Death Row Evidence: The Shoe Print That Should Have Been Challenged
カートのアイテムが多すぎます
ご購入は五十タイトルがカートに入っている場合のみです。
カートに追加できませんでした。
しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。
ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。
しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。
ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。
しばらく経ってから再度お試しください。
ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました
ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました
-
ナレーター:
-
著者:
This episode examines how flawed forensic testimony functions in a courtroom: arriving in technical language, landing on top of emotionally devastating survivor accounts and crime scene photographs, and being treated as precise science when the underlying analysis wouldn't survive scrutiny from an actual specialist. Forensic examiner Lisa DiMeo later reviewed the same partial prints and reached the opposite conclusion — the impressions were insufficient to identify a specific shoe model. The jury never heard her assessment.
The problems compound. The Avia 445B was never recovered. No physical link between Ramirez and the shoe was ever established. The size range cited at trial was a spread, not a match. And the Netflix Night Stalker documentary, released decades later, displayed the wrong Avia model entirely — a women's shoe in the wrong size range — reproducing and extending the original error.
Ramirez's lawyers, Daniel Hernandez and paralegal Richard Salinas, ran a four-year trial — one of the longest and most expensive capital cases in California history — and let Burke's testimony go uncontested at the moment it mattered most. This episode asks what that failure means for the adversarial system, for forensic standards, and for the cases that follow.
This episode includes AI-generated content.
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません