Posted on 09/16/2010 12:13:29 PM PDT by JoeProBono
You cannot “admit guilt” if you are NOT GUILTY, you can only accept blame to end the insanity.
From reading the article, it sounds to me as if maybe they pointed fingers at each other and allowed the prosecution to build a strong case that they were all involved.
Probably just means that the third rapist whose DNA was recovered was not named. Or, that the stupid police confused the sample after 30 years. So a rapist goes free.
Admit guilt, accept blame. Since when is there a difference in court? Oh wait....I bet it’s how you feeeeeeeeeeeeel, huh?
“If it’s all untrustworthy, I guess it’s a matter of which side on which you care to err. I’ll pick the one where an innocent person doesn’t get locked up.”
My father used to give the same quote you did, about the ten to one. I disagreed as a boy, but, the more corrupt our system becomes, the more I understand the need for the innocent to go free. “Sacrifices must be made” is all well and good, until the steal your money, break down your door, and take away your kids and you life, etc.
No, it’s about the truth. Good luck to you and yours.
My point was not that it was wrong, or ridiculous, but that it wasn't explained in the story.
I also wonder if human Chimeras might commit a higher percentage of crime.
Chimera's have differnt DNA profiles in different tissues of their bodies.
So their DNA in their blood could easily not match DNA in their saliva or hair or semen, and so forth.
If so, their DNA tests could easily mistakenly exonerate them.
And if chimeras do commit a higher percentage of crime (because of their screwed up DNA), then it's no surprise that so many DNA tests on criminals make them seem wrongly convicted, because a high percentage of criminals would be chimeras.
Routinely? We won't ever know that, will we? But, we do know that these three men did.
Actually, I didn't, before I posted that. THEN i noticed the PAGE 2.
You may want to try it again.
That’s what I meant when you said the page 2, I figured you had just gotten to it. It’s a sad story for everyone involved, except the initial prosecutor, who will probably never pay any penalty.
I think (s)he is referring to this part.
“Dixon and Bivens had pleaded guilty in 1980 to the crime and claimed that Ruffin was the rapist. Dixon claimed in an interview with the Jackson Clarion-Ledger that he fingered Ruffin after police beat him. Ruffin insisted on taking his case to trial continued to maintain his innocence until his death in a prison accident.”
Thank you....
(Mr.) Alberta's Child
:-)
Ahh MR. Alberta’s child :), I see, I wasn’t certain of it’s importance either, except that if someone pled guilty, I didn’t understand the finger pointing, unless if, as innocent people, they tried everything to make the problem go away (maybe guilty people do that too)...
Maybe they pled guilty and pointed fingers in the hope of getting a lighter sentence, too.
If we legalize rape, then this would never happen.
/s
/stupid extreme libertarianism OFF
Excellnt chart, but very small. I find it fitting that police misconduct is nearly tied for 2nd (with serology inclusion) after mistaken identity. With Prosecutorial Misconduct just trailing that.
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.