Posted on 12/07/2016 2:50:21 PM PST by 198ml
What if a man was convicted of crimes he didn’t commit … just to appease the Black Lives Matter mob?
Conservative Review Senior Editor Michelle Malkin explores that possibility in the explosive debut episodes of “Michelle Malkin Investigates.” She examines the case of Daniel Holtzclaw, an Oklahoma City police officer who was convicted on multiple counts of rape and sentenced to 263 years in prison in January for crimes he says he didn’t commit.
Was there reasonable doubt? In “Daniel in the Den,” Malkin explores whether the half-white, half-Japanese officer was convicted based on dubious evidence, unreliable testimony, and immense public pressure from the Black Lives Matter movement. If so, it sets a terrifying precedent.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
Just watched part 1 today. Was this cop set up? It is very disturbing.
Video of his 2-hour police interrogation is here. (2:13:55)
#blacklivesmatter is fake news that has got over a dozen cops killed.
It is the witch hunt mentality. We have seen it many times before.
And you know the BLM answer to this is just going to be “So what? Happens to bruthas every day.”
That female detective was convinced he was guilty from moment one. One woman makes a statement, and she “had the officer” guilty from that moment.
She’s probably worked cases like this before. Funny thing is, she doesn’t exhibit an understanding that if someone is angry, they can make up anything to get even.
She states that the woman had no reason. She sure did. She didn’t like being pulled over. That is a reason. “How dare this White (possibly Asian) officer pick on her. I can’t say for certain that is the reason. She may be telling the truth too. How do you know?
Her DNA is not found. Her saliva was on the officer. It should have shown up on his pants. It didn’t.
There is at least a chance she made the whole thing up. The interviewing female officer, believed her. “She had nothing to gain?” Getting even, is a gain to some people. I’ll teach that officer not to pull us single women over!
That comment alone from the lead investigating woman, shows bias in the extreme. Is she going to tell me she has never seen a Black person charge something against an White officer that was a total fabrication? 28 years, and she can still say, “She had nothing to gain?” Hmmm... Doesn’t pass the sniff test lady. No DNA. You said all juries want to see it. This one didn’t. Still, in your mind you had your man.
The 20/20 News woman took the statement of another woman. She described the man that did something to her. It was a description that did not describe the officer in question.
How many of these women ‘went along’? How many hoped for a pay-day?
Why do I address this like I am? I do because it seems everyone thinks this guy did it. Nobody is supporting him.
Perhaps that’s because he is guilty. They seem to be sure of it. He may be.
I don’t want any officer to get away with this once, much less thirteen times. I also don’t want to see a guy that never did this once, to get blamed for 13 times.
Am I the only one who questions at this point? I’m sure other FReepers followed this case and have a pretty good idea what took place.
What do others think.
One more thing the female investigating officer said...
“I told him the charges, and he expressed no emotion at all. If someone charged me with that, I’d be screaming bloody murder over it, denying everything.” (Paraphrasing)
Then I watched as the woman who made the charges described what happened. She showed almost no emotion. Seems to me that if a guy truly did what the officer was said to have done, she would be every emotional. She wasn’t. (this was the TV interview version though) (the female investigator did describe tears and messed up make-up, during her interview)
This means he was guilty for no emotion.
She was telling the truth because she showed no emotion.
To me, a person who makes an overly aggressive claim of innocence is more suspect that an person who remains calm, doesn’t demand a lawyer be present, and complies with procedure at every turn.
How can an officer make a snap judgement like that?
This woman causes me to wonder just how good an officer she was.
It never occurs to her that the DNA on the inside of the officer’s pants could have been there because of a consensual event. It could have been two people doing what two people do, even if he did have a girl friend. Some guys screw up in ways that are not criminal.
Was this one of those times? Well, that officer knew that couldn’t be the case. How?
They never found that person. The officer went down rather than name her.
When people THINK that the name of the game is to be more vindictive to the other guy than he can be to you, pretty soon it escalates... even if those ideas are wrong and the actions go way beyond what is just.
another possibility was that he got horney and climaxed in his pants, but didn’t actually penetrate anybody else. that might be sexual misconduct if it led him to act unbecoming to another person... but it’s not rape, let alone rape-rape.
It wasn’t his DNA. It was the DNA of a third party.
That’s what supposedly led them to search all his known stops with similar demographics as this woman.
Oh, ok, so he messed around with someone apparently.
But did the test show positively that it was a woman? It’s not good news in one sense if he was gay or bi, but it could explain some things.
Thanks for posting the two links. I am about 40 minutes into the interrogation.
Evidently did. They used it as a basis for the witch hunt. I admit that’s not a very good term to use considering the crimes charged, but it is a time honored term for leaving no stone unturned to validate a person’s criminality, and sometimes even an innocent person.
I wouldn’t defer to a homosexual encounter. We don’t have any indication of that that I know of.
Sources?
Sources for what?
I’m honestly asking about the facts of the cases, like the DNA? Is it from the show?
When you watch the other two parts you might think the guy was a victum. Lot of room for doubting the conviction. They only checked the fly of his trousers for DNA. Michelle had a top DNA specialist that called the whole process into question for sure.
I did not see the other two parts.
May have been sloppy in my look, but I wanted to see them.
I’m trying to figure out how all those women could have been totally wrong, or gaming the system and not getting caught.
This police investigator reminds me of the McMartin case in Los Angeles. They ran a day care center and all sorts of accusations were made. In the end it was pretty well admitted it was all a massive hoax, a mishandling of child witnesses, and leading them by improper interviews.
If you have a belief going in, you can come up with a reasoned enough presentation to validate it, and if people fall for it, the defendant can be in serious trouble.
Once again though, IF this guy WAS guilty, nobody wants him to pay more than I do. The over the 200 year mark sentence does seem rather excessive considering what murder sentences are these days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.