Author Topic: Innocent men in prison! (Read 689 times)

Nash · « **Reply #15 on:** May 19, 2004, 05:13:05 PM »

I wonder if it's possible to go back and re-test the DNA evidence in those 100 cases properly. It could turn out that the results are the same.

But does it matter? Or does the fact that she fubbard the test in the first place weigh more on appeal?

Lizking · « **Reply #16 on:** May 19, 2004, 05:13:59 PM »

I hate to tell you, but EVERY person in prison is innocent~just ask them!

Eagler · « **Reply #17 on:** May 19, 2004, 05:17:46 PM »

put her back in the kitchen where THEY belong

midnight Target · « **Reply #18 on:** May 19, 2004, 06:45:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
She was both MT. I think laziness may have drove the lack of data, but dishonesty caused her to say she did it. The dishonesty is a given, the ammount of laziness can only be assumed.

MiniD

Picking fly poop outa pepper again?

OK. She was dishonest about her laziness.

Lizking · « **Reply #19 on:** May 19, 2004, 06:50:33 PM »

A similar thing happened in San Antonio last year; it was a mess. Don't these people have to be certified?

Mini D · « **Reply #20 on:** May 19, 2004, 07:15:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
I wonder if it's possible to go back and re-test the DNA evidence in those 100 cases properly. It could turn out that the results are the same.

But does it matter? Or does the fact that she fubbard the test in the first place weigh more on appeal?

Mistrials always give a slight upperhand to the defendant. There's a chance that without cooberating DNA evidence, the prosecuter may not even chose to re-try the case.

There are a couple of layers in place to determine if there was actually a mistrial, so it is a bit difficult to get there. But I'm pretty sure that any case where the DNA testing was actually presented as evidence or where the DNA testing was used to obtain a confession, there's a strong chance of a mistrial.

MiniD

Mini D · « **Reply #21 on:** May 19, 2004, 07:21:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Picking fly poop outa pepper again?

OK. She was dishonest about her laziness.

Actually, I'm not.

Did you read another article to come up with the whole laziness aproach? I can see there being a question about it, but not anything that indicates one way or the other.

The only real thing that is obvious is that she confessed to lieing about it. Some would call that dishonesty... well... most would.

The lady was dishonest on every single one of those test reports. It's quite simply a given. I'm curious as to what the motivation was... overworked, lazy or what? It's not apparent to most from the article... only assumed.

MiniD

Nash · « **Reply #22 on:** May 19, 2004, 08:10:08 PM »

Rgr MiniD, makes sense.

What I'm also curious about is if these cases will automatically go up for re-trial, or if it's somehow possible to re-test the DNA and use the results to determine whether or not to even go there.

I mean, if the new tests end up showing what the prosecution and FBI said in the first place, the trial would look exactly the same as it would if the tests were done correctly.

Though, just on the basis of the lying alone, it may be a defendant's automatic right to have a mistrial. It probably is...

Man what a tool she is...

I understand laziness full and good... But there are some occupations where it's inexusable. Pilots would be one example. People who have the freedom of another person resting in their hands are another.

AKIron · « **Reply #23 on:** May 19, 2004, 08:11:44 PM »

She definitely deserves to do hard time. Falsifying evidence when peoples freedom and/or lives were at stake is unforgiveable.

Nash · « **Reply #24 on:** May 19, 2004, 08:16:35 PM »

I got a wicked idea.

Fahget about the expense of 100 new trials. Just pull an Abu Ghraib and bus the dudes out of jail and dump 'em all in her neighbourhood. Thars bound to be one or two of them that aint exactly thrilled with all the "expertise" in their trial.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #25 on:** May 20, 2004, 02:11:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
Blown way out of proportion this is.

Yoda? Is that you?

wipass · « **Reply #26 on:** May 20, 2004, 02:34:22 AM »

I thought it was good holden

txmx · « **Reply #27 on:** May 20, 2004, 02:50:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
She definitely deserves to do hard time. Falsifying evidence when peoples freedom and/or lives were at stake is unforgiveable.

Got that right man:mad:

strk · « **Reply #28 on:** May 20, 2004, 07:31:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by jamusta
Now if people were executed based on her false reports shouldnt she be put on trial for manslaughter or something?

2nd degree murder.

And she should serve one day for each day she caused an innocent man to serve

1 year max penalth is BS - this is the justice department taking care of its own. Equal justice under the law indeed.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #29 on:** May 20, 2004, 07:38:04 AM »

According to an interview I saw with Vincent Bugliosi, at least in California, if you plant evidence (frame somebody) and that leads to an incorrect execution the penalty is death.

I wonder if that would apply in negligent lab work and testimony about same.