The Wrong Man: Dying Declaration? - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

mercy1825 · 02-24-2006, 10:26 AM

Who watched this last night on Courttv? The guy was "the right man" without a doubt. Why would they even select a case like this? I think they knew it would turn out that way but they wanted a case when they were saying the police and DA's got it right so it would add credibility to their other broadcasts.

What gave it away for me is during his first interview when he was asked how he felt when he found his cousin was murdered?

He said, "shocked." He was given several opportunities to show if he was also sad or upset but he never indicated that at all. He simply said "shocked."

Of course there was a ton of evidence that pointed to his guilt other than this, but this got me suspicious right away.

Kane · 02-25-2006, 07:30 PM

I saw it, though not in its entirety. I initially gave John Patrick McCreary the benefit of the doubt, but when the detectives reviewed the case and confronted him, it was obvious that McCreary was guilty.

Countless claims of innocence have been verified, but unfortunately some have turned out be false. In any case, if, as a detective, you are asked to handle a case where someone claims innocence, it's natural to be skeptical. But be objective until you get the facts. That's why there's a question mark at the end of the title "The Wrong Man."

Given all the facts, John Patrick McCreary obviously thought he could fool everyone into thinking he was innocent. But he was wrong.

koondawggie · 01-16-2008, 05:13 AM

it was the bogus court tv program that first got me interested in investigating the case over the past two years, and if mccreary did it, then I'm the pope. the so called detectives did nothing to investigate anything but follow what the cops did.
but what is more important is what the cops and lawyers and court tv investigators didn't do.
phone records and timetables weren't crosschecked for one thing there was evidence tampering and many other illegal items that went on to convict a suspect of convenience.court tv wouldn't even respond to inquires or even back up their statements.
it was a phony show with no substance !

kadrmas15 · 01-17-2008, 07:33 AM

I wouldnt call that show phony, I actually liked it. Did the detectives get some cases wrong? Yes. A majority they were right on though, actually one were they thought someone was innocent that they were right on, was Theresa Fargason, who got a life sentence in Georgia after she was convicted of the 1991 murder of her daughter.

Fargason's case reminds me a lot of Darlie Routier's and Fargason has always maintained her innocence and her story never changed, basically Fargason's being charged and later convicted was a result of a bungled investigation by the original cops and they couldnt find the person who did it and the public was demanding someone pay so they decided that Fargason was the person that was going to go down for it.

As it turns out, a suspect that had been overlooked at the time was a Macon, Georgia police officer who has a rather shady past, both in terms of alleged child molestation as well as being a hero cop only for it to be discovered that he wasnt really shot in a struggle, that he had shot himself twice in the chest on purpose so that people would think he was a hero and feel sorry for him.

The wrong man detectives tracked down this former cop and questioned him and he went running from them like they were the plague and they felt that Theresa was innocent and got the short end of the stick and that this former cop was a very likely suspect as he admitted being in the same area at the same time this murder happened.

webprowler · 01-28-2008, 03:44 PM

the only thing I thought was obvious was mccreary was in a position to get put in the hole if he responded in any other manner than the way he did.
what really made me curious was that there was never any mention of any gun powder residue testing, that would have clinched the shooting case for me. other than that and not revealing the name or location of the lab that worked with the audio recording still leaves me very doubtful.

webprowler · 03-23-2008, 05:05 PM

there was no hard evidence produced in that case.
how a jury can arrive at a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt without hard evidence, is a travesty of justice

koondawggie · 03-24-2008, 04:52 PM

Absolutely on target.
the facts are, NO stains, NO fibers, NO gunpowder residue, NO weapon, NO nothing but the testimony of star witnesses with very questionable credibility and moral character

02-24-2006, 10:26 AM	#1
mercy1825 Member Frequent Poster Join Date: May 04, 2004 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 176	The Wrong Man: Dying Declaration? Who watched this last night on Courttv? The guy was "the right man" without a doubt. Why would they even select a case like this? I think they knew it would turn out that way but they wanted a case when they were saying the police and DA's got it right so it would add credibility to their other broadcasts. What gave it away for me is during his first interview when he was asked how he felt when he found his cousin was murdered? He said, "shocked." He was given several opportunities to show if he was also sad or upset but he never indicated that at all. He simply said "shocked." Of course there was a ton of evidence that pointed to his guilt other than this, but this got me suspicious right away.

02-25-2006, 07:30 PM	#2
Kane Member Forum 3000 Club Member Join Date: Mar 07, 2001 Location: MA, United States Posts: 3,367	I saw it, though not in its entirety. I initially gave John Patrick McCreary the benefit of the doubt, but when the detectives reviewed the case and confronted him, it was obvious that McCreary was guilty. Countless claims of innocence have been verified, but unfortunately some have turned out be false. In any case, if, as a detective, you are asked to handle a case where someone claims innocence, it's natural to be skeptical. But be objective until you get the facts. That's why there's a question mark at the end of the title "The Wrong Man." Given all the facts, John Patrick McCreary obviously thought he could fool everyone into thinking he was innocent. But he was wrong.

01-16-2008, 05:13 AM	#3
koondawggie Member Forum Cub Join Date: Jan 16, 2008 Location: missouri Posts: 2	it was the bogus court tv program that first got me interested in investigating the case over the past two years, and if mccreary did it, then I'm the pope. the so called detectives did nothing to investigate anything but follow what the cops did. but what is more important is what the cops and lawyers and court tv investigators didn't do. phone records and timetables weren't crosschecked for one thing there was evidence tampering and many other illegal items that went on to convict a suspect of convenience.court tv wouldn't even respond to inquires or even back up their statements. it was a phony show with no substance !

01-17-2008, 07:33 AM	#4
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	I wouldnt call that show phony, I actually liked it. Did the detectives get some cases wrong? Yes. A majority they were right on though, actually one were they thought someone was innocent that they were right on, was Theresa Fargason, who got a life sentence in Georgia after she was convicted of the 1991 murder of her daughter. Fargason's case reminds me a lot of Darlie Routier's and Fargason has always maintained her innocence and her story never changed, basically Fargason's being charged and later convicted was a result of a bungled investigation by the original cops and they couldnt find the person who did it and the public was demanding someone pay so they decided that Fargason was the person that was going to go down for it. As it turns out, a suspect that had been overlooked at the time was a Macon, Georgia police officer who has a rather shady past, both in terms of alleged child molestation as well as being a hero cop only for it to be discovered that he wasnt really shot in a struggle, that he had shot himself twice in the chest on purpose so that people would think he was a hero and feel sorry for him. The wrong man detectives tracked down this former cop and questioned him and he went running from them like they were the plague and they felt that Theresa was innocent and got the short end of the stick and that this former cop was a very likely suspect as he admitted being in the same area at the same time this murder happened.

01-28-2008, 03:44 PM	#5
webprowler Member Forum Cub Join Date: Jan 28, 2008 Location: chicago Posts: 2	the only thing I thought was obvious was mccreary was in a position to get put in the hole if he responded in any other manner than the way he did. what really made me curious was that there was never any mention of any gun powder residue testing, that would have clinched the shooting case for me. other than that and not revealing the name or location of the lab that worked with the audio recording still leaves me very doubtful.

03-23-2008, 05:05 PM	#6
webprowler Member Forum Cub Join Date: Jan 28, 2008 Location: chicago Posts: 2	there was no hard evidence produced in that case. how a jury can arrive at a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt without hard evidence, is a travesty of justice

03-24-2008, 04:52 PM	#7
koondawggie Member Forum Cub Join Date: Jan 16, 2008 Location: missouri Posts: 2	Absolutely on target. the facts are, NO stains, NO fibers, NO gunpowder residue, NO weapon, NO nothing but the testimony of star witnesses with very questionable credibility and moral character