This case happened in 2003 - Yes surveillance footage was available at the time, but there is no reason for The Dodgers to hold onto months and months of footage at any one time, most surveillance footage rewrites over itself if no incidences occur.
The game in question happened in early May, and his arrest didn't occur until August. It would be so unlikely that said footage still existed if not for Curb having filmed.
Well to my knowledge whenever this occurred they can use the system to figure out when it was scanned in, check entrance tapes at that time, see if you sold the ticket online something!
Which is insane in its own right, maybe it was not clear enough to be the only exonerating evidence, but it should have at least caused some reasonable doubt and led to more evidence collecting, such as witness statements, tickets etc. In dubio pro reo after all. Gross miscarriage of justice.
They had the tickets and CCTV footage. Both were inadmissible as evidence, on the basis that anyone could have attended the game for him to give him cover, and the CCTV footage was deemed too low quality to be used in court. That's why the footage from the show was so important, they were filming with much higher quality cameras than the old security cameras (this happened in 2002) and would be accepted in court.
136
u/bigsam63 1d ago
This makes zero sense to me. Wouldn’t the Dodgers have had ample surveillance footage of this guy at the game???