DNA Tests Clear Wrongfully Convicted Half-Brothers After 30 Years

[HonestTruth]

Didn't Justice Scalia hold this guy up as an example of why the death penalty is ok, or something along those lines?

Has to be a bit embarrassing for him.

He did go on the record as saying the case "justifies" the death penalty. Scalia has yet to retract the statement.

This reminds me of Rush Limbaugh who spent an entire week condemning the black guys convicted in the infamous "Wilding" case. Years after this event DNA evidence exonerated them as their confessions were forced by police torture. No apology ever came from Limbaugh.

 

[DaisyDay]

More than two juries, multiple judges and police investigators all disagree. The finding of a cigarette butt really changes little except in the minds of some, like at least one judge, who WANT to release prisoners

More than two juries, multiple judges and police investigators were not presented with the DNA evidence that implicated a known and, by now, convicted rapist-murderer whose MO fits this particular crime.

 

[MachZer0]

More than two juries, multiple judges and police investigators were not presented with the DNA evidence that implicated a known and, by now, convicted rapist-murderer whose MO fits this particular crime.

On a cigarette butt

 

[cow451]

Please, I'd love to know how a cigarette butt proves that McCollum didn't rape and murder a young girl which he confessed to doing

D-N-A. Google it.

 

[cow451]

On a cigarette butt

You seem hung up on your butt idea. It does not matter what it was on. DNA that belonged to someone else was at the scene. There was also a fingerprint on another item that the cops had but did not run. When it was run by the Innocence Project finally... It did not match either defendant. There is NO physical evidence placing the defendants at the scene.

The confession was written BY POLICE. Both defendants were mentally disabled. The defendants were not represented by an attorney during questioning.

The state of North Carolina funded the investigation and many others because the state believes there were significant wrongful convictions. The NC legislature passed the law funding the project.

The only thing about the case that has not been brought into legal doubt is the color of the defendants' skin.

If you bothered to read any of the links I posted and availed yourself of any internet search engine you would not be embarrassing yourself over and over.

 

[MachZer0]

D-N-A. Google it.

There is DNA everywhere. We shed it routinely. A cigarette butt does not implicate nor exculpate anyone

 

[cow451]

There is DNA everywhere. We shed it routinely. A cigarette butt does not implicate nor exculpate anyone

The judge, unlike you and the original juries, considered the lack of physical evidence and the prosecutorial and police misconduct. Reasonable doubt. Again, the only unchanged aspect is the color of the defendants' skin.

 

[MachZer0]

The judge, unlike you and the original juries, considered the lack of physical evidence and the prosecutorial and police misconduct. Reasonable doubt. Again, the only unchanged aspect is the color of the defendants' skin.

Multiple judges had opportunity to consider the evidence. Even his own lawyers tried to get him to plead guilty hoping to avoid the death penalty. But then, a cigarette butt shows up and everything changes.

 

[MachZer0]

...Again, the only unchanged aspect is the color of the defendants' skin.

Oops. Mach's Law

 

[Belk]

Multiple judges had opportunity to consider the evidence.[/quote]

No, they did not. The evidence was withheld from them by the police.

Even his own lawyers tried to get him to plead guilty hoping to avoid the death penalty.

Yes, funny how some people would actually rather plead their innocence. It's almost as if they are innocent and are hoping our justice system will vindicate their innocence instead of punishing them for a crime they didn't commit.

But then, a cigarette butt shows up and everything changes.

Yes, when evidence shows that another person could of conceivably committed the crime reasonable people tend to want to look at the circumstances again. The DA who prosecuted the original case is not contesting this development. Do you feel that you are more in the know on the facts of the case then he is?

 

[GarfieldJL]

The judge, unlike you and the original juries, considered the lack of physical evidence and the prosecutorial and police misconduct. Reasonable doubt. Again, the only unchanged aspect is the color of the defendants' skin.

Can we not throw race into this, accusing people of racism doesn't advance your argument at all, and undercuts any legitimate points you made in your post such as what I bolded.

Multiple judges had opportunity to consider the evidence. Even his own lawyers tried to get him to plead guilty hoping to avoid the death penalty. But then, a cigarette butt shows up and everything changes.

Mach, evidence surfaced of police and prosecutorial misconduct. That means that all of the evidence against the two brothers is now suspect. I don't know if it was cause they thought they had the guilty parties and thus did everything they could to get a confession and conviction, before actually doing a thorough investigation, or what the deal is, but the evidence might not be admissible (and for good reason).

So, if this case were retried again, I don't think the prosecution even has a case anymore, because we have no way of knowing what evidence is genuine and what evidence was tampered with in order to secure a conviction.

 

[Belk]

Can we not throw race into this, accusing people of racism doesn't advance your argument at all, and undercuts any legitimate points you made in your post such as what I bolded.



Mach, evidence surfaced of police and prosecutorial misconduct. That means that all of the evidence against the two brothers is now suspect. I don't know if it was cause they thought they had the guilty parties and thus did everything they could to get a confession and conviction, before actually doing a thorough investigation, or what the deal is, but the evidence might not be admissible (and for good reason).

So, if this case were retried again, I don't think the prosecution even has a case anymore, because we have no way of knowing what evidence is genuine and what evidence was tampered with in order to secure a conviction.

It should be noted that they have not made the determination of if they are going to void the sentence or ask for a new trial. That will be decided after further judicial review.

 

[HorsieJuice]

There is DNA everywhere. We shed it routinely. A cigarette butt does not implicate nor exculpate anyone

Yes it does. It shows that the murdering rapist neighbor was at the scene.

 

[MachZer0]

Yes it does. It shows that the murdering rapist neighbor was at the scene.

If he was a neighbor, of course he was in the area

 

[MachZer0]

Can we not throw race into this, accusing people of racism doesn't advance your argument at all, and undercuts any legitimate points you made in your post such as what I bolded.



Mach, evidence surfaced of police and prosecutorial misconduct. That means that all of the evidence against the two brothers is now suspect. I don't know if it was cause they thought they had the guilty parties and thus did everything they could to get a confession and conviction, before actually doing a thorough investigation, or what the deal is, but the evidence might not be admissible (and for good reason).

So, if this case were retried again, I don't think the prosecution even has a case anymore, because we have no way of knowing what evidence is genuine and what evidence was tampered with in order to secure a conviction.

Allegations of misconduct which is common in such cases just like the recanting of confessions. The prosecutor and the officer doing the interview stand by the process and the confessions

 

[HorsieJuice]

If he was a neighbor, of course he was in the area

If the cigarette butt's presence was merely coincidental and tossed there by a neighbor, why did the two convicted boys say that their friend was the one who smoked it? Why would they even mention it?

The prosecutor and the officer doing the interview stand by the process and the confessions

Yeah, because Lord knows nobody refuses to acknowledge their own mistakes.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Allegations of misconduct which is common in such cases just like the recanting of confessions. The prosecutor and the officer doing the interview stand by the process and the confessions

If the suspects were denied access to an attorney, then the confessions were probably the result of coercion.

 

[DaisyDay]

On a cigarette butt

Yes, on a cigarette butt found at the scene of the crime; a cigarette butt that was considered significant enough to have been preserved all these many years - or there wouldn't have been any DNA to test.

 

[bhsmte]

He did go on the record as saying the case "justifies" the death penalty. Scalia has yet to retract the statement.

This reminds me of Rush Limbaugh who spent an entire week condemning the black guys convicted in the infamous "Wilding" case. Years after this event DNA evidence exonerated them as their confessions were forced by police torture. No apology ever came from Limbaugh.

Scalia is a brilliant legal mind and I respect that, but he has his own personal ideology, just as all the justices do. And although they would never admit it, it factors into their legal opinions.

IMO, being a chief justice is such a unique position, with so much power, these people need to watch what they say. As Scalia has aged, he has seemed to talk more about topics, he did not in his younger years.

 

[HorsieJuice]

Scalia is a brilliant legal mind and I respect that, but he has his own personal ideology, just as all the justices do. And although they would never admit it, it factors into their legal opinions.

IMO, being a chief justice is such a unique position, with so much power, these people need to watch what they say. As Scalia has aged, he has seemed to talk more about topics, he did not in his younger years.

And as much as I may disagree with him on a lot of things, I've noticed that left-leaning blogs tend to take him out of context a LOT. It's gotten to the point where I don't trust anything I read about him on HuffPo or elsewhere; almost always, the things he actually says are way more tame and reasonable than the things he's described as saying.