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.