Sex Offender Registries, Sex Offenders Search, News, Info and Discussion

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.
1success1
buttwaxer
chooch
genospice
hud123
kawaski
kelstress
unknowable

Forum: Old Message Board

Thread (Discussion): "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"

Switch to Flat View

In order to post a message to a new thread or reply to existing messages you must be logged in. If you'd like to post messages please login or register as a new user.

Message 118216 (In Reply to Message 118192)
Re: "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"

Posted by x_orolan on Oct 14, 2003 12:12 PM | Also by x_orolan

Gender: , Age Bracket: , State: , Country:

In many cases, eyewitness testimony by the victim is an important part of the case. Eyewitness testimomny by a third party would be even better, because it would corroborate.
Where the trouble started was when the laws were changed to allow a conviction based only on the testimony of the victim. Used to be that corroborating evidence was required to gain a conviction for rape.
The case of McKinley Cromedy is a good one, but it is not really 100% applicable. His case basically was remanded for trial based on the judge's failure to properly instruct the jury. While the DNA evidence did not conclusively clear him, it also did not conclusively implicate him.
I only have the NJSC opinion, but your welcome to it.

1999 N.J. LEXIS 386,*;158 N.J. 112; 727 A.2d 457
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MCKINLEY CROMEDY, a/k/a DADDY, MAC, FLAVOR, CROMEDY MCKINLEY, MCKINLEY ANDREW CROMEDY, MACKAY CROMEDY, MCKINLEY CROMEDY, III and REHEM CROMEDY, Defendant-Appellant.

Robert Nasuti apparently did not appeal, because I find no record of it. If you want to look, the case was in New Hampshire in the mid 90's.

See an abbreviation or acronym, but don't know what it stands for? Consult the Glossary.

Switch to Flat View

Message 118192
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?

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

Tell a Friend about this page.

Sex Offender Registries, Sex Offenders Search, News, Info and Discussion

Forum: Old Message BoardThread (Discussion): "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"

Message 118216 (In Reply to Message 118192)Re: "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"

Message 118192Re: "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"

Thread

Forum: Old Message Board

Thread (Discussion): "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"

Message 118216 (In Reply to Message 118192)
Re: "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"

Message 118192
Re: "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"