| Top Posters Since October 2003 |
|---|
dp1 | 4000+ | orolan | 4000+ | Navigatr1 | 2500+ | Silvert... | 2500+ | 1dadof5 | 2500+ | Valerie | 2000+ | steve | 1500+ | victori... | 1000+ | myoung | 1000+ | rabbitr... | 750+ | HPierce | 750+ | poetsdr... | 750+ | Renunci... | 750+ | lj | 750+ | fallenone | 500+ | DoTheCr... | 500+ | marta | 500+ | momhelp... | 500+ | prozac | 500+ | rebel51 | 500+ | PVulcan | 250+ | anti | 250+ | rodsmith | 250+ | LockEmUp | 250+ | Quest | 250+ | artie | 250+ | KK | 250+ | LostTime | 250+ | TGoodman | 250+ | amberleaf | 250+ | deadmom... | 250+ | brennus | 100+ | scarlett | 100+ | mousein... | 100+ | thepar | 100+ | assumpt... | 100+ | lildrafire | 100+ | JakeLF | 100+ | MrTruth | 100+ | june5 | 100+ |
| Newest Users |
|---|
| Registered within the last 72 hours. | | buttwaxer | | chooch | | genospice | | hud123 | | kawaski | | kelstress | | unknowable |
|
|
Forum: Old Message Board
Thread (Discussion): "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"
Switch to Flat View
Message 118192 (In Reply to Message 118173)
Re: "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 13, 2003 10:13 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
orolan wrote:
>
> No "hard" data at the moment, but I'll give you some food for
> thought while I track some down.
>
> "But this type of evidence is commonplace in all sorts of
> cases. The spread of DNA analysis has exonerated many
> convicted rapists who had been wrongly identified by
> victims. Of 108 post-conviction exonerations by DNA
> identified by the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N.
> Cardozo School of Law, some 97 involved sexual-assault and
> rape charges, and most of these convictions hinged on faulty
> eyewitness testimony."
>
> "What makes eyewitness identifications especially mischievous
> is that they are not only often inaccurate, but usually they
> can be quite convincing to juries, regardless of their
> veracity. One of the most powerful forms of evidence a
> prosecutor can deploy is a person who was at the scene of the
> crime, who will point to the defendant in court and say,
> "That's the man who did it." Juries often believe such
> witnesses even when loud alarm bells are warning them away.
> After a woman was raped in her New Jersey apartment in 1992,
> the victim couldn't find her assailant in police photos. But
> eight months later, she saw McKinley Cromedy on the street
> and implicated him--even though she had passed him over in
> the original photo lineup. Fingerprints from her apartment
> didn't match his; neither did hairs or blood samples
> recovered by police. He was convicted anyway and sentenced to
> 60 years in prison, five of which he served before a DNA
> analysis cleared him."
>
> "Robert Nasuti was convicted in Dover on the testimony of a
> 13-year-old who claimed she remembered this man assaulting
> her while babysitting when she was three years old. This
> master sergeant in the U.S. Army and father of three was
> convicted in spite of the fact the girl's own parents
> testified he could not have been babysitting as he was
> working the same shift at the same factory as them."(OK, not
> a rape case. But the theory is the same)
All this supports is the fact that eyewitness testimony is often faulty - and not even conclusively at that - but, for the sake of argument, I'll assume it's fairly accurate. However, you must admit that such testimony is an essential, if not sufficient, tool for identifying a suspect. As such, it become a part of the case against him.
I do agree that more than eyewitness testimony alone should be required to put someone away. It does not seem to me that a case like that would make it past a grand jury. Maybe I'll do some research. Do you know the case citation by any chance?
| See an abbreviation or acronym, but don't know what it stands for? Consult
the Glossary. |
Switch to Flat View
Message 118173
Re: "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"
Posted by x_orolan
on Oct 13, 2003 07:13 PM | Also by x_orolan
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Thread
118093, x_simon, Oct 12, 2003 03:58 PM ["no" means "no"...or maybe &qu...]
118098, x_SurvivorForeve, Oct 13, 2003 02:19 AM [Re: "no" means "no&quo...]
118125, x_HPierce, Oct 13, 2003 08:25 AM [well considering.]
118150, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 11:08 AM [Re: well considering.]
118138, x_orolan, Oct 13, 2003 10:14 AM [Re: "no" means "no"...or ...]
118164, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 04:36 PM [Re: "no" means "no"...o...]
118173, x_orolan, Oct 13, 2003 07:13 PM [Re: "no" means "no"...]
118192, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 10:13 PM [Re: "no" means "no&quo...]
118216, x_orolan, Oct 14, 2003 12:12 PM [Re: "no" means "no...]
118236, x_marta, Oct 14, 2003 04:00 PM [Re: "no" means "...]
118247, x_orolan, Oct 14, 2003 07:31 PM [Re: "no" means &...]
118252, x_marta, Oct 14, 2003 08:41 PM [Re: "no" means...]
118265, x_losttime, Oct 15, 2003 05:11 AM [Re: "no"...]
118267, x_marta, Oct 15, 2003 09:36 AM [Re: "no"...]
118303, x_losttime, Oct 16, 2003 01:53 AM [Re: "no...]
118316, x_marta, Oct 16, 2003 07:45 PM [Re: "n...]
118320, x_losttime, Oct 17, 2003 01:09 AM [Re: &...]
118334, x_marta, Oct 17, 2003 08:06 PM [Re: &...]
118312, x_orolan, Oct 16, 2003 12:33 PM [Re: "no" m...]
118317, x_marta, Oct 16, 2003 07:48 PM [Re: "no"...]
118325, x_orolan, Oct 17, 2003 11:35 AM [Re: "no&q...]
118335, x_marta, Oct 17, 2003 08:19 PM [Re: "n...]
118339, x_orolan, Oct 17, 2003 09:45 PM [Re: &qu...]
118347, x_marta, Oct 19, 2003 04:57 AM [Re:]
118351, x_orolan, Oct 19, 2003 06:56 PM [Re:]
118358, x_marta, Oct 20, 2003 01:01 PM [Re...]
118361, x_orolan, Oct 20, 2003 02:31 PM [...]
118365, x_marta, Oct 20, 2003 06:13 PM [...]
146015, Rejected
118188, x_losttime, Oct 13, 2003 08:29 PM [Re: "no" means "no&quo...]
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
