This was really interesting. I never realized fingerprints are not in fact 100% correct like DNA. I also do not believe that we have "certified experts" taking the stand that are really not "experts". It seems only logical that we have permitted judges and juries to assume certain "certifications" are indeed "experts" in the field. The falsehood of being labeled as experts, causes prejudice to occur. This needs corrected.
Regarding the Casey Anthony portion of the program. You can see how the "experts" and all the testimony from "experts" was discredited every step of the way. I personally did not keep up with the Casey Anthony pre-trials from the media. I did watch the final arguments from the prosecutor and defense. It was clear that the prosecutor used that case for himself. It was media motivated. My aunt and uncle watched the entire case on t.v. and said "she was going to walk". How did Jeff Ashton (prosecutor) with all his intelligence think this was a death penalty case? If nothing else, it proved the extremes prosecutors will go to for self motivating reasons. That case cost the state a lot of money. No one wants to talk about that. Mr. Ashton retired and no one wants to talk about how really bad he lost. It was a huge loss. If you note what the defense team did here, Atty. Baez, Mason, etc. It was not just a win but an eye opener as to how much money it takes to "get the facts out there". They could not have done such an outstanding job disproving the "experts" without the money they received for pictures Casey provided to ABC in exchange for $200,000.00 they used that only partly covered the cost of their defense.
I also want to point out that the defense came out saying the child drowned in the pool and Casey and father covered it up because Casey's mom would not be able to handle her daughter's incompetence. If there was anything I caught from the relationship of the parents and Casey it was that they were fed up with her and trying to let her raise the child on her own. I believe Casey suffered from a mental disorder or psychological disorder that went untreated. She went through years of negative energy in that home. Much of it appears to have been brought on herself through immaturity and lying to ward off more negativity from her parents who were fed up. This is not uncommon in many, many, homes today. Long story short. I do believe the child may have died accidentally and because of Casey's failure to protect the child as a mature adult, she covered it up. The heart stickers, etc. they say something. It was not an intentional murder and whether or not the father was a pawn, (may have been brother) someone helped her cover it up or she did it alone but if you study up on disorders, she very likely went into a denial of what she did until she had to face it.
My really long point here is that it was not a death penalty case. Now, you may be wondering if it was an accident, why did she not confess and why did Baez wait until the trial to bring it out. Well, does anyone seriously think the state or media would have believed her? It was not about justice, it was about headlines and there was no way she, her lawyers, etc, could have possibly handled the matter any other way. So the state/media brought this case to such heights that the defense was able to obtain money to disprove, basically, a lot of lies. If your thinking I am pro-Casey, you've got me all wrong. I am neither pro or con Casey Anthony. I am only pro-justice. I believe if the state charged her correctly they would have won. The case shows you that money does in fact by justice. In this case correctly because of the overcharging.
In comparison to Jordan Brown's "headline" case. Going on the premise of the Atty. Krastek's statement after the find of delinquency, where he states he offered a plea "two years ago"....I want to point out how really ignorant that statement was. Who on earth would accept that plea? Hypothetically speaking, if Jordan accidentally shot the gun and panicked, went into denial through fear of admission, shame, etc. Why would he or his defense ever admit to 1st degree "premeditated" murder charges? Better yet, how can a child, underdeveloped, proven through scientific fact, that "acts, then responds", with no life experience on the consequences of his actions, even be considered for a premeditated act 1st degree charge as an adult? With science backing his age-developmental state and psychology also backing his emotional thought process, there is no way he could have done this in a premeditated state of mind. Yet the state of Pennsylvania let this all go public, let all the negative comments come through, let the ignorance of their readers, assume this is in fact possible. It is not. Yet, with the finding of delinquent, the state has been permitted now to legally embrace "cruel and unusual" punishment by permitting him, in his young age, after three years of no intervention, from being home with a father and extended family members that will love and support him and will provide what ever alternative care the state offered in order to be able to provide him with the love he needs.
Furthermore, the public manner in which the family, and media exposed the "private-closed trial" is a travesty of justice. The state had their cake and ate it. Go figure. In retrospect, the trial would have been better off opened to the public because the closed trial appears to have permitted the judge to find him delinquent with no real proof. It permitted a trial that ignored how he was indicted in the first place. He was indicted on a police woman that did not take the stand in the trial. He was indicted on a 7 year-old witness who did not take the stand in the trial. How does an initial indictment with these two people, go to trial without them? It would seem to me that if they do not take the stand in the trial, everything they did to get the indictment is null and void. Finally, he was indicted with all the facts regarding PFA's and "hiring" someone to murder the victim, being swept under the rug.
I hope I did not confuse you too much here. I believe Jordan is innocent and the investigation was mishandled from the beginning, however, my above comment is to try to help you understand that even if he was guilty, the state is wrong in the charge. It is all very sad, very wrong, that even today, intelligent lawyers and judges, cannot fully incorporate the knowledge of science and psychology in their ability to determine how to correctly charge people. Particularly children. If Jordan was in fact guilty, he would be guilty of being a child that acts, then responds. He would be guilty of being a child that does not understand his emotions, and needs help understanding them. He would be just as guilty as many children today, but with a gun. There is no premeditation involved here. Just a child.