Avsnitt
-
We still have no strong leads on who actually killed Bob Dorotik. This episode goes through how DNA evidence led to Jane’s charges finally being dismissed, and why that same DNA evidence can’t lead police to the actual killer. It also looks at what’s next for Jane and how she is devoting all her time to activism, lobbying the government for prison reform. This episode looks at why Jane has changed her life post-prison, but also how her work now makes sense given her personality and how she handled her time behind bars.
-
The bad science in Jane’s case has implications for many other cases in San Diego County as well. The work of Jane’s lawyers led the District Attorney’s office to send out a Brady letter to defense attorneys warning them that evidence used in other cases could be questionable. But there’s no list of all those cases, and the DA deletes emails after 90 days so tracking them all down is difficult. We do have a few indications at partial lists of cases the same criminologists worked on, and this episode looks at some of those cases and discusses why the people in those cases aren’t alerted to the possibility of bad science being used against them.
-
Saknas det avsnitt?
-
Popular culture and the media are obsessed with forensic science. There are TV shows, podcasts and documentaries devoted to it. But much of that science does not always hold up to scrutiny, especially as our technology advances. Things like bite mark analysis, tire track analysis, hair analysis and other techniques are regularly used in courtrooms but do not always produce accurate results.
-
Jane Dorotik’s luck had finally begun to change. While she was still in prison for her husband’s murder, she was able to get the attention of lawyers with the Innocence Project. They reviewed her case and found much of the evidence and scientific analysis used in court appeared faulty. This episode details how Jane’s lawyers reviewed her case, and how things began to change once they got additional DNA analysis.
-
Jane Dorotik had always believed the justice system worked just fine, and people who were in prison likely deserved to be there. When she was convicted of her husband’s murder, she quickly realized that was not the case. Then when she went to prison, she met more women who had also been treated unfairly. She began to see how broken the system is, even for women who were guilty of their crimes. This episode looks at Jane’s transformation and how her tendency to organize and advocate took hold in a prison context.
-
Jane Dorotik’s trial began in March 2000 and it was a media circus. While the prosecution focused on scientific evidence — tire tracks, blood pattern analysis, contents of Bob’s stomach — the defense didn’t tackle that evidence and instead took the unusual strategy of blaming Jane’s daughter Claire for the murder. This only added to the circus aspect — a wealthy white woman or her attractive daughter committed a murder, gaining the case national attention. This episode looks at how police conduct homicide investigations, zeroing in on a suspect and then finding evidence to support that suspect’s guilt.
-
On Sunday, Feb. 13, 2000, Jane Dorotik’s husband Bob went out for a run and never came back. He was found dead by the side of the road early the next morning, and Jane’s life changed forever. Three days later, she was arrested for his murder. This opening episode gives the details on who Jane was and what happened the day Bob was murdered. It also points at what’s to come — the media’s role in Jane’s trial and conviction, the faulty science used at her trial, and how she has transformed from wealthy white woman with no concerns about the criminal justice system into an abolitionist prison activist.
-
On Sunday, Feb. 13, 2000, Jane Dorotik’s husband Bob went out for a run and never came back. He was found dead by the side of the road early the next morning, and Jane’s life changed forever. Three days later, she was arrested for his murder. Over the next two decades Jane would become a convict, a martyr, an advocate, and she would play a key role in exposing fatal flaws in the criminal justice system.
