Comments by "Debany Doombringer" (@debanydoombringer1385) on "Convicting A Murderer Review" video.

@AppleseedVending Why are saying if the officers lied before they can do it again, but dismissing the lie told by the documentary? The same thing applies to them. They hide his conviction of trying to kill his cousin because it made him look bad. It shows he was willing to commit serious acts of violence. So he didn't commit r@pe, but he DID try to kill someone. So it's not a stretch for him to be capable of doing it again.
10
The problem with showing evidence to viewers is that the evidence being presented hasn't gone through rigorous review by the other side and it hasn't been argued in court as to whether it meets the legal criteria to be considered evidence for the trial. I can call anything evidence but that doesn't mean it really is.
9
So they claimed. You've obviously watch the Daily Wire show because nobody in the scenes presented in this video said they didn't talk to them. They said they removed stuff their testimony and even moved it around. An example of that would be they moved an answer to one question and put it under another question to create the narrative they sought.
7
@williammoore5081 Very first sentence of the second paragraph "I'm absolutely not saying that people don't get wrongly convicted." You: Are you saying wrongful convictions don't happen? Reading comprehension is your friend. Edit: The number of innocent people that have been convicted is about 1% or so. If that's all you're looking for it will seem like a lot, but in the grand total it's tiny.
5
So you took the time to read her "monster" of an appeal but you can't take the time to hear the other side? Yeah totally unbiased and fair guy. As I had to explain earlier, evidence in an appeal hasn't gone through the process of being investigated by the opposition and then argued in front of the court as to whether it meets the evidentiary threshold. It's not "evidence" until it does. It's just possible evidence. A lot of evidence gets rejected and not allowed before a trial and only what meets the criteria is presented to the jury. None of that happens in an appeal which is why supposed "new evidence", unless it's extraordinary, is allowed for a reason for an appeal. Edit: "New evidence" is presented to the public in order to create an emotional response to get their client out. If she's such an amazing lawyer she's well aware nothing she presented was grounds for an appeal, but it was good fodder for people who watched that series and now believe he's innocent.
4
@HostileTakeover555 Do you know why the evidence was rejected? Once a jury has found someone guilty the appeal process starts. An appeal typically has to be about procedures that were done incorrectly. That procedure itself was flawed. The reason "new evidence", unless it's extraordinary, is denied as a reason is because it takes years for these cases to take place. The defense has all that time to collect evidence to help they're client. They have just as much time as the prosecution. If the prosecution were able to keep collecting evidence years after the trial had been concluded they'd also probably find even more damaging evidence, but they don't. So allowing evidence that's collected years later because a team is still working looking for stuff is denied because the other side wasn't given the same advantage. Edit: Evidence has to go through a serious review by both sides, it's relevance or authenticity has to be argued before the court before it's allowed in, etc. None of that takes place with evidence presented at an appeal. I've seen cases where the defense claims to have DNA evidence that proves their client is innocent, but it's later discovered the test didn't meet the evidentiary standards. It didn't include enough information to be exclusionary.
1
This is a crime channel. If you don't care, why are you even here?
1