That’s why I am bothered so much by them showing Denzel burn the barrettes at the end...it robbed us of being able to have a debate over whether or not Leto did it. With that scene, I don’t see how anyone could argue Leto did it (note that’s not the same as saying he definitively didn’t do it).
Someone said earlier in the thread that they couldn’t tell the point of the movie (or they felt like the movie had no point), but I think one of the points was captured in the scene where Mr Robot is leaning on the lab tech to “make” Leto’s fingerprints match. The tech tells him he got 11 pings but LA requires 12. Robot rashes on him for not just making it a match and the tech says this other guy got 8 pings so it could possibly be him...but the other guy is the tech himself. Honestly, I rolled my eyes at that scene, but in retrospect it really serves as a good illustration/metaphor for the problem with circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. Cops/prosecutors could present 11 exhibits of circumstantial evidence and sway many jurors pretty convincingly. But what they don’t tell you is that they could probably present a shockingly high number of exhibits of circumstantial evidence implicating someone who obviously didn’t do it! At least with fingerprints there are clearly defined legal thresholds (# of pings) that must be satisfied in order for it to become acceptable. With circumstantial evidence there’s no bar. It’s just a matter of how convincing the prosecutors are and how dumb or biased the jurors are. And to make matters even worse, prosecutors/cops aren’t even obliged to to go after the guy with largest amount of circumstantial evidence against him! Another guy could have 12 pieces of circumstantial evidence against him, and cops are more likely to ignore it because they have their eyes set on the bird they have in the hand rather than the one in the tree.
And that leads to another point of the movie: how cops can go down a rabbit hole chasing a subject they *think* did it and how the inertial effects of that hole will lead them to dismiss facts (and other circumstantial evidence) that suggests their subject is innocent. We saw this play out in Netflix’s “How to Make A Murderer”. In this movie, Denzel only started sniffing around Leto because of that EXTREMELY weak A/C repair angle. Nothing actually tied Leto to the scene of the crime. He was just a weirdo, and the more weird shyt they uncovered the more Denzel/Robot convinced themselves that they had the right guy without actually proving that they had the right guy. And that’s a very dangerous place to be because then the rules that are in place to help prevent innocent people being jammed up start to just become inconvenient “technicalities”. Like, I respect those rules, but since I know I got the right guy, let’s just ignore them so we don’t let an evil person stay free and potentially hurt more people...but of course, this is based on a fallacy because you don’t actually know you got the right guy!
Sorry for the long post/semi-rant, it’s just one of my bigger fears is finding myself in a defendant’s chair for a crime I didn’t commit while a jury of my “peers” being easily swayed by a bunch of circumstantial evidence simply cuz of the officers tunnel vision or worse, biases. On the flip side, if y’all ever find yourself accused of a crime better hope a breh like me is on the jury...cuz I’m putting the absolute smallest of weight on any circumstantial evidence they present.