If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KOLO TV Reno)   News: Woman convicted of murder may get new trial. Fark: 38 years later   (kolotv.com) divider line 59
    More: Interesting, new trial, DNA, unsolved murders  
•       •       •

2944 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2014 at 3:10 PM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-07 01:56:18 PM  
Generally, cops just want to close cases. They don't care if their suspect is innocent or guilty.
 
2014-03-07 02:22:50 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Generally, cops just want to close cases. They don't care if their suspect is innocent or guilty.


Where did you get this belief? It's not even close to the truth.
 
2014-03-07 02:24:19 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Generally, cops just want to close cases. They don't care if their suspect is innocent or guilty.


And worse yet, DA's just want convictions.  Sometimes it's incompetence or rushing to "get the job done", sometimes it's...

Innocence Project client Eddie Joe Lloyd served 17 years in Michigan prison for a murder and rape he didn't commit before DNA testing proved his innocence and led to his release in 2002.
Lloyd was convicted of a brutal 1984 murder of a sixteen-year-old girl in Detroit, Michigan. While in a hospital receiving treatment for his mental illness, Lloyd wrote to police with suggestions on how to solve various murders, including the murder for which he was convicted. Police officers visited and interrogated him several times in the hospital. During the course of these interrogations, police officers allowed Lloyd to believe that, by confessing and getting arrested, he would help them "smoke out" the real perpetrator. They fed him details that he could not have known, including the location of the body, the type of jeans the victim was wearing, a description of earrings the victim wore, and other details from the crime scene. Lloyd signed a written confession and gave a tape recorded statement as well.


Something much more sinister.
 
2014-03-07 02:28:31 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Because People in power are Stupid: Generally, cops just want to close cases. They don't care if their suspect is innocent or guilty.

Where did you get this belief? It's not even close to the truth.


From cops.
 
2014-03-07 03:15:35 PM  
DNA was apparently found on a cigarette butt and it didn't match hers.

But as revealed Thursday at a press conference in the Bay Area, it did match the DNA in a series of unsolved murders there.


Wrongly convicted of one but probably the culprit in three others.  I'm OK with this.
 
2014-03-07 03:16:23 PM  
Was someone being obtuse?
 
2014-03-07 03:19:41 PM  
Makes you wonder how many people in prisons now are actually innocent.
 
2014-03-07 03:19:48 PM  

KidneyStone: DNA was apparently found on a cigarette butt and it didn't match hers.

But as revealed Thursday at a press conference in the Bay Area, it did match the DNA in a series of unsolved murders there.

Wrongly convicted of one but probably the culprit in three others.  I'm OK with this.


Republican level reading skills detected.
 
2014-03-07 03:20:22 PM  

KidneyStone: DNA was apparently found on a cigarette butt and it didn't match hers.

But as revealed Thursday at a press conference in the Bay Area, it did match the DNA in a series of unsolved murders there.

Wrongly convicted of one but probably the culprit in three others.  I'm OK with this.


I read it that the DNA on the cigarette matched the other murders.
 
2014-03-07 03:24:57 PM  
So, if I understand this correctly, the one in jail may not be responsible for THIS murder, but is almost certainly responsible for others that were closely related.  But they are going to give her a new trial for THIS one.

OMG.  Who is driving the bus here?  The only possible outcome is for them to say, "ok, it turns out you are aquitted of this one.  So, that's one less life sentence for you.  Have fun serving the others."  (or something like that.)  In any case, it's not like she's going free.  And it certainly isn't going to bring the girl from 1976 back to life.  That would be rather frightening.
 
2014-03-07 03:25:20 PM  

KidneyStone: DNA was apparently found on a cigarette butt and it didn't match hers.

But as revealed Thursday at a press conference in the Bay Area, it did match the DNA in a series of unsolved murders there.

Wrongly convicted of one but probably the culprit in three others.  I'm OK with this.


It means the killer is still out there.
 
2014-03-07 03:25:47 PM  
chained heat.
 
2014-03-07 03:26:52 PM  
Apparently Reno was a magnet for homicidal lesbians.
 
2014-03-07 03:27:56 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: KidneyStone: DNA was apparently found on a cigarette butt and it didn't match hers.

But as revealed Thursday at a press conference in the Bay Area, it did match the DNA in a series of unsolved murders there.

Wrongly convicted of one but probably the culprit in three others.  I'm OK with this.

Republican level reading skills detected.


Since that's exactly what it said in the article I'm pretty sure I comprehended the meaning of the words, Froggy.
 
2014-03-07 03:28:13 PM  
"It's safe to say she did not present as a sympathetic defendant at the time. She was a self-professed lesbian"

Well sure, everyone knows lesbians are psychopaths.
 
2014-03-07 03:28:38 PM  
If your last name is Mitchell and you name your daughter Michelle only bad things can happen.
 
2014-03-07 03:30:26 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: From cops.


Next time a "cop" tells you that, ask him/her if they care about their credibility with the District Attorney or the courts. Ask them if they care that the DA is sick of seeing their crappy cases come across their desks, or that the judges are sick of seeing their crappy arrests come up for arraignment. Ask them if they care that their supervisors think they're lazy and worthless and incompetent. Ask them if they give a damn that their weak cases create bad case law that makes it harder for the good cops to do their jobs.
 
2014-03-07 03:30:41 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Because People in power are Stupid: Generally, cops just want to close cases. They don't care if their suspect is innocent or guilty.

Where did you get this belief? It's not even close to the truth.


It's true to a point, at least in some cases. Cops will get so focused on someone they believe is guilty that they get tunnel vision and ignore other leads and evidence.
 
2014-03-07 03:33:59 PM  

wwwade: KidneyStone: DNA was apparently found on a cigarette butt and it didn't match hers.

But as revealed Thursday at a press conference in the Bay Area, it did match the DNA in a series of unsolved murders there.

Wrongly convicted of one but probably the culprit in three others.  I'm OK with this.

I read it that the DNA on the cigarette matched the other murders.


Matched evidence found at three other murders, but not the defendant/person convicted of the murder in question.  Does dot mean she did not do it, just that her DNA was not on the cigarette
 
2014-03-07 03:34:28 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Because People in power are Stupid: From cops.

Next time a "cop" tells you that, ask him/her if they care about their credibility with the District Attorney or the courts. Ask them if they care that the DA is sick of seeing their crappy cases come across their desks, or that the judges are sick of seeing their crappy arrests come up for arraignment. Ask them if they care that their supervisors think they're lazy and worthless and incompetent. Ask them if they give a damn that their weak cases create bad case law that makes it harder for the good cops to do their jobs.


Overzealous prosecutors may be more to blame in some of these cases.

/not defending police
 
2014-03-07 03:39:04 PM  
He says he always believed she was innocent. "This is why," he says, "we have DNA."

At least DNA is useful for SOMETHING.
 
2014-03-07 03:39:33 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Because People in power are Stupid: Generally, cops just want to close cases. They don't care if their suspect is innocent or guilty.

Where did you get this belief? It's not even close to the truth.


CruiserTwelve:

Citation needed.

There is plenty of evidence easily accessable to back up "this belief". I see others have posted to that effect.
 
2014-03-07 03:39:49 PM  
If only she'd gotten the death penalty we wouldn't have to worry about this now.

CruiserTwelve: Because People in power are Stupid: From cops.

Next time a "cop" tells you that, ask him/her if they care about their credibility with the District Attorney or the courts. Ask them if they care that the DA is sick of seeing their crappy cases come across their desks, or that the judges are sick of seeing their crappy arrests come up for arraignment. Ask them if they care that their supervisors think they're lazy and worthless and incompetent. Ask them if they give a damn that their weak cases create bad case law that makes it harder for the good cops to do their jobs.


Speaking from my experience working in a DA's office in NYC, cops already have no credibility with the DA.  It doesn't really matter though, because the DA just has to go with what they got, which is usually the word of the cops.

/Criminal justice in this country is farked up.
 
2014-03-07 03:39:50 PM  
The case was first prosecuted by former District Attorney Cal Dunlap, who told us he always believed there were at least two persons involved, and this new news does not mean Cathy Woods had nothing to do with Michelle Mitchell's murder.

You always here a former prosecutor or judge claim this when DNA reveals they convicted an innocent person.    So I'm sure, Dunlap, that all your press statements, court transcripts, and notes from the time will back up your claim that you think there was a murdering psycho accomplice still on the loose, right?

RIGHT?

durbnpoisn: So, if I understand this correctly, the one in jail may not be responsible for THIS murder, but is almost certainly responsible for others that were closely related.  But they are going to give her a new trial for THIS one.

OMG.  Who is driving the bus here?  The only possible outcome is for them to say, "ok, it turns out you are aquitted of this one.  So, that's one less life sentence for you.  Have fun serving the others."  (or something like that.)  In any case, it's not like she's going free.  And it certainly isn't going to bring the girl from 1976 back to life.  That would be rather frightening.


Try reading the article.

They found she hadn't committed ANY murders and that the DNA evidence from the murder that SHE was convicted of was also found at OTHER murders.

IE, one person killed a bunch of people and it wasn't her.
 
2014-03-07 03:40:07 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Because People in power are Stupid: From cops.

Next time a "cop" tells you that, ask him/her if they care about their credibility with the District Attorney or the courts. Ask them if they care that the DA is sick of seeing their crappy cases come across their desks, or that the judges are sick of seeing their crappy arrests come up for arraignment. Ask them if they care that their supervisors think they're lazy and worthless and incompetent. Ask them if they give a damn that their weak cases create bad case law that makes it harder for the good cops to do their jobs.


So basically you want to hear about me getting my ass tasered and arrested.

No, You don't "tell" cops anything. You just avoid them.
 
2014-03-07 03:40:58 PM  
i202.photobucket.com

Better stock up, it's a cop thread!
 
2014-03-07 03:43:41 PM  

KidneyStone: DNA was apparently found on a cigarette butt and it didn't match hers.

But as revealed Thursday at a press conference in the Bay Area, it did match the DNA in a series of unsolved murders there.

Wrongly convicted of one but probably the culprit in three others.  I'm OK with this.


I think they meant the DNA from the cigarette butt matched DNA from three other unsolved murders.

Meaning she committed no murders, and a (potentially uncaught) suspect has committed at least *Four*.
 
2014-03-07 03:43:55 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: KidneyStone: DNA was apparently found on a cigarette butt and it didn't match hers.

But as revealed Thursday at a press conference in the Bay Area, it did match the DNA in a series of unsolved murders there.

Wrongly convicted of one but probably the culprit in three others.  I'm OK with this.

Republican level reading skills detected.


+1

"Series of unsolved murders"

Hmmm, what reason would they have to NOT cite said murders......?

*citations needed*
 
2014-03-07 03:45:39 PM  

durbnpoisn: So, if I understand this correctly, the one in jail may not be responsible for THIS murder, but is almost certainly responsible for others that were closely related.  But they are going to give her a new trial for THIS one.

OMG.  Who is driving the bus here?  The only possible outcome is for them to say, "ok, it turns out you are aquitted of this one.  So, that's one less life sentence for you.  Have fun serving the others."  (or something like that.)  In any case, it's not like she's going free.  And it certainly isn't going to bring the girl from 1976 back to life.  That would be rather frightening.


No, it seems to mean
The DNA found on the cigarette butt matched DNA found at *three other* unsolved murders.

FarkaDark: Matched evidence found at three other murders, but not the defendant/person convicted of the murder in question. Does dot mean she did not do it, just that her DNA was not on the cigarette


Yes, but when the DNA was found a *three other murders*, it sort of, you know. Suggests that perhaps the owner of *that* DNA might be a more likely culprit.
 
2014-03-07 03:50:13 PM  
We wouldn't have this issue if we have a more liberal application of the death penalty, amirite?
 
2014-03-07 03:58:52 PM  
I have been on this planet for half of a century. I grew up bright eyed and open minded. Without a doubt in my mind, cops from Podunk towns to large cities are overwhelmingly corrupt. Yes, there are some good ones, but if they where so good why don't they rat out the bad ones? I feel that most grew up with some sort of inferiority complex that compelled them to that kind of work to compensate their issues. DAs are just cops with a law degree from some chicken-shiat law school that couldn't find a job at a legitimate firm.
 
2014-03-07 04:00:00 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: CruiserTwelve: Because People in power are Stupid: From cops.

Next time a "cop" tells you that, ask him/her if they care about their credibility with the District Attorney or the courts. Ask them if they care that the DA is sick of seeing their crappy cases come across their desks, or that the judges are sick of seeing their crappy arrests come up for arraignment. Ask them if they care that their supervisors think they're lazy and worthless and incompetent. Ask them if they give a damn that their weak cases create bad case law that makes it harder for the good cops to do their jobs.

So basically you want to hear about me getting my ass tasered and arrested.

No, You don't "tell" cops anything. You just avoid them.


The force is strong with your user name in THIS thread.

Sorry that happened to you. I've dealt with cop BS, and it would take me all day to relate all the stories about all the people I know in at least 10 different states who have been beaten, lied on, arrested - or just put in jail overnight without being charged and lost money, had their car impounded for no reason, and were unable to contact anyone, much less their job. Aspects of peoples lives get ruined that people who refuse to educate themselves can't possibly imagine.
 
2014-03-07 04:05:36 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Because People in power are Stupid: Generally, cops just want to close cases. They don't care if their suspect is innocent or guilty.

Where did you get this belief? It's not even close to the truth.


It is absolutely the truth. Stop lying.
 
2014-03-07 04:09:53 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Because People in power are Stupid: From cops.

Next time a "cop" tells you that, ask him/her if they care about their credibility with the District Attorney or the courts. Ask them if they care that the DA is sick of seeing their crappy cases come across their desks, or that the judges are sick of seeing their crappy arrests come up for arraignment. Ask them if they care that their supervisors think they're lazy and worthless and incompetent. Ask them if they give a damn that their weak cases create bad case law that makes it harder for the good cops to do their jobs.


There is no such thing as a "good cop." I won't believe they exist until they start arresting the bad one at the time the bad ones are doing things like repeatedly tasering someone, filling unarmed people full of lead, etc. Blatant willful dishonesty like yours only makes people even more disgusted. This is why I don't care when something bad happens to a cop.
 
2014-03-07 04:15:14 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Because People in power are Stupid: From cops.

Next time a "cop" tells you that, ask him/her if they care about their credibility with the District Attorney or the courts. Ask them if they care that the DA is sick of seeing their crappy cases come across their desks, or that the judges are sick of seeing their crappy arrests come up for arraignment. Ask them if they care that their supervisors think they're lazy and worthless and incompetent. Ask them if they give a damn that their weak cases create bad case law that makes it harder for the good cops to do their jobs.


Sounds like a good way to end up a vegetable and in jail for assaulting an officer and resisting arrest.
 
2014-03-07 04:24:33 PM  

Hrist: CruiserTwelve: Because People in power are Stupid: From cops.


Next time a "cop" tells you that, ask him/her if they care about their credibility with the District Attorney or the courts. Ask them if they care that the DA is sick of seeing their crappy cases come across their desks, or that the judges are sick of seeing their crappy arrests come up for arraignment. Ask them if they care that their supervisors think they're lazy and worthless and incompetent. Ask them if they give a damn that their weak cases create bad case law that makes it harder for the good cops to do their jobs.

Sounds like a good way to end up a vegetable and in jail for assaulting an officer and resisting arrest.

graphics8.nytimes.com
looks down from his heaven and nods
 
2014-03-07 04:38:36 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: The case was first prosecuted by former District Attorney Cal Dunlap, who told us he always believed there were at least two persons involved, and this new news does not mean Cathy Woods had nothing to do with Michelle Mitchell's murder.

You always here a former prosecutor or judge claim this when DNA reveals they convicted an innocent person.    So I'm sure, Dunlap, that all your press statements, court transcripts, and notes from the time will back up your claim that you think there was a murdering psycho accomplice still on the loose, right?

RIGHT?

durbnpoisn: So, if I understand this correctly, the one in jail may not be responsible for THIS murder, but is almost certainly responsible for others that were closely related.  But they are going to give her a new trial for THIS one.

OMG.  Who is driving the bus here?  The only possible outcome is for them to say, "ok, it turns out you are aquitted of this one.  So, that's one less life sentence for you.  Have fun serving the others."  (or something like that.)  In any case, it's not like she's going free.  And it certainly isn't going to bring the girl from 1976 back to life.  That would be rather frightening.

Try reading the article.

They found she hadn't committed ANY murders and that the DNA evidence from the murder that SHE was convicted of was also found at OTHER murders.

IE, one person killed a bunch of people and it wasn't her.


Well sheeeeyit.  I reread it twice and it still didn't get through my caffeine-addled head.  Third time was the charm.

I can't seem to brain today.
 
2014-03-07 04:49:10 PM  

durbnpoisn: So, if I understand this correctly, the one in jail may not be responsible for THIS murder, but is almost certainly responsible for others that were closely related.  But they are going to give her a new trial for THIS one.

OMG.  Who is driving the bus here?  The only possible outcome is for them to say, "ok, it turns out you are aquitted of this one.  So, that's one less life sentence for you.  Have fun serving the others."  (or something like that.)  In any case, it's not like she's going free.  And it certainly isn't going to bring the girl from 1976 back to life.  That would be rather frightening.


Did you read the article?
 
2014-03-07 04:56:48 PM  
"Three years passed before a 29-year-old mental health patient in Louisiana told a hospital worker she had killed a girl named Michelle in Reno, and allegedly said she had done it for Satan. "

Not "just to watch her die?"
 
2014-03-07 05:06:15 PM  

gshepnyc: CruiserTwelve: Because People in power are Stupid: From cops.

Next time a "cop" tells you that, ask him/her if they care about their credibility with the District Attorney or the courts. Ask them if they care that the DA is sick of seeing their crappy cases come across their desks, or that the judges are sick of seeing their crappy arrests come up for arraignment. Ask them if they care that their supervisors think they're lazy and worthless and incompetent. Ask them if they give a damn that their weak cases create bad case law that makes it harder for the good cops to do their jobs.

There is no such thing as a "good cop." I won't believe they exist until they start arresting the bad one at the time the bad ones are doing things like repeatedly tasering someone, filling unarmed people full of lead, etc. Blatant willful dishonesty like yours only makes people even more disgusted. This is why I don't care when something bad happens to a cop.


I do believe that there are cops who are good and who extend an effort to be good cops. There is just no way of telling which are which and it is best to avoid them altogether which isn't hard (even with my penchant for hookers and blow (I keed)).

The problem is that the authorities that the cops are beholden to -Judges, district attorney's, other cops etc -aren't actually that critical of cops when doing their jobs... because doing so means that they would actually have to make an effort.

lindalouwho: Sorry that happened to you.


To be clear I was never tasered. I was falsely arrested after defending myself in a fight. The cops in question only cited evidence that proved their case against me. They didn't include eyewitnesses in their reports that would've shown the other guy to be the aggressor. I knew someone who knew some people that were there and voila -charges dropped with prejudice.

The arresting officer would see me around and he made a point of making his presence known to me. I believe that he simply didn't like my manner of dress (punk) or some other thing. Or, more likely -he just didn't like being wrong and instead of accepting that fact -he blamed me for it.

But there were other things, growing up "punk"  in Phoenix in the 1980's that gave me a very negative view of the police in general influenced mainly by the police themselves.

The bottom line is avoid them at all costs.
 
2014-03-07 05:07:08 PM  

Starshines: Speaking from my experience working in a DA's office in NYC, cops already have no credibility with the DA.  It doesn't really matter though, because the DA just has to go with what they got, which is usually the word of the cops.


So the cops have no credibility, but the DA's still prosecute their cases? Do you see a problem here?
 
2014-03-07 05:11:37 PM  

ReapTheChaos: It's true to a point, at least in some cases. Cops will get so focused on someone they believe is guilty that they get tunnel vision and ignore other leads and evidence.


I agree with that. I've seen it happen. That's the point where another cop or a supervisor has to take that detective aside for a chat, or reassign the case to another detective.

In my agency every case has to be approved by a supervisor before filing, and then it has to go through an intake DA for second approval. After that, the case goes to a judge for final approval and issuance of a warrant. Crappy cases don't get very far.
 
2014-03-07 05:19:05 PM  

Felgraf: durbnpoisn: So, if I understand this correctly, the one in jail may not be responsible for THIS murder, but is almost certainly responsible for others that were closely related.  But they are going to give her a new trial for THIS one.

OMG.  Who is driving the bus here?  The only possible outcome is for them to say, "ok, it turns out you are aquitted of this one.  So, that's one less life sentence for you.  Have fun serving the others."  (or something like that.)  In any case, it's not like she's going free.  And it certainly isn't going to bring the girl from 1976 back to life.  That would be rather frightening.

No, it seems to mean
The DNA found on the cigarette butt matched DNA found at *three other* unsolved murders.

FarkaDark: Matched evidence found at three other murders, but not the defendant/person convicted of the murder in question. Does dot mean she did not do it, just that her DNA was not on the cigarette

Yes, but when the DNA was found a *three other murders*, it sort of, you know. Suggests that perhaps the owner of *that* DNA might be a more likely culprit.


Yes
 
2014-03-07 05:20:23 PM  

lindalouwho: There is plenty of evidence easily accessable to back up "this belief". I see others have posted to that effect.


Do you know how many "filters" a case has to pass through before someone is convicted of a crime? Yeah, sometimes people get convicted of crimes they didn't commit, but in most of those cases there's evidence of guilt. Rarely is someone convicted without any reason at all, and rarely is it the fault of the detective that filed the charges in the first place.

In this case they had a confession made to a mental health worker in another part of the country three years after the crime. The defendant knew where the crime took place and the name of the victim. That's pretty convincing evidence and I wouldn't be a bit surprised that she participated in the murder. Just because her DNA wasn't found on a cigarette butt at the scene doesn't mean she wasn't there.
 
2014-03-07 05:33:33 PM  

gshepnyc: There is no such thing as a "good cop." I won't believe they exist until they start arresting the bad one at the time the bad ones are doing things like repeatedly tasering someone, filling unarmed people full of lead, etc. Blatant willful dishonesty like yours only makes people even more disgusted. This is why I don't care when something bad happens to a cop.


Speaking of willful dishonesty, you've apparently decided to ignore the numerous Fark threads where cops get arrested for doing bad shiat. Those bad cops were arrested by good cops who far outnumber them.

I understand that I will never win over a person that states "There is no such thing as a "good cop." There is nothing I can say, no evidence I can present, that will change your belief.
 
2014-03-07 05:36:49 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Rarely


I can see that you are very gung ho and want us to believe in the system. The reality for the rest of us is quite different.

So you are wrong. Please don't take it out on someone.
 
2014-03-07 05:47:33 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: I can see that you are very gung ho and want us to believe in the system. The reality for the rest of us is quite different.So you are wrong. Please don't take it out on someone.


I'm not "very gung ho." I'm simply pointing out that false convictions, while they do happen, are rare. You choose to read stuff into my posts that aren't there but that help to support the beliefs you already hold.

Did you know the "Innocence Project" that uses DNA to overcome false convictions refuses to release the number of cases they have investigated where DNA has supported the conviction? Why do you think that is?
 
2014-03-07 06:01:48 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Because People in power are Stupid: I can see that you are very gung ho and want us to believe in the system. The reality for the rest of us is quite different.So you are wrong. Please don't take it out on someone.

I'm not "very gung ho." I'm simply pointing out that false convictions, while they do happen, are rare. You choose to read stuff into my posts that aren't there but that help to support the beliefs you already hold.

Did you know the "Innocence Project" that uses DNA to overcome false convictions refuses to release the number of cases they have investigated where DNA has supported the conviction? Why do you think that is?


Because it's irrelevant.  If there are 10 cases and in 9 of them the convicted defendants are guilty, it doesn't change the fact that one of them was wrongly convicted.
 
2014-03-07 06:05:21 PM  

CruiserTwelve:  I'm simply pointing out that false convictions, while they do happen, are rare.


What's the threshold for accepting wrongful convictions then?  1 in 1,000?  1 in 10,000?  1 in 100,000?
 
2014-03-07 06:09:19 PM  

nekom: CruiserTwelve:  I'm simply pointing out that false convictions, while they do happen, are rare.

What's the threshold for accepting wrongful convictions then?  1 in 1,000?  1 in 10,000?  1 in 100,000?


The system was never designed to be perfect, it was designed to give the defendant as much of a chance as the prosecution to "win" their desired verdict.

It was based off risk-mitigation and the "reasonable person".
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report