|
|
Post by Tex on Mar 18, 2013 12:57:04 GMT -6
If you don't see another movie this year, try to see the documentary "An Unreal Dream". It premiered here at the South by Southwest Film Festival and is the story of Michael Morton, who was unjustly imprisoned for 25 years for murdering his wife, to be released when the DNA evidence exonerated him. He, his lawyer, and several fellow inmates tell his story. He managed to be even funny when describing prison life and did not show an ounce of bitterness or anger.
He was at the showing and was surprised to see me. (we graduated from Kilgore High School together) He was a good guy in high school and his classmates were shocked to hear of his murder conviction.
Sorry that Beeb has flown the coop. I would like to get his take on this flick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Mar 18, 2013 20:02:14 GMT -6
I never understood now DNA can exonerate someone. It can prove you WERE there, but how does it prove you were NOT there? The best it can do is prove someone else was there. But that doesn't mean you weren't there too, and were very careful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Mar 18, 2013 20:49:44 GMT -6
Two things exonerated him. There was a bandana found behind the house with her DNA and another killer's DNA on it. (the other killer is on trial for the crime now) Also, it was discovered that the prosecutor suppressed evidence - an interview with his wife's mother telling of her questioning of his 3 year old son who was present saying that it was another man and not his dad. The original conviction was based on the coroners examination of her stomach contents saying positively that she died around 1:30AM (He went to work at 5:30AM). The coroner has recanted that now saying that they now know that that isn't that accurate.
It was so bad that the state of Texas formally apologized and voted him 1.8 million dollars and an $80,000 stipend for life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Mar 19, 2013 0:03:31 GMT -6
So that sounds like it was suppression of evidence and inaccurate testimony that falsely convicted him. The DNA just provided an alternate hypothesis of the crime, which led to the discovery of the other forms of misconduct. I believe my distrust of "DNA exoneration" is still intact.
Either way, I'm glad your classmate was exonerated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Mar 19, 2013 6:21:15 GMT -6
I will agree with you that many of the DNA "exonerations" are flimsy. You are correct that this case involved more. The DNA evidence did put a suspect in a similar Austin murderer in the house in contact with the victim. Michael had no prior criminal record and was inventory manager at a grocery store. He was offered parole if he would admit to the murder and express regret. He chose to stay in prison and insist on his innocence.
|
|
