Casefile patreon

Case 243: Deidre Kennedy

🕑 Added 2023-04-08 07:25:27 +0000 UTC

Comments

Megan Brennan

Nooooope. I don’t often quit episodes, but I just can’t finish. Anyone that would do something like this does not deserve to breathe the same oxygen as the rest of us. 😢

mbx

So sad. Such an injustice

Ashley Batton

This is one of the only cases I absolutely can’t listen too. I got ten minutes in and I noped out. I hope this disgusting person who did this gets the same treatment someday.

Michael Brodie

Not you Bob - see above "hint" - comprehension doesn't grow on trees...

Andrea Johnson

Wow. It's not often that I am surprised by depravity.

Lamar Moore

I couldn't finish the episode because I know how it turns out. It's infuriating. This was the first episode where I didn't want to hear the ending, knowing story beforehand and the result of a lack of justice

Kelli

Same this one is so hard to listen to

Ben Wickert

Horrendously sad and sick case. Whoever did it should rot in hell. However… 1) bite mark testimony is absolute bullshit and should never be relied upon to convict a person, but only to exonerate: 2) changing the double jeopardy law is a very scary step to take. Finality is critical in criminal cases

Katherine

This episode is really sad. I wonder if the police became so obsessed with the guy that they may overlooked the actual person responsible.

J. Chips

I have a strong stomach and I often disagree with comments that say it was too much. This was extremely upsetting. I haven’t reached minute 10 and I don’t know if I can do it. The last time an episode was this dark was Case 78 The Janabi Family

Brendon Gray

What a truly heartbreaking case. I feel so sorry for the family and the poor little girl

Iain Strachan

That was so disturbing!

Monica

The brother is so sketchy… Also, what a heartbreaking thought that not only was a precious baby girl taken from her parents once through murder then a second time when her ashes were stolen. 😞 can’t imagine the pain

Mary Hatchet

I’m really confused, too. I thought that bite marks were no longer used because they’ve been proven to be problematic. I can’t remember if it was DNA or fingerprints, but I think that it was 1997 that they said the technology came about that they were talking about being digitalized, maybe what they meant was that was the mindset of people at that time, that it was newly considered to be very accurate. I think if bite marks were supposed to be really super accurate, there would be a lot of convictions happening based on bite mark evidence, because there is a lot of biting that goes on in sexual assault. Aside from using bite mark evidence in general, the here, the evidence itself was flawed. He had had his teeth worked on since then. They altered the cast of his teeth to what they thought it would look like because of that. They were willing to overlook the fingerprint evidence as being necessary for this guy, but it sounds like that was one of the main ways they ruled out the cousin, that the fingerprints didn’t match him. This guy didn’t physically match the witnesses descriptions, and they had to bend over backwards and twist all around, trying to put him there. The cousin had been there the day before, and had been convicted of biting a young girl child previously, but they rule him out by his teeth as seen in a photograph. They use bite mark evidence against who they want to convict, even though THEY HAD BEEN LOOKING AT THE BITE MARKS UPSIDE DOWN. I was really thrown off by this, too. I actually kept checking how much time was left in the podcast, thinking that a reference to a bite mark early on in the podcast had meant that it had been swabbed for DNA. I kept thinking it was going to be, the cousin. I think it’s disturbing the lack of evidence that this man was convicted on twice. I think that the jury was acting with the best of intentions, trying to keep somebody off the streets who could do something so terrible, but I don’t know that this was the right guy. It did crack me up at one point though not in a very honorable way when he had gotten sentenced to life with hard labor, even though it was to me not a solid conviction, I was like, that’s what you get for climbing into women’s windows and being creepy with their lingerie. Even if this guy did it, there just was not enough evidence. At least, as far as bite marks go. And I think there’s reasonable doubt as of him being there. The previous wife saying he bit their daughter, being backed up by somebody else who saw bruises, that’s compelling. I just don’t think you’re supposed to convict on bite marks alone anymore.

Megan

This is one of few episodes I’ve had to take a break from. WTF. What a monster. This baby and her family deserved so much better.

K. Smith

What a heartbreaking and frustrating case 💔

Bob Trenwith

Who did you mean to reply to?

Michael Brodie

This episode was a fitting tribute to Deirdre Kennedy, a life taken in the vilest possible circumstances, yet a life that has profound significance. When I was a law student I felt the laws concerning double jeopardy were inseparable from the golden thread of justice. But my views changed over the years. With advances in DNA technology I realised the law did need reform.

Michael Brodie

You simply cannot impugn Casefile for quoting the views of another. I simply cannot understand the irrationality and stupidity that seems ever more common in pretty much all comments forums.

Bob Trenwith

You misrepresented what they said. They referred to DIGITAL bite mark recognition. Although this is indeed nowhere near as accurate as DNA analysis, the best such tests still have about 99% accuracy. Further, suggesting lack of integrity is suggesting deliberate malfeasance.