CONVICTION OVERTURNED Do you think Jane Dorotik is Innocent or Guilty?

[SandyQLS]

California woman's 2001 conviction for murdering husband OVERTURNED

Jane Dorotik has always maintained that she did not kill her husband of 30 years, Bob Dorotik. But she was jailed for two decades - before evidence used against her was discredited.

www.dailymail.co.uk

In 2001 Jane Dorotik was sentenced to 25 years to life for the murder of her husband Bob Dorotik in San Diego County, CA. Bob's body was found dumped on his jogging route with his shoes on the wrong feet, and their bedroom had excessive blood spatter. Erin Moriarty has covered this case in several episodes, and iirc correctly it was an episode of Forensic Files. Per the link, the conviction has been overturned, some evidence tossed by the appeals court, and the DA is not planning to retry the case. She has served 20 years.

But, do you think she is Innocent or Guilty?

 

[kittythehare]

California woman's 2001 conviction for murdering husband OVERTURNED

Jane Dorotik has always maintained that she did not kill her husband of 30 years, Bob Dorotik. But she was jailed for two decades - before evidence used against her was discredited.

www.dailymail.co.uk

In 2001 Jane Dorotik was sentenced to 25 years to life for the murder of her husband Bob Dorotik in San Diego County, CA. Bob's body was found dumped on his jogging route with his shoes on the wrong feet, and their bedroom had excessive blood spatter. Erin Moriarty has covered this case in several episodes, and iirc correctly it was an episode of Forensic Files. Per the link, the conviction has been overturned, some evidence tossed by the appeals court, and the DA is not planning to retry the case. She has served 20 years.

But, do you think she is Innocent or Guilty?

Based upon that single link you provided , which is the first and all I have heard of this case, I reckon she is innocent, even though i would not trust all media to report accurately and correctly..

 

[elliefant]

I have seen the Forensic Files episode a while ago and recall being very unimpressed with the daughter’s behaviour towards her father; I don’t remember how she was eliminated, perhaps she had an alibi? The wife/mother was certainly at odds with him about her wanting to spend ever more money on expanding their stables but I don’t remember more than that.
It being Forensic Files it was obviously heavily biased towards the forensics being supreme & the mother therefore being guilty, but this latest development has cast those forensics into doubt. Also in that programme they said she accused the daughter but in this article it says she refused to accuse the daughter.
So I don’t really know what to think except that I had doubts at the time I watched the episode and felt that the daughter had been involved in some way.
I think there was a groom implicated in some way too but I don’t recall how, perhaps somebody remembers the episode better than me.

 

[RichardKimble]

California woman's 2001 conviction for murdering husband OVERTURNED

Jane Dorotik has always maintained that she did not kill her husband of 30 years, Bob Dorotik. But she was jailed for two decades - before evidence used against her was discredited.

www.dailymail.co.uk

In 2001 Jane Dorotik was sentenced to 25 years to life for the murder of her husband Bob Dorotik in San Diego County, CA. Bob's body was found dumped on his jogging route with his shoes on the wrong feet, and their bedroom had excessive blood spatter. Erin Moriarty has covered this case in several episodes, and iirc correctly it was an episode of Forensic Files. Per the link, the conviction has been overturned, some evidence tossed by the appeals court, and the DA is not planning to retry the case. She has served 20 years.

But, do you think she is Innocent or Guilty?

From this, it's hard to see how the conviction was secured, I'd venture a second one never would be.

The organization pushed the prosecution to admit that the criminalist who prepared the 'bloodstain pattern analysis' to the jury in 2000 was not a competent expert nor was the criminalist who identified the tire impressions near Bob's body that the prosecution relied upon in their argument.

Furthermore, the Sheriff's crime lab at the time was unaccredited and made multiple significant errors while handling the evidence.

 

[musicaljoke]

From this, it's hard to see how the conviction was secured, I'd venture a second one never would be.

The organization pushed the prosecution to admit that the criminalist who prepared the 'bloodstain pattern analysis' to the jury in 2000 was not a competent expert nor was the criminalist who identified the tire impressions near Bob's body that the prosecution relied upon in their argument.

Furthermore, the Sheriff's crime lab at the time was unaccredited and made multiple significant errors while handling the evidence.

How on earth was an unaccredited crime lab engaged to handle evidence?

 

[SandyQLS]

Thank you for your replies. I thought this case was more well known.

Forensic Files, Episode 39, Season 7, Marathon Man. I knew people who lived in the area at the time. They thought she was guilty.

 

[SophieRose]

I have seen the Forensic Files episode a while ago and recall being very unimpressed with the daughter’s behaviour towards her father; I don’t remember how she was eliminated, perhaps she had an alibi? The wife/mother was certainly at odds with him about her wanting to spend ever more money on expanding their stables but I don’t remember more than that.
It being Forensic Files it was obviously heavily biased towards the forensics being supreme & the mother therefore being guilty, but this latest development has cast those forensics into doubt. Also in that programme they said she accused the daughter but in this article it says she refused to accuse the daughter.
So I don’t really know what to think except that I had doubts at the time I watched the episode and felt that the daughter had been involved in some way.
I think there was a groom implicated in some way too but I don’t recall how, perhaps somebody remembers the episode better than me.

Daughter had an alibi, she was visiting her aunt in Long Beach. Daughter supported mother during trial while the two brothers did not, I think one died last year.

California woman's conviction for murdering her husband overturned after two decades in prison

Blaming an inadequate and incomplete investigation and unfair trial, Jane Dorotik pushed for a new examination of the evidence that helped convict her.

www.cbsnews.com

But perhaps the most powerful witnesses were the Dorotiks' two sons, Nick and Alex. They both testified against their mother.

Bonnie Howard–Regan (in court): Did you say anything specifically about the syringe?

Nick Dorotik: Well, I asked her — how it got there and what it was doing there.

Bonnie Howard-Regan: And what was your mother's response?

Nick Dorotik: She said that — her biggest fear in all this was that the — that us family members would start questioning her.

Kerry Steigerwalt (in court): Your mother always settled things logically, tried to?

Alex Dorotik: No.

Kerry Steigerwalt: — you wouldn't agree with that statement?

Alex Dorotik: Nope. …It would be my mom basically saying, "This is what you have to accept." And then my dad would either accept it or there would be threats of divorce or something. That's what I remember from growing up.

Jane's attorneys Kerry Steigerwalt and Cole Casey admitted it was a big blow.

Erin Moriarty: Would you say that's been the most damaging testimony?

Kerry Steigerwalt: Yeah.

Cole Casey: It's not what they said. It's the fact that they were there testifying for the prosecution.

 

[kittythehare]

Daughter had an alibi, she was visiting her aunt in Long Beach. Daughter supported mother during trial while the two brothers did not, I think one died last year.

California woman's conviction for murdering her husband overturned after two decades in prison

Blaming an inadequate and incomplete investigation and unfair trial, Jane Dorotik pushed for a new examination of the evidence that helped convict her.

www.cbsnews.com

But perhaps the most powerful witnesses were the Dorotiks' two sons, Nick and Alex. They both testified against their mother.

Bonnie Howard–Regan (in court): Did you say anything specifically about the syringe?

Nick Dorotik: Well, I asked her — how it got there and what it was doing there.

Bonnie Howard-Regan: And what was your mother's response?

Nick Dorotik: She said that — her biggest fear in all this was that the — that us family members would start questioning her.

Kerry Steigerwalt (in court): Your mother always settled things logically, tried to?

Alex Dorotik: No.

Kerry Steigerwalt: — you wouldn't agree with that statement?

Alex Dorotik: Nope. …It would be my mom basically saying, "This is what you have to accept." And then my dad would either accept it or there would be threats of divorce or something. That's what I remember from growing up.

Jane's attorneys Kerry Steigerwalt and Cole Casey admitted it was a big blow.

Erin Moriarty: Would you say that's been the most damaging testimony?

Kerry Steigerwalt: Yeah.

Cole Casey: It's not what they said. It's the fact that they were there testifying for the prosecution.

Fascinating.
Thanks for that link.
I wonder what happened to him?
Says that other witnesses saw him out jogging that day...