Posted on 08/01/2005 9:42:05 AM PDT by TheOtherOne
Raped her, that is.
Lemme guess - you have trouble with that reasonable doubt thingy as well, don't you?
Or maybe if we knew what the prosecutor knew about the past CONVICTIONS of the suspects, we too might be eager to lock them up where they belong.
If you want past conviction information admitted at trial then make that the law. Pretty simple really.
What part of ASSUME don't you understand?
This DNA business is not sound science UNLESS they also test for chimerism.
There's also no law saying I have to weep without knowing the "innocent" man's past criminal history.
Which history these kinds of articles don't talk much about--if at all.
Once again, what part of reasonable doubt do you not understand? If one in 100,000,000 is a chimera, I'll stick with DNA as a means to determine reasonable doubt - unless you'd rather several hundred men stay in jail so that we might catch that one chimera.
I don't care, and I am sure he doesn't care, if you weep for him. Get over yourself. He was falsely accused and convicted of this crime.
IF
1) LAST TIME I CHECKED (a year or two ago), NO ONE KNOWS THE INCIDENCE.
THEY ASSUME IT'S RARE.
2) BUT EVEN IF they PROVED it rare in the GENERAL population of humans--
That would not be good enough.
They would need to prove that being a human chimera does not make one more prone to CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR (a reasonble suspicion, given how a chimera's DNA is all mess up)--
And that would make the frequency of chimerism among prisoners higher.
I can't find it online. I'm going to pop over to the PA board and see if anyone remembers it.
At the time, I think the only evidence the police had was (1) the suspects' confessions, which matched, and (2) either witnesses saw them breaking into cars or they were known car thieves or... I can't remember. But the DNA test showed the DNA did not match either suspect, and they were released even before a trial.
If I can find an old article, that should explain it better.
Uh, dude, given how rarely it has been seen, one can draw a logical conclusion that it is, in fact, rare.
But, given your next leap, I can see that logical conclusions ain't your strong suit:
2) BUT EVEN IF they PROVED it rare in the GENERAL population of humans-- That would not be good enough. They would need to prove that being a human chimera does not make one more prone to CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR (a reasonble suspicion, given how a chimera's DNA is all mess up)-- And that would make the frequency of chimerism among prisoners higher.
Ah, so you first go against the preponderance of the evidence to challenge a scientific assumption, and then pull something out of a dark nether region to create your own standard.
Later, gator. I prefer to debate with those who can maintain a coherent position.
You'd have to page down halfway to the paragraph that starts: "Sitting down over lunch..."
Thanks, Owl, for remembering Kimberly's name.
P.S. (Thanks, Moderator, for deleting that post!)
Thanks...I will read it.
Gutsy guy. What a terrible story.
One has to agree with all the posts about the incredible injustice and incompetence,
If one assumes all is as it appears, but
After the O.J. trial I have zero faith in Barry Scheck and his "Innocence Project" There is no doubt in my mind, that just like with OJ, he would have no qualms using lies and fraud to get a guilty person off.
I would be a lot more confident of the actual "innocence" in these cases, if I knew what precautions were used to make sure their was no possibility of trickery or sleight of hand or collusion with lab employees.
I have a very vague memory of a case in which their seemed to be substantial evidence of the perpetrators guilt, the innocence project got him released and he then committed a rape soon after he was released.
To be honest I have no real evidence to justify skepticism.
I just would not rule out the possibility that Barry Scheck has found a way to rig the tests.
That's what seems to have happened in that story I posted (see the link in #53 above) about the Philadelphia "Center City Jogger" who was raped and murdered, and DNA evidence released the guys, after they confessed.
This man, Thomas Doswell, is probably truly innocent. I just read that he has maintained his innocence from the beginning. And, because he insisted from the start that he was innocent, he was denied parole over and over again.
Still, I always wonder about the other cases, especially after the Center City Jogger case in Philly.
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.