Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left.

I would like to see a law mandating the death penalty for prosecutors that knowingly keep trying to convict innocent people.

DA's don't care about justice. They only care about convictions. This way they can show off their legal-peen when they run for a political office in the future

Marcus Aurelius: The Lake County police had pursued nearly 600 leads and interviewed about 200 people but were not close to making an arrest when they hooked Rivera up to a polygraph machine and began questioning him about his whereabouts on the night of the murder

Rule 1: Do not talk to the police without your lawyer present.
Rule 2: Do not talk to the police without your lawyer present.
Rule 3: Do not talk to the police without your lawyer present.

Violate any of these three rules at your own peril.

The police can be very persuasive when they want to ask you things. Ever seen the inside of an interrogation room? (Hint: There are FOUR lights)

Well, this fellow does seem to be brown skinned, isn't that enough to go ahead with a prosecution?

Gunderson: DA's don't care about justice. They only care about convictions. This way they can show off their legal-peen when they run for a political office in the future

Exactly. Their job is to convict someone. It doesn't have to be the right someone. They just need a conviction.

CokeBear: Marcus Aurelius: The Lake County police had pursued nearly 600 leads and interviewed about 200 people but were not close to making an arrest when they hooked Rivera up to a polygraph machine and began questioning him about his whereabouts on the night of the murder

Rule 1: Do not talk to the police without your lawyer present.
Rule 2: Do not talk to the police without your lawyer present.
Rule 3: Do not talk to the police without your lawyer present.

Violate any of these three rules at your own peril.

The police can be very persuasive when they want to ask you things. Ever seen the inside of an interrogation room? (Hint: There are FOUR lights)

Farking Cardassians, dude.

Gunderson: DA's don't care about justice. They only care about convictions. This way they can show off their legal-peen when they run for a political office in the future

The Criminal-Industrial complex doesn't care about justice. Justice died the first day we opened a for profit prison.

Litig8r: CokeBear: Marcus Aurelius: The Lake County police had pursued nearly 600 leads and interviewed about 200 people but were not close to making an arrest when they hooked Rivera up to a polygraph machine and began questioning him about his whereabouts on the night of the murder

Rule 1: Do not talk to the police without your lawyer present.
Rule 2: Do not talk to the police without your lawyer present.
Rule 3: Do not talk to the police without your lawyer present.

Violate any of these three rules at your own peril.

The police can be very persuasive when they want to ask you things. Ever seen the inside of an interrogation room? (Hint: There are FOUR lights)

Farking Cardassians, dude.

Kim and her sisters are keeping the tabloid industry afloat, so don't mock too harshly.

CokeBear: Marcus Aurelius: The Lake County police had pursued nearly 600 leads and interviewed about 200 people but were not close to making an arrest when they hooked Rivera up to a polygraph machine and began questioning him about his whereabouts on the night of the murder

Rule 1: Do not talk to the police without your lawyer present.
Rule 2: Do not talk to the police without your lawyer present.
Rule 3: Do not talk to the police without your lawyer present.

Violate any of these three rules at your own peril.

The police can be very persuasive when they want to ask you things. Ever seen the inside of an interrogation room? (Hint: There are FOUR lights)

Intimidation works best on the weak and stupid. All you have to say is you want a lawyer. How hard is that? It's like being forced into a duel and simply not asking for your gun.

Mugato: there was a second shooter?

A second rapist has struck the tower!

An 11 year old is old enough to babysit two children by herself? I mean I had the one I was watching at that age, but come on.

Marcus Aurelius: Rule 1: Do not talk to the police without your lawyer present.
Rule 2: Do not talk to the police without your lawyer present.
Rule 3: Do not talk to the police without your lawyer present.

Violate any of these three rules at your own peril.

QFT. Try not to ever talk to the police at all if you can help it.

That's one wicked loogie.

Mugato: there was a second shooter?

Was he on the grassy knoll too?

Gunderson: DA's don't care about justice. They only care about convictions. This way they can show off their legal-peen when they run for a political office in the future

Yep. To be fair though, defense lawyers don't care about justice either, they only care about winning the case for their client, regardless of guilt or innocence.

It's kind of depressing that our justice system consists of a game played between prosecutors and defense attorneys, with both sides concerned far more about "winning" than with truth or justice or the facts of the case.

mgshamster: FTFA: Mermel said that sometimes post-conviction evidence is irrelevant. "The example I like to give people is next time you go to a motel room, bring a plastic bag, because the dirtiest thing in that room is the remote control. Everybody has sex and then rolls over and goes, 'I wonder what's on?' " he said. "O.K., so you can find DNA in the form of sperm from 10 different people in that room from that remote control or even on a person who has touched it. And that woman gets murdered in that room tonight, and you are going to have a lot of DNA. Is it all going to be forensically significant?"

YES! Yes it god-damned is forensically significant, you farking moron! You don't just get to through out evidence because you don't like what it says. That's god-damned confirmation bias. It is something that we in the forensic world are trying our damnedest to fix, and people like you are farking it up for the rest of the world.

Did the girl stick a remote control up her vajayjay to get the other sample there?

"he noticed another partygoer there acting strange"

Farking adverbs, how do they work?

/no, poor writing was not the thing that made me most angry about this story

dahmers love zombie: Come again?

When asked about the case last year, he told The Chicago Tribune: "The taxpayers don't pay us for intellectual curiosity. They pay us to get convictions."

Motherfarkers...

An initial examination found no evidence of sexual assault in the case, and Hobbs never mentioned it in his confession. Two years after his arrest, though, a private laboratory hired by his lawyers discovered that there had been sperm in Laura's vagina, anus and mouth, and they tested a sample. The defense lawyers immediately announced that DNA analysis showed the DNA did not match Hobbs's.

When Mermel heard about the findings, he dismissed them and suggested that Laura could have got the sperm on her while playing in the woods, where couples might have sex.

OK I might believe the 11-year old babysitter was having sex, but this is just insanity.

i feel like i'm in the twilight zone here. did anyone here read the article?
the guy provided a very detail confession, one that he couldn't have just been coerced to.
what difference does it make what other semen this girl had in her? skank, or not - he killed her.

save wrongful conviction reversal efforts for people that are actually innocent.

deforge: i feel like i'm in the twilight zone here. did anyone here read the article?
the guy provided a very detail confession, one that he couldn't have just been coerced to.
what difference does it make what other semen this girl had in her? skank, or not - he killed her.

save wrongful conviction reversal efforts for people that are actually innocent.

People can make up lots of details out of thin air.

Just because a story is detailed doesn't mean it is true.

mark1mod0: Mugato: there was a second shooter?

Was he on the grassy knoll too?

I doubt there was much grass on that knoll

/sorry

dahmers love zombie: Come again?

WINNAR!

tricycleracer: His load rolled down her back and to the left. Down her back and to the left. Down her back and to the left.

FTFY

I was also gonna go with "Unloaded on her back and then left ..." but it didnt fit with the repetition part for me.

/creepy nonetheless

In fairness to the prosecutor, DNA evidence isn't even a miniscule fraction as meaningful as it's presented to be in the cop shows and primetime dramas that inform the decisions of people dumb enough to not be able to avoid jury duty, and thus by extension lawyers.

Basically, it's a good way to implicate someone (by placing them at the scene in some capacity), but not really a good way to show someone's innocence.

I would say, basically, that the fact that there was no oversight by a lawyer of any of the interrogation or the confession is a much stronger reason for this meeting the reasonable doubt standard than the fact that the victim had sex with someone that wasn't the accused before getting killed. And if the semen was considered evidence in the direction of guilt when the trial occurred a retrial with that evidence off the table is appropriate. But it's not the same as "*poof* automatically not guilty", it's just reasonably grounds for a redo on the trial.

//The hotel room example is a bit odd, since you would basically interview anyone with DNA in the system whose dna was found at such a site where a crime occurred, especially if some of it was within the victim's body (meaning you were there with the victim rather than just there). A better way to express it would be that you wouldn't automatically rule out anyone whose DNA wasn't there, though, not to claim the evidence is insignificant.

deforge: i feel like i'm in the twilight zone here. did anyone here read the article?
the guy provided a very detail confession, one that he couldn't have just been coerced to.
what difference does it make what other semen this girl had in her? skank, or not - he killed her.

save wrongful conviction reversal efforts for people that are actually innocent.

Except that there was a Fark thread a while back about just how easy it is to get people to confess to things they hadn't done, and even to embellish their story and provide details. They did it even when they knew they were being filmed and that the footage would show that they didn't do what they said they did.

I'm too lazy to find the link, but it was a very interesting read.

Sounds like a pretty clear case of rape rape.

/this thread was done in one
//the rest is just running out the clock

Dimensio: deforge: i feel like i'm in the twilight zone here. did anyone here read the article?
the guy provided a very detail confession, one that he couldn't have just been coerced to.
what difference does it make what other semen this girl had in her? skank, or not - he killed her.

save wrongful conviction reversal efforts for people that are actually innocent.

For what reason do you believe a "detailed" confession that includes demonstrably false information?

I am certain that part where an 11 year old girl invited this dude up [I'm not sure how old he was at the time] for sex, and then he stabbed her because she was mocking him for not being able to get it up was totally legit. I was mostly sold by the part where he couldn't get an erection until he stabbed her.

deforge:
the guy provided a very detail confession, one that he couldn't have just been coerced to.

I guess if by "detailed" you mean "discloses details of the crime that had not been revealed to the suspect" then sure, that's some evidence that a confession is valid, but there's a reason basically no one will take a case to court based entirely on a confession -- people are delusional, lie for their own reasons, etc, all the time.

And in this case the dude was confined for a couple days and suffered "accidental" injuries in the process, and didn't consult a lawyer beforehand, is pretty good evidence that even for a confession this is a bit shaky. In the absence of confirming hard evidence I doubt it would have gone to court, and with the semen evidence invalidated by DNA testing you're looking at something that's possibly pretty thin (I'm assuming, not knowing the details of other evidence brought in during the trial, maybe there were also fingerprints placing him at the scene or something unmentioned in TFA and this discussion is as dumb as you're saying).

Sim Tree: Dimensio: deforge: i feel like i'm in the twilight zone here. did anyone here read the article?
the guy provided a very detail confession, one that he couldn't have just been coerced to.
what difference does it make what other semen this girl had in her? skank, or not - he killed her.

save wrongful conviction reversal efforts for people that are actually innocent.

For what reason do you believe a "detailed" confession that includes demonstrably false information?

This. Notice the article says that 50% of false confessions included such information supposedly known only to police and the killer. This is the obviously result of the police telling the false confessee what to say.

And, let's not forget the guy in this particular case had a history of mental/emotional issues. I know how easy it is to get my kid to make up a story, just to entertain me, and he's not in trouble. Put an immature, under stress barely adult person in the same situation and the power of suggestion is easy for authority types to misuse. Lookee here, we gots ourselves a confession.

He's a one-armed man...what else can he do?!

Sim Tree: This. Notice the article says that 50% of false confessions included such information supposedly known only to police and the killer. This is the obviously result of the police telling the false confessee what to say.

It said in 50% of the cases the police claim that the defendant said things only the killer would know. They might just be cherry picking, or just stretching what was said to fit what happened.

Captain Darling: Sim Tree: This. Notice the article says that 50% of false confessions included such information supposedly known only to police and the killer. This is the obviously result of the police telling the false confessee what to say.

It said in 50% of the cases the police claim that the defendant said things only the killer would know. They might just be cherry picking, or just stretching what was said to fit what happened.

Or else the police let details of the case slip in their effort to extract a confession, such as through asking leading questions, that sort of thing.

Doc Daneeka: Captain Darling: Sim Tree: This. Notice the article says that 50% of false confessions included such information supposedly known only to police and the killer. This is the obviously result of the police telling the false confessee what to say.

It said in 50% of the cases the police claim that the defendant said things only the killer would know. They might just be cherry picking, or just stretching what was said to fit what happened.

Or else the police let details of the case slip in their effort to extract a confession, such as through asking leading questions, that sort of thing.

I should add that, under interrogation, it probably isn't very hard for a suspect to figure out what the police want him to say.

Besides having a lawyer present, I would also refuse to take a polygraph.