Change Player Size
Watch this video in a new window

Have you ever had a cop in your face? (Part III) Revised

Excerpts from deposition and trial about evidence during the case.  
 
Customize

More From: mzuri4u

Loading...
Play All Stop Autoplaying | Play Next

QuickList(0)

1
Clear | Save

Related Videos

Featured Videos

Upgrade to Flash Player 10 for improved playback performance. Upgrade Now or get more info.
4 ratings
Sign in to rate
1,699 views
Flag
close
Want to add to Favorites? Sign In or Sign Up now!
close
Want to add to Playlists? Sign In or Sign Up now!
close
Want to flag a video? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Download This Song:
AmazonMP3
Advertisement

Statistics & Data

Loading...
Sign in to post a Video Response

Video Responses (0)

This video has no Responses. Be the first to Post a Video Response.
Sign in to post a Comment

Text Comments (8)   Options

Loading...
kenfo0 (3 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
Unlike on TV, where you appear to be getting your info on law, it is not the job of the police to find out where hair came from. They are to determine if it is relevant to the case. If it is, and it will be used as evidence, they must tie it to the crime. If they find the blood AND hair are not the victim's, they must provide that info to the defense. If the hair is not the victim's/killers', but the blood is, then the hair is not part of the evidence and is not exculpatory.
aabill (3 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
No one is suggesting the hair was not ex culpatory.
The issue is Prosecutor Crane lied in his closing when he said during the trial that there was no hair in the victim's hand. While under oath July 19, 2008 on Page 770-771 he admitted there was a hair in the vicim's hand. The difference is while a prosecutor during the trial he has immunity but once he is out side the court room he must tell the truth like everone else. Why do you think he changed his statement?
Comment(s) marked as spam Show
potterfan2500 (1 year ago) Show Hide
+2
Marked as spam
I don't believe Ryan was involved either. I just watched the 48hours show "dream killer" and was floored. Been looking up all I can find on the internet... and have come the conclusion - Chuck is an attention seeking head case with a criminal history. How in the world they (police, procescuter, judge and jury) believed his story over Ryan... I just can't fathom. The injustice is devistating. Even when he's finally proven innocent.. how can he ever get his life back? Praying for you Ryan!
LucifersSatanicGoat (9 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
Could the hair belong to Clarence Mabon? why doesnt someone check the dna on that
aabill (9 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
This video shows that Prosecutor Crane lied to the jury during his closing. Here we see the hair, the FBI Reports, the MSHP reports and still Crane tells the jury there is no hair in the victim's hand and the hand is not bloody.
Detective Nichols testified during Ryan's trial that he saw the hair in the hand of the victim. Detective Nicoles took several photos of the hair. Still Prosecutor Crane tells the jury there was no hair.
Wow!
thatjessichick (1 year ago) Show Hide
+1
Marked as spam
its so frustrating to watch this and only be able to do so much!!

my prays are for ryan and his family.

*just wondering why there is aboriginal music on this video? it works well though.

always praying xo
aabill (9 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
The aboriginal music is used because Ryan was born in the Northern Territory of Australia. This is the home of the Aboriginal people. Ryan enjoys their music

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.