Comments on: Dream Killer
Add a Comment
- It was the Janitor. Seriously. They were so focused on convicting two innocent guys they didn't bother to check the credibility of the "eye witness"
Kent left work and was feeding the stray cat. The Janitor hated it. They had words. The janitor lost it and went postal on Kent. When he saw all the blood realized that he killed the guy he decided to make it look like a robbery. Then - probably knowing the ineptitude of the police department - he figured he'd cover his tracks if he pretended to be an eyewitness and report the body.
The jurors admitted that they had already decided Ryan's guilt before hearing the evidence. Bad Jurors!!! Idiots.. I guess that's proof you don't want to live in a town full of imbeciles!
I hope Ryan's Dad reads this and gets a private investigator to look into the Janitor's DNA, and get it compared to the evidence! - Reply to this comment
- I can't get over the lack of physical evidence. There happens to be one small detail I can't seem to let go of...transfer. If the boys actually did attack this reporter, would they not have blood transfer? I mean you are smashing someone in the head with a tire iron, the scalp bleeds profusely, you would be soaked in blood. Even if it was Halloween they were high school students, would their parents not notice blood soaked clothing in the house? would there not be transfer in the car? As for the witnesses...you cannot honestly expect someone to believe that four years later you would be better equipped to remember details or descriptions than you were the very night you witnessed it. It seems to me there is a ton of blatant ignorance to be shared between the prosecuters office and the jury box. There is way to much reasonable doubt here, that jury convicted a boy to prison based on emotion. I hope they sleep well at night.
- Reply to this comment
- i just watched the program and was wondering if they considered the height of the victim and the attacker. the victim seems to be very tall where as chuck seems to be quite short (though that may just be the camera). does the type and pattern of injuries sustained by the victim match the height of the attacker?
- Reply to this comment
- the police in the states ar stubed thay think thay got the right boys thay could not find a hooker in awhore house i would never live as a yankey
- Reply to this comment
- The essence of any trial is some degree of uncertainty. Here, there is on the one hand the sincere confession of one of the accused and on the other hand the equally sincere denial by the other. Beyond that, no evidence. No reference to bloody clothing. No blood in the car. No link to either at the scene. What is entirely missing from the "48 Hours" report is any reference at all to burden of proof. It''s beyond a reasonable doubt, remember. Apparently, not only did the reporters of this piece forget about that burden, but so did the jurors. As the old legal saying goes, "I wouldn''t convict a yellow dog on that skimpy amount of evidence."
- Reply to this comment
- When I watch a show like this I usual do not remeber names but this story realy caught my interest. The scale of justice were one sided against the two boys. Where is the over whamming evidence, the prosecuter only has two, the janitor, said he had no description of the 2 men at the crime scene, but two years later in court it all came back to him when he saw Ryan in court, and Chuck who dream all of this hear say evidence.
- Reply to this comment
- usedhorses,
I don''t think Chuck was trying to be malicious. I think something about this case got to him mentally and he had a dream and the dream freaked him out. At that point, he TRIED REALLY HARD TO REMEMBER and actually convinced himself there were memories to be retrieved. Then, armed with details spoon fed by the investigators, he filled in the gaps (errors) in his mind with the details and became utterly convinced the whole thing happened.
I see this for what it was. The sad part is that neither the jury nor the DA/Prosecuter thought anything was amiss and that Chuck was accurate. Chuck didn''t lie (intentionally deceive) he''s just sorely mistaken... to the tune of costing him and his old friend their lives. - Reply to this comment
- I couldn''t sleep after watching this. First, there''s probably NO WAY Ryan or Chuck committed the crime because there''s actually exculpatory evidence suggesting they didn''t (bar timeline, hair found in victim''s hand does not match either, body found face up-chuck''s testimony suggested face down), let alone reasonable doubt.
Second, the prosecuter had idiot stamped across his forehead throughout the show. He demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of simple investigative techniques and had no understanding of cognition. Further, the jury made me want to vomit. I don''t know where this crime occured, but I''m wondering if the collective IQ of the town is over 100.
I know what I''m talking about. I learned cognition from one of the best in the WORLD, and she appeared on the show (and testified in the trial). In a lecture I attended several years ago, I watched as she planted a false memory into the class and they all believed it was REAL. Memories are far more fragile than the average person realizes. - Reply to this comment
- Our system is backwards, your no longer innocent until proven guilty it''s the other way around. My family is going through the same thing; my son was arrested August of 2007. Before the arrest of my son there was some other guy going around town bragging that he himself was the one to do this crime but then he was arrested and he changed his story. He told the authorities that is was my son and not him. Now my son is sitting in a Los Angeles County Jail waiting to prove his innocents. It''s taking a toll on my son and the family but we are going to see this to the end and stand 100% by my son. I would love to some how get intouch with the Ferguson family. I''ll keep them in my prayers......Debbie
- Reply to this comment
- I just finished watching this show and I had to make a comment because there is no way Ryan is guilty. If he took the belt and strangled the man why wasn''t his DNA on the belt? He needs to get a new trial. Also the other fellow I am not sure about, he says he did it so maybe he did. How about the clothes they were wearing, did they test them for blood? It sure looked like there was a lot of splatter of blood on the crime scene. Also just because a person doesn''t cry when the verdict is read, come on I think he was in shock myself.
- Reply to this comment
