It's not eye opening at all. The evidence that exonerated Smith was a confession from another individual accompanied by physical evidence of that individual at the scene of the crime. Much more compelling than Smith's "uh huh." The comment you're replying to is being deceitful.

OP is cherry-picking one piece out of the story. Getting karma for it, but in a most sleazy way possible.

As someone who listens to true crime podcasts, there are loads of people who brag to their friends about committing a crime they didn't do.

People literally confess crimes during interrogation that they didn't do. I know of a case we're they worked on someone for 15 hours straight and the poor sod just confessed because he wanted it to be over. Not everyone is a trained spy or psychopath.

A confession should never be the sole evidence of convicting anyone.

How do we know the so called taped evidence wasn’t manufactured?

I’m not usually given to conspiracy theories, but we already have plenty of evidence that the prosecution lied repeatedly in this case.

I mean, how can we know that any evidence isn’t manufactured?

Besides, the article definitely presents its side of the story, but the fact it left out a huge detail that the person admitted to committing the crime calls into question the article itself. What other things did it conveniently leave out?

Did he admit to committing the crime? Or did he just say “uh huh”?

But to answer the question, well how do we know any evidence isn’t manufactured? You know, I agree with your sentiment here.

But I would also say that the prosecution here has been caught lying, red handed, multiple times. For this case and for the evidence presented here, it should be examined and reaxamined.

>How do we know the so called taped evidence wasn’t manufactured?

would a false tape made 21 years ago show signs of falsification detectable with modern technology? I don't know but I would expect yes.