DNA Evidence Frees Man After Nearly 18 Years in Prison in Pennsylvania

AP ^ | AP-ES-08-01-05 1219EDT

[Rodney King]

Raped her, that is.

[dirtboy]

And besides, it's convenient to ASSUME such cases are rares, else it might spoil their fun releasing prisoners.

Lemme guess - you have trouble with that reasonable doubt thingy as well, don't you?

[Age of Reason]

Usually, in cases of this type, an overzealous prosecutor will be found.

Or maybe if we knew what the prosecutor knew about the past CONVICTIONS of the suspects, we too might be eager to lock them up where they belong.

[TheOtherOne]

Or maybe if we knew what the prosecutor knew about the past CONVICTIONS of the suspects, we too might be eager to lock them up where they belong.

If you want past conviction information admitted at trial then make that the law. Pretty simple really.

[Age of Reason]

What part of ASSUME don't you understand?

This DNA business is not sound science UNLESS they also test for chimerism.

[Age of Reason]

If you want past conviction information admitted at trial then make that the law. Pretty simple really.

There's also no law saying I have to weep without knowing the "innocent" man's past criminal history.

Which history these kinds of articles don't talk much about--if at all.

[dirtboy]

This DNA business is not sound science UNLESS they also test for chimerism.

Once again, what part of reasonable doubt do you not understand? If one in 100,000,000 is a chimera, I'll stick with DNA as a means to determine reasonable doubt - unless you'd rather several hundred men stay in jail so that we might catch that one chimera.

[TheOtherOne]

There's also no law saying I have to weep without knowing the "innocent" man's past criminal history.

I don't care, and I am sure he doesn't care, if you weep for him. Get over yourself. He was falsely accused and convicted of this crime.

[Age of Reason]

If one in 100,000,000 is a chimera,

IF

1) LAST TIME I CHECKED (a year or two ago), NO ONE KNOWS THE INCIDENCE.

THEY ASSUME IT'S RARE.

2) BUT EVEN IF they PROVED it rare in the GENERAL population of humans--

That would not be good enough.

They would need to prove that being a human chimera does not make one more prone to CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR (a reasonble suspicion, given how a chimera's DNA is all mess up)--

And that would make the frequency of chimerism among prisoners higher.

[Tired of Taxes]

I can't find it online. I'm going to pop over to the PA board and see if anyone remembers it.

At the time, I think the only evidence the police had was (1) the suspects' confessions, which matched, and (2) either witnesses saw them breaking into cars or they were known car thieves or... I can't remember. But the DNA test showed the DNA did not match either suspect, and they were released even before a trial.

If I can find an old article, that should explain it better.

[dirtboy]

1) LAST TIME I CHECKED (a year or two ago), NO ONE KNOWS THE INCIDENCE. THEY ASSUME IT'S RARE.

Uh, dude, given how rarely it has been seen, one can draw a logical conclusion that it is, in fact, rare.

But, given your next leap, I can see that logical conclusions ain't your strong suit:

2) BUT EVEN IF they PROVED it rare in the GENERAL population of humans-- That would not be good enough. They would need to prove that being a human chimera does not make one more prone to CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR (a reasonble suspicion, given how a chimera's DNA is all mess up)-- And that would make the frequency of chimerism among prisoners higher.

Ah, so you first go against the preponderance of the evidence to challenge a scientific assumption, and then pull something out of a dark nether region to create your own standard.

Later, gator. I prefer to debate with those who can maintain a coherent position.

[Tired of Taxes]

OK, here's a better link to that Center City jogger rape/murder case in which two men were released due to lack of DNA evidence (or lack of any evidence, besides their confessions):

You'd have to page down halfway to the paragraph that starts: "Sitting down over lunch..."

Click here

Thanks, Owl, for remembering Kimberly's name.

P.S. (Thanks, Moderator, for deleting that post!)

[TheOtherOne]

Thanks...I will read it.

[Zack Nguyen]

Gutsy guy. What a terrible story.

[Jonah Johansen]

One has to agree with all the posts about the incredible injustice and incompetence,
If one assumes all is as it appears, but
After the O.J. trial I have zero faith in Barry Scheck and his "Innocence Project" There is no doubt in my mind, that just like with OJ, he would have no qualms using lies and fraud to get a guilty person off.

I would be a lot more confident of the actual "innocence" in these cases, if I knew what precautions were used to make sure their was no possibility of trickery or sleight of hand or collusion with lab employees.

I have a very vague memory of a case in which their seemed to be substantial evidence of the perpetrators guilt, the innocence project got him released and he then committed a rape soon after he was released.

To be honest I have no real evidence to justify skepticism.

I just would not rule out the possibility that Barry Scheck has found a way to rig the tests.

[WL-law]

What if he really did commit the rape, but knew that he had never ejaculated? After all, someone saw him committing the act and banged on the doors -- that might stop someone from 'finishing' his deed.

So -- he could be reasonably certain that the DNA would not link to him. And he'd be a perfect prospect for the so called Innocence Project. And he'd be guilty of the crime.

The fact that he had been charged with rape before, which was not used to convict him, BTW, suggests that he was the guy. Eyewitness testimony by the victim, of a guy on top of you and in your face, would seem to be strong evidence. And corroborated by the second witness, who interrupted the crime.

Whereas many women carry sperm (from a husband, or boyfriend) in their body for days. S the presence of another person's DNA is NOT exonerative in any definitive way.

[chiefqc]

Prosecutors originally opposed DNA testing for Doswell. I guess they don't want to look like idiots. I hope he sues the state of Pa. for millions of dollars. The money can come from the raises that our elected offical gave themselves in the middle of the night.

[Tired of Taxes]

What if he really did commit the rape, but knew that he had never ejaculated?

That's what seems to have happened in that story I posted (see the link in #53 above) about the Philadelphia "Center City Jogger" who was raped and murdered, and DNA evidence released the guys, after they confessed.

[Tired of Taxes]

This man, Thomas Doswell, is probably truly innocent. I just read that he has maintained his innocence from the beginning. And, because he insisted from the start that he was innocent, he was denied parole over and over again.

Still, I always wonder about the other cases, especially after the Center City Jogger case in Philly.