Discussion Main / FramingTheGuiltyParty

So, would the following sequence of event count:

1) Some guy commits a crime. The evidence is overwhelming, there's recordings of him bragging in public, the works. 2) The very notion of this specific crime having been committed is inconvenient to the Propaganda Machine pretending "things like this don't happen!" 3) So let's frame this guy for a completely different crime that'll get people's blood boil. 4) he was arrested and thrown in jail; 5) Oops, he tragically died in a Hell Hole Prison. 6) Guess he can't be tried for the original crime anymore, not even in the court of public opinion, him already being convicted of a worse crime that our Propaganda Machine considers plausible so nothing contradicts our version of the truth... Phew!

Re the Goblet of Fire example: I always thought Crouch Sr's actions were driven by him genuinely believing his son to be guilty (and the viewers were led to believe he's wrong)?

• Possible Real Life example with OJ Simpson. Illegal searches made much of the evidence against him questionable, along with the allegedly planted blood on the sock (among other things). More than anything else, this belief along with the Mark Furhman involvement probably led to his acquittal. This assumes of course that he actually did it.
  • The blood pattern soaked through the sock, one side to the other side, before drying. This made the blood look planted. Other problems were blood found with preservative in it, 1.5 cc of Simpson's blood disappearing from the police's vial, an officer driving around with the vial of blood and taking it to Simpson's house, Mark Fuhrman gleefully bragging in gutter language about the things he'd done to "niggers" including planting evidence. In a way the Simpson case could be seen as a Real Life Deconstruction of this.

Reading up on what the forensic experts from both sides have to say, the evidence collection was so fouled up from initial crime scene discovery onwards, there's no telling if he did it or not. One of the forensics scientists working for Simpson, who drew the blood requested for comparison, specifically speaks of the detective he handed the blood to not turning it over immediately to have it properly stored, but shoving it in his rear pants pocket and wandering around the crime scene and a couple other places related to the crime before handing it over. Regardless of what happened/didn't happened with the blood, that was just flat out stupid. That's without going into the 'only Simpson did it' mentality the detectives immediately locked into.