Replies

It is not at all certain this man was not the rapist, based on this highly slanted article itself. Regardless of how shoddy the DNA work had been, here is the salient paragraph buried within the article:

An HPD crime lab examiner testified that DNA from the rape was an exact match for Sutton. Forensic scientists who have reviewed HPD's work say that testimony was grossly misleading and that 1 in 16 black men would have matched the profile.

The victim identified this defendant. And the DNA evidence, according to "DNA experts," showed that her identification was probably true: out of fifteen chances to have DNA conclusively prove her wrong, she chose the sixteenth, corresponding man who matched.

In other words, if someone who had no knowledge of the rape were to arbitrarily choose one black man from sixteen, that person had fifteen chances to be "wrong," and one chance to be "right." Yet the chooser in this case was the person who had actually been raped, not some uninformed chance-taker.

As shoddy and misleading as the DNA testimony was, if it had been rendered accurately, it was still powerful evidence of this man's guilt.

This article throws out all sorts of stuff which is irrelevant and misleading. It corruptly tries to imply that DNA exonerated this man. Given its tone, it is surprising it even put the most material truth in the buried paragraph at all.

Americans must understand, the attack on the death penalty has blossomed into an attack on the justice system itself. To undermine the death penalty, the opponents are making a concerted effort to convince Americans that there is no valid conviction whatsoever.

These opponents are leftist lawyers who do not particularly care if justice is not done for a rape, a robbery or a non-death penalty murder, as long as they can say at the end: "No one should should suffer the death penalty, because no conviction is ever reliable."

"One of those retests showed Sutton, now 21, could not have contributed the DNA found at the rape scene"

Unless this particular retest was BS, it did exactly what you claimed didn't happen; i.e. it showed that Sutton didn't copulate with the victim. If there are only 16 rape cases in the country with misidentified assailants and on the wrong end of a "1 in 16 test," it is likely the test is going to mis-implicate one of them. Even fingerprinting is far more accurate than that.