O DNA da Justiça

If you really lile true crime documentaries.. watch the series but sometimes you can get a bit boring due to long lines of narrative..

This is a gem amongst Netflix documentaries based on crime and wrong convictions. A well directed documentary with deep real stories about people wrongfully convicted. Highlight recommended! 11/10

This is in response to the person who discounted this documentary (and The Innocence Project, in general, I guess) entirely because ex-O.J. Defense Atty. Barry Scheck is the cofounder and Director of The Project. Here's what a lot of observers, me included, think about that. This doc series is about how unreliable certain forensic evidence (e.g., bite-mark analysis) and eyewitness testimony is, and how innocent people have been wrongly convicted as a result. Now Scheck is justly (in)famous for popularizing the phrase "cesspool of contamination" to describe the Crime Lab in L.A., and thereby helping O.J. (who the majority of people, me included, still think was guilty of 1st Degree Murder) be acquitted. Assuming these opinions are true, that essentially means Scheck used the unreliability of certain forensic evidence to help acquit a guilty person. But some of us believe he started The Innocence Project to use some of the same legal (and scientific) arguments to go back in history and get truly (and as some watching this doc, including me, would say, OBVIOUSLY) innocent people released from long prison sentences, incl. on Death Row. Also part of this, the theory would be, is that Scheck may still feel some guilt over his role in the Simpson acquittal, and this is a way to atone, at least in part. Does this lessen the relevance or impact or validity of the points made in The Innocence Files documentary? I'd submit o you: No. It doesn't. So watch it and judge for yourself it's significance. As for me, I'd give it a solid 8 out of 10!

A really shocking expose into the unreliability of bite mark analysis and eye witness testimony.

As the series progresses you see how innocent people were convinced of crimes by a jury of people who innocently believed what they heard in court. Unfortunately, once you hear the backstories, the flaws in the forensics, the influencing of eyewitnesses, you cannot believe these people who were convicted, often on one expert witness, or one eye witness, and nothing more. But that's the beauty of hindsight.

Beware, it would have you believe that all bite mark analysis is hokum and no eye witnesses should be relied upon, when in reality the lesson should be neither should be considered individually sufficient evidence enough go to court.

Otherwise a really well made, often emotional (i cried) insight into injustice and the actual humanity of these convictions. I recommend

What clearly comes across is the arrogance of that character Dr West, who clearly seems to think he couldn't get anything wrong. Then there's the arrogance of the prosecutor Forrest Allgood. What is it with American "justice"? If something else could account for the impressions, or they could be made by someone else, you can't use it as definitive evidence. And what was the motive for those who were wrongly convicted to do those murders? Nuts. It seems that some police and lawyers in the US are more concerned with getting the result they want rather than finding out who really did the crimes. Do you work properly, guys, and don't just ASSUME anything.