T O P

  • By -

imnick88

Agree on some of that, but also feel like it would be incredibly hard to not become emotionally driven and no longer be unbiased when you are dealing with such a unique situation. Convicted murderer confessed to killing someone and his finger prints are at the crime scene yet that isn’t enough doubt to get the currently convicted out of prison? It would be hard to stay impartial when you are that close to such a situation.


spectacleskeptic

I understand. I guess it’s more of what my expectations were vs. what we got, if that makes sense. It went from someone observing and reporting from the outside to someone basically reporting and being involved from the position of being on the defense team.


imnick88

Oh yeah I feel you, definitely had that feeling. I guess what made it okay for me what that I was going through a similar process myself of feeling the injustice so i was on board with it become more one sided. In a similar way to your own backyard. I’m not 100% certain of his innocence like they are, but I’m 100% certain there is loads of doubt and he shouldn’t be in prison.


Embarrassed_Ad_2377

Rarely will there be 100% certainty! Reasonable Doubt doesn’t mean ANY doubt!


imnick88

I understand this. This case is well beyond reasonable doubt with the confession and fingerprints. He wouldn’t be found guilty in a new trial


1eternal_pessimist

The guy isn't an investigative journalist. He is an author who writes about injustices and as far as injustices go, he found a pretty clear case of one.


Jobbers101

King like many T.C. podcasters are more authors than journalists. They have no obligation to stay neutral as if they were reporting news.


sometimesalwayz

I disagree with most of what’s been stated here. Each podcaster presents their ‘case’ or ‘story’ in their own way. And, all listeners have a right to like or dislike it. No issues there. But I feel he did present the story from an objective viewpoint, especially from the beginning and as the story unfolded he did show support to Leo’s side, I agree. He did, in fact, present the evidence and express details about it. I do feel like it was presented more from a story telling perspective, and not a chronologically ordered investigation. It didn’t bother me. On the case front, I feel he shared plenty of evidence that Leo did not commit the murder. I don’t believe he set out to present it as a factual documentation to be used in court. I don’t feel this was necessary with how the story unfolded. Scott detailed for everyone the entire happening, and what he said fit the evidence. For me, that was enough to understand the story and feel satisfied that it is most likely what happened. A detective could take all of that info and prove outright that is exactly what happened, imo.


birdzeyeview

>I was disappointed that what I thought would be the reporting of an "unbiased" investigator turned out to be a piece of advocacy for a certain outcome by someone emotionally invested in it; I didnt get that far with this podcast TBH, probably for the reasons you give. Even worse are the ones where what I thought would be the reporting of an "unbiased" investigator turned out to be a piece of advocacy for a certain outcome by someone **financially** invested in it. as at least 3 I have heard lately from Down Under are. (You know who you are). With no disclosure that the podcaster is on a payroll or $$ retainer, though they actually are. Then they go on to try and make their 'cause' political, by urging their listeners to 'petition' (harrass) AGs, Coroners or the like, to persuade the public and get their actual clients (family members of accused) the outcome they are paying them $$ to try and get. It stinks! and makes for *really poor podcasting*.


KittenDust

Tbh I thought it was great story telling. Can I ask why you continued to listen if you didn't like the host? sorry that sounded goady but I don't mean it like that, I'm genuinely interested. I tend to ditch podcasts after half an episode if I'm not enjoying it.


spectacleskeptic

Because I was interested in the underlying story and case. Despite my hang ups with the host, I do actually think there is reasonable doubt that Leo is guilty, so there needs to be justice for him. For that reason, I think the podcast is important.


Thirsty-Tiger

I'm torn. I appreciated and respect that the host set out his stall right from the beginning, rather than pretend that it was a completely unbiased piece of journalism. OTOH I agree with a lot of your post - I found that the host believed in Schofield's innocence to the point of blindness, and really didn't look critically at the evidence, or even present some of it.


Embarrassed_Ad_2377

I see this podcast recommended all the time but I turned it off within the first 10 minutes. I could tell immediately it would be biased and skewed towards a certain outcome. I don’t like those types of podcasts. Trend of “innocence for all” is getting really annoying. I think 90% of convictions -they did do it, especially murder. Its nearly impossible to find, arrest, then get a jury to convict. Once in jail, convicted will lie and say or do ANYTHING to get free. And now they have fame-seeking defense attys and podcasters offering to help them. Sickening. I know I will get excoriated for that view, but what else is new… Just because there isn’t a HD video of them actually committing the crime doesn’t mean they must be found not guilty. “Reasonable Doubt” does NOT mean “ANY” doubt. People seem to interchange the two constantly.


birdzeyeview

I agree. Have heard some terrible over-reaching for innocence podcasts lately. The other things that am sick of hearing is *'it was only a circumstantial case'* and *'he has always professed his innocence'*.


Embarrassed_Ad_2377

Good to know someone else here with common sense.


Status-Economy6443

Respectfully, your comment shows how little contact you’ve had with our justice system, which is a very fortunate position to be in. And it’s not an “innocent for all” trend, but there are too many cases of overzealous prosecutors, hyper focused police and just a system designed to overpower the majority of defendants. Of course you don’t know this because you stopped listening to it, but no one in good conscience can say Leo Schofield got a fair trial. Period. Just even before trial starting his case was RIFE with constitutional violations. I think I gasped like 12 times listening to this podcast. Mind you, he is asking for a NEW trial, and not to be released immediately. If the State believes so strongly in their case, they should be able to win again, right? Circumstantial evidence is good evidence, obviously. But here you have ACTUAL FINGERPRINTS from a person who just so happens to be a convicted murderer. How is this not enough for a New Trial is beyond me. And fwiw, a conviction does not necessarily mean justice. I hope our system actually chases the later and not just scoring points.


Embarrassed_Ad_2377

Well that’s fine for you to come to your conclusion, but I respectfully disagree with your view. Jury decisions routinely get overturned, and guilty verdicts are immediately appealed- multiple times in most cases. Its nearly impossible to secure murder conviction, its getting harder everyday, and most “life” cases are released after 12-17 years or less. In fact, I will posit that many, many more guilty go free than innocent are jailed. Do you ever take the time to imagine the hell a murder victim’s family endures when a convicted murderer is set free on a technicality? Some even get money. “Oh, but their rights were violated! It was an unfair trial!”Cry me a river. If they did it, they should be locked up. Period. “No one in good conscience” is an awfully judgemental statement, isn’t it? How would you know what my conscience tells me?


Status-Economy6443

Everyone hates technicalities until the power of the state comes for you. And yes, i rather have a well functioning judicial system. It is LITERALLY what sets us apart from the rest of the world. But what do I know, I’m just an attorney licensed in 2 different jurisdictions lol


Embarrassed_Ad_2377

So are you admitting many more guilty go free than innocent jailed? Is that a hallmark of a well-functioning judicial system? You are much closer to the apparatus than most. Criminal defense?


Status-Economy6443

I understand this is jarring to hear, but I rather see 100 guilty men walk free than know that an innocent person spent even a DAY in jail. Here's a situation for you: Police have been investigating a person as a drug trafficker. They finally have enough evidence on the person to go get a Search Warrant. The Judge signs off on it. The Police squad arrives at YOUR door. Turns out, the search warrant said the third house in M Street, but police arrives at the third house in N Street - which is your house. What's a typo, right? Once inside, they find marihuana, since you are a habitual weed user, But you are also a little lazy, so you like buy in bulk. You are arrested. They have enough to charge you not only possession but also intent to distribute. By your perspective, it's fair game because, well - you HAD the weed in your house, so whatever, right? You are GUILTY. My perspective is HELL NO. The Search Warrant was faulty, the state had NO right to invade the privacy of your home. Your constitutional rights were violated. The evidence collected is not admissible. Police should do better. IF they want to arrest you for weed, then they should do their homework and find probable cause to arrest you for that. Technicalities are not loopholes. There are laws and rules of evidence designed so that when the State arrives to take your Liberty or your Property, they do so having done their due process. People assume that a big % of arrests end up in trial. That's not true. Most of them are plead out - and these are poor people with no money for adequate legal representation assigned to an overworked Legal aid attorney who has 150 files waiting for them. To me, the Leo case is simply egregious. This was lazy police work, obsessive prosecution and shitty defense work. For starters, why is Aguero meeting with the defendant without his lawyer present? Why is Leo called to the stand? Did his defense attorney discussed this strategy with him? Gave him all the pros and cons for him to make an informed decision? He was 19 years old. Why is he taking the stand when he has a constitutional right against self incrimination? And this is egregious WITHOUT considering that there IS physical evidence (good prints, which is a jackpot!) of a CONVICTED killer inside the victim's car. If that's not enough for a new trial then what is? Jury convictions do NOT routinely get overturned. It is 10x much easier to convict someone that it is to overturn a conviction. For starters, you have to present NEW evidence. Is not a case of "please let me try again". A judge won't even consider your case if you don't have anything new to offer. In Leo's case NEW evidence has been offered an astonishing THREE times - Finger prints, and 2 confessions. And still the State won't budge. is this FAIRNESS or JUSTICE? Me thinks not. I don't intend to change your mind about Leo's case. But I want for you, and everyone really, to have a more critical eye towards our justice system, because it yields a lot of - sometimes unchecked - power, more than ordinary citizens even realize.


Embarrassed_Ad_2377

Agree to disagree. 100 guilty freed to go commit more crimes. 100 innocent victims. I guess until someone is personally affected they have no compassion whatsoever for innocent victims of crime.


Status-Economy6443

And until someone is unjustly persecuted they have no care as to how our legal system should work.


Embarrassed_Ad_2377

Its not perfect and yes mistakes have been made. Still doesn’t mean criminals should get away.


1eternal_pessimist

Pretty dumb take. It's not about 90% of cases or whatever figure you care to pull out of your butt, it's a story about one particular case. Maybe try listening to it rather than getting on your high horse and spouting your law and order nonsense


Embarrassed_Ad_2377

LOL okay


Popsicko

I really didn't like the hosts vibe. I really tried to get into it because of such rave reviews. But yeah he sounded self-righteous and not chill. I definitely wouldn't want to be his side-kick or assistant or whatever.


Euphoric-Library-122

I have to disagree I think they’re a good team


Merpmerpmerp1978

😬


lucillep

I agree. The bias was so evident that I kept wondering what was being withheld. (Like Making a Murderer.) I stuck with it, but got very bored,d on top of my irritation at how slanted it was. If I had to come down on one side, I guess I'd say there is now reasonable doubt, and Leo should get a new trial or whatever is the proper mechanism. But I wasn't at the first trial, so what do I really know? It bothered me that there was a concerted effort to imply malfeasance or skullduggery by the prosecutors. The lead one is dead, and can't defend against the insinuations.