Quote:
Originally Posted by mineistaken
I just started. How do you think he was guilty at the start of the series when they claim that DNA proved him not guilty?
|
Talking about the murder, not the rape.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MakeMeGrrrrowl
But he was proven not guilty? And they clearly set him up in the first place. And then they took complete control of his property in second case, searched it 14 times and then found the lady's key? Just out in the open? Like they missed it the first 14 times? And it only had HIS DNA on it, not hers? A car she had for 8 years? Not a spot of blood on the mattress where he supposedly beat her sliced her throat and all that?
|
I notice a ton of "?" - you should probably watch the entire thing first. You are repeating questions I asked and not answering mine. Not fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mineistaken
Ok, I am in the middle of the first episode. How can you think he was guilty when:
dna test proved otherwise
they ignored some other dude who was more likely candidate
they have full account of his whereabouts during the crime (went to green bay etc)
it is explained why popo did not like him
How could one think he was guilty by watching the start of the series is beyond me.
|
Again, you are just getting started.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MakeMeGrrrrowl
I think he was just referring to the murder, not the rape.
I say this only because he questioned things in regard to the murder, not rape.
|
Detective Grrrrowl.
