to the neighborhood, and who had broken into other homes, raping and killing other girls in the same way.

One would surmise from this DNA exoneration that Billy Wayne Cope would have been released from jail, freed, and compensated. Yet just hours after the DNA results were received, the police told Cope’s wife in an egregious lie that the semen was her husband’s, wired her, and sent her to jail to try to get her husband to confess again, which he did not (she died of surgery complications shortly thereafter, believing that the semen was her husband’s).

When the DNA was later matched to James Sanders, a serial offender, the prosecutor — armed with a police-induced confession that now did not match the facts of the crime, and lacking any evidence whatsoever of a link between the two men — charged Cope with conspiracy, arguing that he had pimped his daughter out to Sanders.

The only additional evidence at trial was presented by a female friend of Cope’s late wife who was corresponding with the defendant. She presented two confessional notes allegedly received shortly before trial that Cope had sent to her from jail. But Cope denied writing these notes, which were penned on paper he had no access to and in a handwriting that was likely not his own. As for the witness, she had once before been charged with forgery in another matter.

In short, there was no evidence of Cope’s involvement other than his original confessions. Yet after only five hours of deliberation, a South Carolina jury voted to convict him."

"In criminal justice, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon — so much so, as one prominent legal scholar put it, that its introduction makes other aspects of a trial 'superfluous.” (McCormick, 1972, p. 316).

"15 to 25% of innocent defendants overall — and a much larger percentage of homicide defendants — who have been exonerated by DNA evidence had confessed (Innocence Project, 2001; White, 2003).