E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSJon Adrian Velazquez, currently serving 25 years to life at Sing Sing prison for the murder of a retired cop, started writing letters to a Dateline producer in 2002. He claimed he was wrongfully convicted and challenged Dateline to find any evidence of his guilt. A 10-year investigation begins. Luke Russert reports.
Updated 12:41 p.m. ET – Dorothy Canady said she would never forget the man who shot a retired New York City police officer, but at trial she identified Juror No. 6 as the assailant. Another witness to the crime said the attacker was a black man with braids, yet he picked an Hispanic man with short hair out of a photo lineup.
Though the jury laughed when Canady fingered one of their own, and despite other discrepancies among the accounts of other witnesses to the fatal shooting in a Harlem numbers (illegal gambling) parlor in 1998, Jon-Adrian Velazquez was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. Today, he is fighting to clear his name from a cell in New York’s infamous “Sing Sing.”
“The eyewitness misidentification is the central and critical reason for his wrongful conviction,” said Velazquez’s attorney Robert Gottlieb, formerly an assistant district attorney in Manhattan. “There is no other evidence in this case that could possibly be the basis for a guilty verdict other than the eyewitness identifications that were false. Unfortunately this story is not … so unique.”
Watch Part 1 of ‘Conviction,’ the story of Jon-Adrian Velazquez’s murder case
While hundreds of convicts have been freed from prison after being exonerated by DNA evidence in recent decades, many others who proclaim their innocence from behind bars don’t have that recourse because no such evidence exists. In many instances, their efforts to gain freedom boil down to their words against those of witnesses to the crimes they allegedly committed.
But in part due to the DNA exonerations, there is increasing concern about the reliability of witness identification in criminal cases. That, in turn, is forcing courts, state legislatures, police and district attorneys across the country to review convictions and make changes in the ways they collect what can be make-or-break testimony from witnesses to a crime.
Dateline NBC
Jon-Adrian Velazquez is serving a 25-year to life sentence in Sing Sing for killing a former New York City police officer. He maintains he is innocent and has been fighting to clear his name from his prison cell.
“We have come a long way since the days when people accepted without question an individual who would take the witness stand, point to the defendant and say, ‘I’ll never forget his face, that’s the person I saw,’” said Gottlieb. “It really was not until the advent of DNA analysis that we have been able to show that eyewitness identifications are one of the weakest forms of evidence.”
Conviction: Reporter's 10-year quest for answers in little-known murder case
The Innocence Project, a nonprofit group dedicated to freeing the wrongfully convicted through DNA testing and to criminal justice system reform, has helped win freedom for nearly 300 prisoners in 35 states -- including 17 who spent time on death rows -- in its 20 years of existence.
In 75 percent of those cases, the leading factor in their convictions was witness identification; in 36 percent of those cases, convictions were in part based on an identification made by more than one person, said Karen Newirth, eyewitness identification litigation fellow at the Innocence Project.
“Our DNA exonerations represent really just the tip of the iceberg … because they are the only cases where DNA exists in the first place,” she said.
Those cases include rapes, murders, robberies and other crimes. The Innocence Project said experts estimate that DNA testing was possible in only 5 percent to 10 percent of all criminal cases.
“Many of the kinds of crimes where eyewitness misidentification come up are excluded because they are not the kinds of cases where DNA would ever have existed,” Newirth said. “We can only say for certain how prevalent it is in our cases and then assume that that’s really just the tip of the iceberg.”
Dateline NBC
Velazquez writes in his prison cell in 2011. Three eyewitnesses who identified him have either recanted or said they're no longer sure he fatally shot a retired police officer in Harlem.
Memory is ‘nothing like a videotape’
Researchers have long studied how people create memories, how that works in witness identification and then how that information is used by prosecutors at trial.
“People often think that memory works like a videotape and in fact it’s nothing like a videotape,” said Newirth. “That sort of highlights both the problem of how memories are made, but also how people become convinced of the correctness of their memories.”
A witness’ perception of a crime can be affected by lighting, distance, stress and the race of the alleged perpetrator – especially if it is different than their own, Newirth said. They also can be influenced by the suggestions of law enforcement and other witnesses as they try to fill in the gaps in their memory of that event, she said.
Suggestions from law enforcement – whether consciously or not -- could include something as simple as a nod by an officer or a positive reaction even when a witness says someone in the lineup “looks a lot like the guy,” said Jennifer Dysart, an associate professor of psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
Other times, witnesses may make a relative judgment: “So relative to all the others, who is the most likely … to be the police suspect here?” Dysart added.
To protect against guessing or suggestion, some jurisdictions have opted for “blind administration” of a lineup – where the officer conducting it has nothing to do with the case and does not know who the suspect is. The officer also is instructed to tell witnesses that the suspect may not even be in the lineup and record statements on how confident the witness is about their selection.
A black man with braids or a Hispanic man with short hair?
In the Velazquez case, the witnesses said the man who killed retired police officer Albert Ward was a black man with a light complexion and braids, a description that led police sketch artists to create this "wanted" poster:
Courtesy of Robert Gottlieb
A wanted poster featuring a police sketch of the shooter in the 1998 murder of Albert Ward.
Tips poured in. Three people told police they either recognized the man in the sketch as a man named Mustafa or had heard that he was the shooter. Others provided information on who they understood had ordered the hit and a suspected accomplice -- neither of which were Velazquez. But police honed in on Velazquez, now 36, after one witness, Augustus Brown, identified him after sifting through 1,800 mugshots.
“Every eyewitness … said the shooter was a male black with braids, so how in heaven’s name is the shooter ultimately said to be a male Hispanic with short cropped hair?” Gottlieb, Velazquez’s attorney, asked rhetorically. “Something went wrong in the process.”
The police station lineup that resulted in Velazquez’s identification as the suspected killer was equally “absurd,” he said.
“Everyone looks either Hispanic or Caucasian; there isn’t one male black with braids in that lineup, so you start off with a rotten lineup,” Gottlieb said. “And then you have eyewitnesses who identify an Hispanic male and each of those eyewitnesses were vulnerable individuals -- drug dealers, drug users, down and out individuals -- who were very vulnerable to police manipulation, police suggestiveness.”
Velazquez, who said he was at home speaking on the phone with his mother during the shooting, voluntarily went to the police station and was put in the lineup.
Three of the six witnesses who viewed that lineup chose Velazquez and three did not, including the woman who later picked out juror No. 6 at the trial. However, days later she returned to the police station and said she had decided it was the man in position two -- Velazquez.
The police lineup in the 1998 murder of Albert Ward. Three witness picked out Jon-Adrian Velazquez (#2 in the lineup) as the shooter.
The NYPD did not respond to an email seeking comment on their procedures in the Velazquez case.
With many witnesses, ‘rich possibility’ of contamination
Dysart, the psychology professor, said wrongful identification of a criminal suspect can snowball if police don’t prevent witnesses from feeding off one another’s memories, a phenomenon known as “co-witness contamination.”
“When you have a chance to speak with someone who also saw the same crime, it’s possible that you are going to incorporate something that they said into your own memory of the event,” Dysart said. “The more opportunities that witnesses have to discuss things together … the more likely the memory report will become very similar. … Memories are so fragile really and we can be influenced by so many things.”
A more recent case that highlighted the growing controversy over witness identification was that of Troy Davis, who was executed in September 2011 for killing a Savannah, Ga., police officer. He maintained his innocence until his death, and seven of the nine witnesses who said he was the shooter later recanted all or parts of their testimony.
“In Troy Davis’ case, you had a lot of marginalized people who were at the crime scene who allege that they were coerced into offering testimony that they later said was not true, that they did not see happen,” said Laura Moye, death penalty abolition campaign director of the human rights group Amnesty International.
‘The guy on trial I had never seen before’
There were recantations in the Velazquez case, too: Phillip Jones, who was at the numbers parlor with his brother, Robert, when the shooting occurred, said in an affidavit:
“I told the police this was the guy and I was sure, but this was not the truth. I felt pressured because the police were threatening to arrest me and my brother Robert for stealing money that Albert dropped on the floor after being shot. I was arrested some time after Albert Ward was killed and two detectives came to visit me upstate in Groveland Prison. The detectives told me they got the right guy and would help me get parole. I decided to testify at the trial because I felt pressured by the police. When I saw the deft. (defendant) in court, I looked in his eyes and knew I had picked out the wrong guy, and the guy on trial I had never seen before.”
Courtesy of Maria Velazquez
Velazquez with his girlfriend and two sons a month before he was arrested in 1998.
Despite this and other admissions, making the case to free Velazquez – a case in which there is no physical evidence that could prove his innocence -- will not be so easy, Newirth said.
“In cases like this where there’s no DNA, it’s incredibly difficult. I mean, I think that that’s a principle that the Troy Davis case really stands for is … courts necessarily treat recantations with ... great suspicion,” she said.
Moye of Amnesty said the bar for a reversal would be high.
At this stage, “You no longer have innocent until proven guilty, you’re pretty much guilty until proven innocent,” she said. “… How do you prove beyond … a shadow of doubt, you know, what people said they saw or didn’t see? It’s all so subjective.”
‘They didn’t commit the crime’
Due to the problems with wrongful convictions, states, courts, district attorneys and police have worked to implement changes. At least 13 states have enacted some form of legislation implementing many of the Innocent Project lineup reforms.
A key New Jersey Supreme Court decision in August 2011, State v. Henderson, which followed a report the high court commissioned to evaluate scientific and other evidence about witness identifications, concluded “that the current standard for assessing eyewitness identification evidence does not fully meet its goals.”
“Study after study revealed a troubling lack of reliability in eyewitness identifications. From social science research to the review of actual police lineups, from laboratory experiments to DNA exonerations, the record proves that the possibility of mistaken identification is real,” the court said. “Indeed, it is now widely known that eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions across the country.”
The court called for two remedies: Allowing defendants who can show evidence of suggestiveness a pre-trial hearing to explore those concerns; and developing enhanced jury instructions about witness identification – relevant factors and their effect on reliability --- for trial judges to use.
“I think the major kind of theme to take out of the Henderson decision in New Jersey is that courts are really beginning to re-assess … how they assess the reliability and accuracy of eyewitness evidence,” said Rebecca Brown, senior policy advocate for state affairs at the Innocence Project. “And I think that the Henderson decision really signals a shift in direction by the courts and … we’ve begun to see other courts kind of pick up on that.”
Not all courts agree: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in mid-January that the due process clause did not require an inquiry into the reliability of a witness identification when it was not obtained under “unnecessarily suggestive circumstances by law enforcement.”
The lone dissenter in Barion Perry v. New Hampshire, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, wrote: “The Court's holding enshrines a murky distinction between suggestive confrontations intentionally orchestrated by the police and, as here, those inadvertently caused by police actions that will sow confusion. … And it recasts the driving force of our decisions as an interest in police deterrence, rather than reliability.”
“The majority … adopts an artificially narrow conception of the dangers of suggestive identifications at a time when our concerns should have deepened,” she added.
District attorneys in Chicago, Santa Clara county, Calif., Dallas and Houston have also created units to review questionable cases.
Dallas County was the first to do so in 2007, when the newly elected district attorney formed a four-person unit to review 500 cases where defendants claimed their innocence. Until then, authorities had routinely rejected all such claims, said District Attorney Craig Watkins.
“Basically, 90 percent of the first cases that we looked at turned out to be cases where the defendant was telling the truth, they didn’t commit the crime,” he said. “… We started looking at all cases. We started taking requests from defense attorneys. We started actually reading the letters from defendants.”
Witness identification was the No. 1 problem investigators came across in the initial cases, which had DNA evidence that could be tested, Watkins said.
“Everyone that had been exonerated had been wrongfully ID'd,” he said. “There was somewhat of a suggestive nature to pick a certain person and so we advocated first with the police departments to change their procedures and they did.”
Under Watkins’ tenure, 15 people have been exonerated as a result of the unit’s reviews. Another 12 were exonerated before then due to the passage of a 2001 state law that allowed convicted inmates to request post-conviction DNA-testing.
‘Our system’s broken’
Watkins said the reviews met with a public backlash from people who didn’t think that was his job and that he should focus on getting the bad guys.
Law enforcement had a similar reaction.
“But as we went along, I mean, they couldn’t deny it,” he said. “It was ... proven that our system’s broken and it’s broken in more than one way. This is not just from a prosecutorial standpoint, it’s from how we investigated cases, it’s from police officer misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct. It’s just from the culture of law enforcement.”
They’ve now started to work on cases where there is no DNA to test. Five of their 15 exonerations have been in non-DNA cases.
“Those are somewhat more difficult to do because it’s subjective, it’s not scientific,” but they’ve had the real perpetrators step forward or there was "overwhelming evidence of prosecutorial or police misconduct in the cases and so it’s been pretty cut and dry,” he said.
Changes ‘wholly unnecessary’
But Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association, said it would not be feasible for many of the country’s nearly 3,000 DA offices to have such units since about 85 percent of them have five or fewer lawyers.
He also argued that the witness identification issue has been “blown out of proportion when you look at the total volume of cases that are prosecuted nationwide -- hundreds of thousands.”
“It’s always easy to come up with … a case here or a case there and spotlight it, and then jump to the premise that eyewitness identification is inherently bad or unreliable, and I think I can speak for DAs in saying that just isn’t true,” he said, “… Eyewitness identification, while it’s always been an aspect of a case that has to be dealt with in a special fashion, it’s still an important tool in prosecuting cases.
“Do eyewitnesses get it wrong some times? Absolutely. And, I think DAs recognize that and in those cases it’s … not only our obligation, it’s our sworn duty to rectify that.”
Burns said his organization has not taken a position on procedural changes, such as those recommended by the Innocence Project.
“Some DAs think they’re great and others think they’re wholly unnecessary and costly and inefficient,” he said.
‘There are times that those people are in fact innocent’
New York County District Attorney’s Cyrus R. Vance Jr. took up his post in 2010 with a pledge to create a Conviction Integrity Program that “re-affirmed the traditions” of the office.
Since the program began, the unit has vacated one conviction in a case that’s now awaiting re-trial, rejected two others after investigations showed that the original convictions were sound, and is reviewing others.
Gottlieb asked the unit in October to review Velazquez’s case, but he said prior to publication that he has not yet received an official decision though the two sides have been meeting. The DA’s office said that the case is under review.
“This unit is a great innovation as long as it is implemented not for show but for real results. … it now really depends on the commitment of people who have the power to undertake this work objectively, no matter where it leads,” Gottlieb said.
“Every day of the week, people are arrested, people are locked up … and it turns out that there are times that those people are in fact innocent,” he added. “For the public that would be fearful that, ‘Jesus, we start opening the jails for people all these years later who say that they’re innocent … that’s a frightening thought,’ except if they realize that that person being locked up meant that the real killer was not … that should be much more frightening for people to accept than what would happen if we released Jon-Adrian Velazquez.”
Leave a Comment:
Include in your prayer that you won't have to fight for your innocence or of that of one you love.
i just hope his victims will be able to move on with their lives.
this lowlife deserves to burn in hell
I have to wonder after seeing NavyVeterans trolling what his real agenda is. He certainly does nothing to justify his rantings of guilt or the massive evidence that the so-called eyewitness testimony is not reliable
They use the Old Jedi mind trick on the Jury!
Sorry but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
He's just a malicious troll. And a racist to boot. And no that's not playing any card, he just is. Go read his previous posts if you don't believe me.
Most prosecutors are lower than the lowest low-lives they put in prison. Generally just hellbent on putting people in prison, regardless of the truth. By far the dumbest and least talented of all law school graduates.
Navyvet, you're about as sharp as a mound of warm jello. Do the world a favor and seal your lips around the tailpipe of a 1980s Chevy asap. There's definitely not enough oxygen in this world for walking fecal matter such as yourself.
Actually, Raisa, I would argue that it's the system that is the problem, not prosecuters. If you think about it, what traits would most people say a prosecuter should have? 1. Great self confidence 2. A burning drive to see bad guys sent to prison. A guy who is always second guessing himself isn't going to make an effective prosecuter.
The problem is that those same traits also lead naturally to disaster when law enforcement makes a mistake and arrests the wrong guy. You can't have a person that is a master of getting convictions when the defendent is guilty without also getting a person that sometimes doggedly pursues a conviction until an innocent person goes to jail.
Prosecuters have the traits that they are trained to have -- the traits that they are HIRED for. What needs to change is the system. The grave weaknesses of human memory have actually been known for decades. Even 20 years ago almost ANY psychology professor could have talked your ear off about the many ways in which our memories go badly wrong. Our judicial system needs to start paying much closer attention to the discoveries of experimental psychologists.
A big part of the problem is that the average person on the street has absolutely no idea how badly flawed human memory is (this is part of the reason so many people believe in UFO space aliens -- they wrongly believe that the accounts must be true because there are multiple eyewitnesses that tell similar stories). Jurors need to be made to understand how weak eyewitness testimony really is. If I ever find myself on a jury it will be EXTREMELY hard to get a guilty vote from me without hard evidence.
On a related note, confessions should be inadmissible unless they are videotaped and the interrogations followed a strict set of rules.
The problem, Junicon, is the standard. A really successful prosecutor in this country has a 100% conviction rate. That's ridiculous. Our system of law is supposedly based on English Common Law, yet in England, it is very common for a prosecutor to throw out a case because the evidence is too weak. Not here, basically everything the police bring to the prosecutors is tried, whether there is merit or not. Most cop out to pleas because they can not afford to fight the State. What our prosecutors lack is a sense of justice, and that has to be blamed on our law schools. Our system has become is a prison mill, where there are beds to fill, and they must be filled. Thousands of peoples livelihoods depend on this, entire county governments depend on the revenue generated by prisons to survive, and many officials know this. I have heard a Judge (no names) on the eastern shore of Maryland, who has stated that before he retires, he wants to dish out a million years in sentencing. That is the mind set of our justice system, and until that changes, this is the result we will have. It's nice to know that if you are ever on a jury, you would do your proper duty, unfortunately, you would more than likely be struck during voire dire.
its all a number game ,and the part inncent till proven guilt,y an expensive lawyer helps your case too
Here's an interesting concept. Every major prosecutors association in the country (and the Obama Administration) have argued before the Supreme Court that you do not have a right to NOT be framed by prosecutors.
Prosecutors frame people, and nothing can be done about it. The Supreme Court heard the case, but when it was clear how the justices were leaning (they called the argument by Obama Administration lawyers that:
The justices stated that argument was appalling. The city settled for $12 Million. I would say this money was donated from other sources. No one wants to see this sort of case decided before the Supreme Court. A decision was never reached because the case was dropped once the city settled.
No one to blame except cops and ourselves. We as a society are sometimes too quick to want justice. Well we get it, just not correctly. If I were ever wrongly imprisoned, you can bet your @ss, I'll do anything to get out.
Navyvet,
Explain to me what is accomplished by convicting and punishing the wrong person. All the while the absolutely guilty person walks the streets free to offend again.
Prove to me you are not the guilty person, of this or any crime. Every human being has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. If an arresting officer is influencing the identification, that is all the reason anyone needs to allow a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, and there by innocence by that misdeed.
Prosecutors have a driving desire to boost their conviction numbers.
They have a driving desire to keep their jobs and get promotions.
They have a driving desire to NOT be proven wrong.
If they believe that certain "types" of people (and you know what I mean) are prone to criminal behavior, they have a driving desire to show that.
Well said, trust. There's a case in NY where a little boy died. People are complaining that the police don't have anyone in custody yet and no one's been charged. Someone finally commented online and reminded them that life isn't like TV and you don't get a suspect in under 45 minutes or have mountains of evidence left behind. The response? An overwhelming, "We don't care, just give us a conviction. No one has spent even one second on this case if we don't have a suspect yet." Sad isn't even the word for it.
Sit on a jury sometime. It's scary as hell. The people (jurors) completely disregard the judges instructions and really have no idea what it means to be a juror. These are the people who will decide your fate should you ever find yourself in the defendants chair.
Alan Beaman is one Illinois college kid that spent 14 years in prison for killing his GF. He's out now. But prosecutors say they have the right to open the case again, no evidence, but they could always manufacture some.
There had to be something else the police had to make sure its him besides an eyewitness account only..gunpowder residue on hand..matching up if he was talking to his mom on phone at time of shooting (phone records), etc.
Maybe juror #6 did do it?
I recall a story a blindman was the "ear"witness in a shooting case.
navyvet, playing HALO games does not make you a vet. Please keep your racist troll coments to yourself.
It's insane that eyewitness testimony is still given as much weight as it is. It's actually scary how UNreliable eyewitnesses are and their testimony must be considered very, very carefully and only when it is backed up by hard facts.
I'm glad that the article actually brought out how we are guilty until proven innocent in this country now. We continually give more and more power to law enforcement in the name of security and it needs to get reversed. I am also a believer in that, no one should be put behind bars until after that guilty verdict is read. Imprisonment before you ever step foot in court is the same as guilty until proven innocent. And bail bonds are not readily accessible to everyone, some simply don't have the money and that system needs to be done away with. Yes I know some people will not show up and may go missing but it's a risk that has to be taken to make sure the government is not over reaching and taking away our rights.
Let this guy go, he is not guilty...it is a shame that the justice system has failed him so badly
navyveteran2,
Will you be able to backtrack on your opinion once he is proven innocent of are you still going to want him dead..... I think you are feeling your hatred....
Innocent till proven guilt, unless your convicted.
Once your convicted your guilty till proven innocent. That's how it works. The only way he could get off, if it can be proven that someone else committed that murder.
Unfortunately, eyewitness testimony is not very reliable, and never has been.
Other problems include a desire for 'justice' (a horrible crime has been committed, so as a juror, I must mmake someone 'pay'), and lousy prosecutors. Sometimes it's hard to tell what's going n when your a juror, and if the prosecutor (or defense) is lousy, it only compounds the problem.
eye witness identification of a incident that happens very fast , under emotional charged happenings, is very un-reliable; it is and has been a problem in criminal justice for hundreds of years; once a mindset sets in by a witness that that looks like the person, it is re-enforced by their wanting to be correct, if there is no other evidence other than a witness id, always be very suspicious of the case.
Jon Adrian Velazquez put a wig on him. He looks black to me. In fact he is black. You with paint a computor program or some kind of photoshop place a wig on him and compare it to the poster. You will see why? So I don't think the witnesses where wrong. Velazquez may not be guilty, but he does look like the poster.
Considering that the justice system from the cops all the way to judges, legislators, and jailers is all political, it's not wonder so many people fall through the cracks and get abused by the system. What needs to happen is a checks and balances systems that makes sure everyone in the justice system understands that their actions have consequences that they are personally responsible for. They need to be held criminally and civilly liable for intentional or unintentional fubars. Massive fines that can put a department out of business, or the employees looking at jail time. They need to be held to understand that they are not above the law, and that their personal, sociopathic agendas will not be tolerated. Like doctors and nurses, people's lives are in their hands, and abuse of such power needs heavyhanded response.
"To protect against guessing or suggestion, some jurisdictions have opted for “blind administration” of a lineup – where the officer conducting it has nothing to do with the case and does not know who the suspect is. The officer also is instructed to tell witnesses that the suspect may not even be in the lineup and record statements on how confident the witness is about their selection."
Seriously... the guy shot to death was a retired Cop... now who really believes that every cop in the building didn't know that?
"But police honed in on Velazquez, now 36, after one witness, Augustus Brown, identified him after sifting through 1,800 mugshots."
Again, one of their own had been killed... I just wonder if they go this as a procedure whenever they are investigating a homicide... I seriously doubt it. Hell, after ONE THOUSAND AND EIGHT HUNDRED pictures I'm surprised they all didn't look alike.
"Dorothy Canady said she would never forget the man who shot a retired New York City police officer, but at trial she identified Juror No. 6 as the assailant. Another witness to the crime said the attacker was a black man with braids, yet he picked an Hispanic man with short hair out of a photo lineup. Though the jury laughed..."
Yeah... in addition to being blind, she must also be a retard. The judge should never have let this "kangaroo Court" proceed.
I would like to suggest to any responsible party that may be reading that any official guilty of manufacturing evidence and threatening witnesses to falsely testify, be thrown in prison for the length of the sentence that the defendant would have to endure.
This is the product of people who have an inherent belief that every, or most, black men have criminal tendencies. Therefore, it's incumbent upon them to incarcerate as many of them as possible - guilt or innocence is immaterial.The race of the victim is immaterial.
This is Juliano's NYPD.
Lyle Kellogg
Jon Adrian Velazquez put a wig on him. He looks black to me. In fact he is black. You with paint a computor program or some kind of photoshop place a wig on him and compare it to the poster. You will see why? So I don't think the witnesses where wrong. Velazquez may not be guilty, but he does look like the poster.
#1.26 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:41 AM CST
... you really should stay in Iowa if that is what you really believe... hell, anyone can "Paintshop" you to look like a black man on a computer... but we don't live in computers... do we?
I think that a large part of the problem is the Police themselves. They have a very difficult job and are generally over-worked with a huge case load. The pressure to bring about a conviction many times leads to tunnel vision on the part of the police. Once they find a suspect they like, many times based on the weakest of evidence, they disregard all other evidence that either points to another suspect or brings the guilt of their "prime suspect" into question. They look only for evidence that supports their suspicions and disregard all else. This is than past on to the overzealous prosecutors who are trying to make a name for themselves and keep their conviction rate high. Just look at the Duke Lacrosse fiasco. A very smart man that helped found this country by the name of Thomas Jefferson once said "It would be better for 100 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to spend even a day in jail." In our perverted sense of justice and quest for vengance we have veered very far from this path
A huge component of all of this is that the real guilty parties are still out there likely committing other crimes until "caught".
Other than the guy professing his innocence, and that the witnesses were wrong (which they very well could have been), I didn't see any other evidence indicating his guilt. Of course, the guy says there is no other evidence, but I would hope the prosecution had to be something else for a guilty verdict. There are a lot of people here supporting this guy's innocence, but I don't think they were at the trial to actually know for sure.
I would like to see the other evidence before anointing him a wrongfully convicted saint. Perhaps he is innocent, of murder that is.
I just hope you people realize why recantations happen - In the hood a snitch is somebody that talks to the police. period, you can't tell them who killed who and still walk around like everything is good. These people learned the error of their way and are trying to save themselves has nothing to do with the defendant. I just hope you happy go lucky people (mostly whites) that have never lived the rough side of life understand that.
Also are we suppose to stop convicting people on eyewitness accounts? I don't think I understand what the author is trying to convey here... Make a point next time please instead of useless dribble about how this may or may not be the guy.
When law enforcement and prosecutors are more interested in their conviction rate, than in finding the truth, we're all in trouble.
The whole system needs overhauling. Prosecutors want convictions and some will go to extremes to get them, the police want to be done with a case, at times setting scruples aside, witnesses can be bought and sold with spurious arguments (O.J. Simpson comes to mind), the court system is overloaded with cases that should never have come to trial (aka, frivolous law suits), apparently different laws for rich and poor . . . . Justice for all has become a joke; and if this is another innocent person convicted, it is once again proof of that.
in general, prosecutorial power has increased in recent years, much less balance of powers than there used to be
LOL
Not in America you don't! In fact, it is common practice here in the US to just lock people up based on weak evidence, deny them due process, then pat yourself on the back and celebrate the inevitable conviction. Tons of people get swallowed up by this crooked system, and only if you are accused of a high profile crime will you get any public attention. I've seen it happen first hand.
Exactly. This one guy's guilt or innocence isn't even the point. He may have done it, he may not have. That's not for a bunch of people on a news message board to decide. It was only meant to be an illustration of a greater issue.
This issue is not the police's fault. They're doing things (for the most part anyways) the way they're supposed to be doing things. It's not the DA's fault, either. It's their job to convict people, and there's also someone who's job it is to defend that person regardless of whether the accused is innocent or not. In a perfect world, it would be a perfect system. But it's not a perfect world, is it?
The issue is that the procedures themselves are not working the way they were intended to: everything from the gathering of witness testimony to jury deliberations. It all needs to be revisited and revamped to remove as much possibility of error as can reasonably be removed. But there is nothing that could ever be done to remove all possibility of error. It will never be a perfect system, and we're going to have to live with that whether you like it or not, because the only way to eliminate error is to never prosecute anyone, ever.
...So, you have an "eye witness" who cannot even identify the person of which she said "...she would never forget the man who shot a retired New York City police officer..." but THEN identified that person that she'd never forget as an F'NG JUROR... so, guilty or not that's OK with you?
The prosocuter will NEVER SECOND GUESS THEMSELVES.
Right or wrong they are untouchable by the legal system.
They would not be effective if they had the laws hanging over their heads.
This is the reason I don't believe in the death penalty because if you find you're wrong later you can't fix dead. I remember reading about one case where if you believed the prosecutors version of the crime the man walked all the way across town stark naked and nobody noticed him. Highly unlikely in my opinion. And for all who say if you're not guilty you have nothing to worry about you still believe in the Easter bunny right.
You are guilty until proven innocent in the U.S.A. Don't believe this? Then go ahead and forget to pay the fee on your license tabs (for your car's license plates) -- and you'll be charged with DELIBERATELY trying to avoid paying a tax.
Or, you could just happen to resemble someone who committed murder, and be "fingered" by an eyewitness -- and put on trial.
I heard about the inaccuracy of eye witness accounts when I was in college 16 years ago. I Googled it and see another experiment in 2009. Try "law school thief eye witness", the first one pops up. Drake Univ. Summary, guy walks into classroom, looks at students (law students) as grabs prof.'s computer and walks out. Guess how many people ID'd the right guy? They had unobstructed view from the front row.
I think this article could focus a little better, but the key is we need to review the process of gathering eye witness accounts. I haven't researched it, but the studies I have heard about were more anecdotal, designed to help future lawyers recognize the flaws in eye witness accounts. We need some serious studies and recommendations on how to gather the best possible evidence. We need a judicial system that seeks out the truth before it metes out justice.
Tim from Seattlo-- The recantations weren't motivated by neighborhood pressure because the 2 guys who recanted no longer live in the neighhborhood. The only guy who still lives in the neighborhood sticks by his story. The fourth guy, who refused to talk to investigators, has also moved out of the neighborhood.
And as for those of you who are saying the cops must've had something other that eyewitness testimony, no they didn't. It's been proven that cops in most jurisdictions routinely coerce testimony, as they did in this case. Most cops are lower than whale @!$%#, & that's at the bottom of the ocean.
navyveteran2 You are NOT worthy of a comment! Or much of anything else for that matter. Must have been in Osama's navy, if you were even in the navy... Which I doubt
I agree that eye witnesses should be segregated from each other. Cops involved with the arrests should also not be the cops doing the interrogations nor should the cops or District Attorneys be allowed to black mail witnesses using plea bargain promises. This is just a start. At some point, most cops and prosecutors realize they may have the wrong person but continue with the conviction anyways just so they do not have to explain their incompetencies never realizing they were not incompetent up to the point of time in which they suspect they may have an innocent person but continue with the prosecution anyways. Using plea bargains as a blackmailing tool is totally unacceptable and should never have been allowed by the courts or the constitution to begin with. This is a practice that is not available for the defendant and in many cases can make an innocent person guilty of other charges in addition to what they are being prosecuted for should they attempt to persuade a witness using any of these methods cops and prosecutors use readily and are supported by judges that should enforce the constitution and forbid plea bargainings.
but then
So chances are 90% of those 'hundreds of thousands' need to be looked at again, and that's not a huge issue?? But I understand Mr. Burns. You are just the mouth piece for your organization, and it would really look bad for most of your members to have an ungodly amount of false identifications come to light.
All I can say is thank you to those DA's who recognize this as an issue and are attempting to fix it with whatever of the budget trickles down to your department.
Ron-795690, you are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
I do hope that everyone knows that in many States after a jury conviction, that proof of absolute innocence does not guarantee a reversal of that conviction. The job of every jury memebr is to be as positively sure that the person they are judging, is guilty, before you vote to convict. And that Police officers do not always tell the truth. They may tell you what they believe is the truth, there is quite a difference between the two things. Past bad actions have a lot to do with a cop's prejudices. It is worthy to question every aspect you think is shaky. No matter whose testimony you question.
A long time ago, my wife testified to the fact she saw a vehicle parked where a crime was supposedly committed. The man who was eventually convicted, did not have access to that vehicle, and the victim, gave evidence that the car my wife saw, was the same as she described. This man aside having witnesses testifying that he was 30 miles away, was convicted of this crime anyway. This conviction served no purpose, the wrong man was jailed, and the perpetrator was free to offend again, and again. It is a sad thing that such thing happens.
I agree with #1.26, he looks very much like the sketch. In the line up photo his skin tone is much lighter as the ambient light is harsher. In the family photo he could easily be considered 'black' by an observer. Incidentally, the 'hispanic' has nothing to do with his physical description. There are many black hispanics...he may be one. HIspanic is not a race but an amalgamated cultural group description. One may be hispanic but their race is still black, white, etc...
I would hope that there was corroborating evidence in addition to simply a tip that he looked like the poster (he does) and a line up identification.
I agree with #1.26, he looks very much like the sketch. In the line up photo his skin tone is much lighter as the ambient light is harsher. In the family photo he could easily be considered 'black' by an observer. Incidentally, the 'hispanic' has nothing to do with his physical description. There are many black hispanics...he may be one. HIspanic is not a race but an amalgamated cultural group description. One may be hispanic but their race is still black, white, etc...
I would hope that there was corroborating evidence in addition to simply a tip that he looked like the poster (he does) and a line up identification.
Amen Santa Clara County is corrupt. This sounds all too familiar.
There doesn't have to be corruption for this to happen. The police have someone who points and says, "That's him"; what are they supposed to do? Ignore them? What if there is no other evidence? "Sorry, ma'am, but your word that this is the guy who took your purse isn't good enough." Would we manage to convict anyone?
I know I would be a horrendous eye witness. I can't imagine being able to describe even people I know to a police sketch artist, never mind pick someone out of a line-up. Frankly, I would refuse to testify even if I was reasonably sure.
The big problem is the pressure being placed on police officers and DAs to close cases. The law enforcement and prosecution side is supposed to be about finding the truth. Instead it has morphed into being about closing cases and winning convictions. DAs increasingly go to great lengths to win, regardless of whether or not they really have solid evidence that the defendant is guilty. While a defense attorney is supposed to do what ever they can to get their client off, the law enforcement/prosecution side is supposed to be about finding the truth, not convicting the first suspect they settle on. We need to stop placing so much emphasis on statistics like case closure percentages and conviction rates and put more emphasis on making sure that it is the right person being tried in the first place. This pressure on law enforcement/DAs to keep their numbers up or risk losing police commands or promotions needs to be stopped, it only leads to a push to convict at all costs.
Too often the police, with the additional urging of the DA, talk many witnesses into becoming eye witnesses against someone they wish to blame. This kind of horror happens way too much. One of the easiest frames, especially, within family discord, is the accusation of "child molestation" and/or child abuse. Damn shame. Hell, I've seem 'em give classes to young kids on what to say and how to say it. While I would not say the systems are rife with such, I would say most any defense attorney who has practiced 5 years or more has encountered this.
JS in SD wrote...
"The law enforcement and prosecution side is supposed to be about finding the truth. Instead it has morphed into being about closing cases and winning convictions."
That is because the LAW is a BUSINESS. Promotions and advancement in the prosecutors office is tied to the number of successful convictions. They don't care WHO DID IT, as long as someone goes down, it clears the board and they get PROMOTED.
Moreover, the mentality is that...these people are guilty of something, so "F" them.
On the defense side, the laws have been changed to such a degree to make a successful defense almost impossible without PROVING INNOCENCE and having the MONEY for a top defense team.
Wanna bet whether this guy rotting in jail had a public defender or not? or rather public surrender.
Corruption is kind of a strong word, here. There is a political culture that supports closing the case rather than finding the truth, that's true. But from very early experiences as a victim of crime, I was surprised at the extent to which the police were unwilling to consider what I was telling them. When I did not go along with where they were trying to steer me, they dropped the entire case. They were much more interested in validating their own intuition and suspicions than listening to me. The behavior in my opinion is more of an issue re: training and work culture rather than actual corruption.
That said, research strongly supports the statement that our "memories are not like videotape." The stress produced in the "fight or flight" reaction distorts memory. Every time a memory is retrieved, it deteriorates. And even when it is not often retrieved, it deteriorates over time, even after just a few months. The brain fills in the gaps with made up "facts."
Study after study shows that people will adamantly insist that they are recalling something correctly, even when there is clear evidence that they cannot be right. We are so identified with the contents of our minds that we refuse to consider the fact that most of what we recall is at best a shadowy representation of what may have actually happened.
If you doubt that, try this little experiment. Think of a place that you are very familiar with - kitchen, living room, inside of your car. Imagine it as clearly as you are able to, create a "virtual reality" of the space within your imagination. Now enter into that space in actual reality and compare. You will quickly realize that imagination is a very poor substitute for the reality. The reality has much more detail, and a quality of light and depth that memory cannot even begin to match.
Everything in your mind has that same lack of quality. If we can't even create an accurate mental representation of a space that we are very familiar with when we are relaxed and not pressured, how can we trust anyone to accurately recall events under such extreme circumstances? We can't rely on someone's memory alone to convict a person and send them to prison. There has to be evidence that corroborates the eyewitness testimony.
Right on, Lord Foxdrake. You flat out nailed it. It's all about $$$ and our prisons are chock full of innocents people and people serving exorbitant sentences, many just because they didn't have the $$$ to buy a good defense lawyer. I know people are upset with Haley Barbour, former Gov. of Mississippi, for pardoning many who were serving time for death and life sentences, but he obviously knew something the general public didn't know. I'm not saying a blanket pardon of that nature is/was the right or smart thing to do. But I am saying that there should be more resources and more time spent reviewing convictions that have even the slightest chance of being wrong. I care about this issue and the innocent people behind the bars, and I pray someone would care if I found myself in the position of being innocent but found guilty for no good reason whatsoever. If you don't care, rest assured that no one will care about you should you find yourself in the same position one awful day. Karma, she's a . . .you know.
It's not an issue of corruption, it's an issue of pressure due to an overloaded judicial system and metrics like the conviction rate of the DA's office.
The system is in a very real sense a game in which each side tries its best to win, and ultimately one side is declared the winner and the other side the loser. It's great if the truth comes out in the process, but that is not a requirement. DA's don't intentionally want to put innocent people in prison, but they also don't want their conviction rate to drop and affect perceptions about how effective they are at doing their jobs. Quite simply, they do their best to win every case -- emphasis on the word "win."
Consider that the majority of cases never even make it to trial but end in a plea bargain -- again, due to pressure to keep the overloaded court system from getting even more overloaded. How many innocent suspects feel compelled to accept a plea to a lesser charge because they can't afford their own lawyer, they know the public defender is overloaded, won't spend much time on their case and if he or she fails to get a not guilty verdict, the consequences will be far worse than accepting the plea?
Jon Adrian Velazquez put a wig on him. He looks black to me. In fact he is black. You with paint a computor program or some kind of photoshop place a wig on him and compare it to the poster. You will see why? So I don't think the witnesses where wrong. Velazquez may not be guilty, but he does look like the poster.
What have we learned from all of this? #1. There was a lot of pressure to find a scapegoat to take the fall for this crime. #2. The NYPD and prosecutor's office took the word of a convicted drug dealer who they picked up on the street with 10 bags of heroin. The drug dealer knew he was not leaving unless he "fingered" someone. The NYPD even threatened the drug dealer with a conspiracy charge. What would you expect a 21 year old convicted drug dealer to do? Of course he lied. #3. A phone call record that shows occured during the time of the crime is not a good alibi. #4. Even if you are innocent, when you are being questioned by any law enforcement, ask for an attorney and remain silent. #5. Jurors get tired all the time. And, sometimes, they will compromise just to go home. #6. That sometimes, the word of law abiding citizens with no convictions will be superceded by convicted criminals even with a lack of any physical evidence.
Here is notice to anyone who serves on a jury with me...if there is a doubt in my mind, I will aquit. I will not change my mind because I am tired. Because it is what I would want a juror to do for me or someone I knew.
The Code of Silence is very solid in every police department. The pressure to find a "cop" killer is enormous. I just can't believe that with all the inconsistencies between the initial eye witness reports and the arrest were so far apart that there wasn't a single, proud NYPD officer close to the case that didn't look a little bit harder. Or, perhaps, there was. And, they received a lot of pressure to back down. We will never know because of the Code of Silence. But, the evidence of a very sloppy investigation still looms.
This is without a doubt an innoncent man! It has been said and sciencitfically proven that eye witness statements and identifactions are not reliable..... This incident happened very quickly and people were in fear for their own lives as well as in fear of getting caught with drugs and or being involved in illegal betting. They did and said what the law enforcement pursuaded them to do.
I truthfully don't think this case would have gone anywhere today if he was arrested for this crime. Absolutely no physical evidence, no motive and the so called id's from those who did point the finger at this man absolutely had their own agendas. What a crying shame for this guy and his family. I can't think of anything worse then being arrested or a love one being arrested, tried and convicted for a crime you/they did not commit!
I just hope you people realize why recantations happen - In the hood a snitch is somebody that talks to the police. period, you can't tell them who killed who and still walk around like everything is good. These people learned the error of their way and are trying to save themselves has nothing to do with the defendant. I just hope you happy go lucky people (mostly whites) that have never lived the rough side of life understand that.
Also are we suppose to stop convicting people on eyewitness accounts? I don't think I understand what the author is trying to convey here... Make a point next time please instead of useless dribble about how this may or may not be the guy.
AKA woman fingered wrong person in court not cause she didnt know who pulled the trigger, but because she didnt want her neighbors to think shes a snitch and harass her every time she comes out the house. god you people are so ignorant to life in Harlem. lol
If you don't have the money to fight sometimes people end up taking the deal because the alternative is so much worse. Unfortunatly many find the deal wasn't as good as it looked and the problem never goes away. They don't realize how much that record is going to affect the rest of their lives especially if they are in their 20's. and since they pled guilty even if they weren't there is no way to fix it.
And I hope that the 'not-so-happy go lucky' realize that the 'recantation system' is being run by the Mexican cartel,
It is hard when you know your innocence, and the system is wrong, yet they put you away. This is just to get you out of there hair. There are so many people locked up because the system is lazy and dont want ot do there job, all they want is that fat pay check. they dont care who they hurt in the long run just lock them up. You know they say that the system is so over crowded and that they dont have the fundes to keep this people. It is a damn shame a innocence young man locked up at a young age, now a man fighting to free himself and go on with his life. I had to choice to watch dateline or music awards and you see my choice was to watch dateline, this man is very innocence, if the system would have taken there time to investagate this more thorough he would not be sitting. You want to take people that arent crucible to them self let alone someone elses life , come on a herion dealer , a junkie, and then the ones tha My heart cat are pressured, because the system is tired. Jury # what ever his # was is wrong and he knows he is wrong thats why he could not look at the kids Mom. To the city , and goverment do your jobs and do them right. To the family of Mr V i have much respect for your son, he is very smart and intelligent,handsome man.I know in my heart that he will be set free and be one hell of a man and a Dad to, two beautiful boys. i just sat and cryed, my heart aches for the innocence i have taken i fall myself for other people because of the system only because of are sysem is just like the rest. i hope one day i get to meat you.God will see we cross path one day. Keep the faith and God Bless You
I hope ole navyvet gets sent up and let's see how he sings the blues and wishes people 'would just recognise the truth'....it's all too easy for cops to single out a victim and stop the investigation cause they are too lazy to follow up...especially when it's one of thier own.
It is a myth that everyone in prison proclaims their innocence. In teaching a class in a state prison I've found that the vast majority are ready to admit their guilt.
Navy - you are a useless troll and probably not even a vet. Stop posting, your rants are a waste of electrons.
Joe, he's not a vet, but he does play one on halo computer games. just a troll like you said.
navyveteran2 is a child molester. I saw him do it. I'm sure it was him. At least I think I'm sure. I hope.
Oh well, that's close enough.
I saw him do it too.
Nah I saw him piss in a park unfortunatly there was a prude of a woman nearby so now he is on the sex offenders registry for life.
The pushback from DA's & LEO's is all too typical. Not unlike "body counts" in past wars, it is conviction rates that matter, not justice.
I found this statement from the article completely self-serving:
Of course they don't want to think it's true. But t6he question is, how would they know if they don't test their own cases on which they've already drawn their conclusions with no further evidence than the very eye witness evidence they are relying on?
There are scores of studies proving that eye witness testimony is completely unreliable. Start here and then Google many others:
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
I'm reading this article is about justice, not about compassion. It also continues the question, how many people would you be willing to not pay society for their crimes, if it allows an innocent man to remain free?
If your willing to incarcerate on innocent individual, the level of your crime is greater then our being.
You are saying that murder and rape are acceptable crimes so long as there are no jails and no guns and no way to defend yourself. Just lay there an take it so the "innocent" are protected.
navyveteran2,
Your assertion that "every guilty man cries innocence" results from failed induction. First, you could not possibly have canvassed every guilty man to determine his cries of innocence, because (without taking account of the time involved in such an effort) you would have no way of knowing who were the guilty men save by assuming the conclusion that you assert in the first place. Second, your inductive assertion that "every guilty man cries innocence" fails because quite a number of guilty men are known to be guilty because they in fact cry their guilt, not their innocence. The claim that "all cows give milk" can be easily falsified by the discovery of one cow that doesn't give milk. Your claim lies soggy in the same bowl of cereal.
Your derivative deductive claim that Jon-Adrian Velazquez is a "no good low-life thug" thus fails of any logical foundation. I could just as well claim that all men cry their Navy veteranship, so therefore you're a no-good low-life navyveteran. My supposed claim and your stated claim are equally absurd.
You further deduce from your faulty induction that Jon-Adrian Velazquez has been given a "fair and just sentence". That deduction is very much in question and (by the evidence now before us) is likely without foundation. You will of course find this concept difficult to grasp, but merely *asserting* a claim about reality isn't at all the same as reality. Our claims about reality are *always* off the mark; it's just that some of us (such as Navy veterans, apparently) miss the mark by such a wide mark that our Miss Logic becomes a matter of jest, something like a Barbie doll dressed in GI Joe's fatigues.
That you would cling to your insupportable claims, though, is rendered understandable by your last admonition that we should all "pray for his victims". In the case at hand only one direct victim exists, and we have no real assurance that Jon-Adrian Velazquez made him his victim, and even if he did so, muttering words to an imagined Big Guy in the Sky won't do the victim nary a bit of good, not even a tiddly bit. We might as well be murmuring endearments to, oh I don't know, a vacuum cleaner or some such Eternal Being.
Lune
Navyvet, you are a very sad and ugly human being. Your anger and hatred will eventualy eat you up. Cancer will probably be what does the job. You'll see!
I see this type tragedy happening to many times where you see someone getting out of prison for something they had nothing to with the crime in question, 20 yrs of someone life is gone . Our justice system sucks they say trust it but how can you trust something that fails so many people of color . I'm out." this man is innocent and should be out with his kids"..........
I don't say crime is acceptable I just want them to put the right person in jail. I just want rationality in our justice system. It would be better to let one crime go unpunished than to put the wrong man in jail and have the state commit a crime against him. The state can't give this man back the years he's lost. Would you want to be the one behind bars for something you didn't do?
I was on a jury where the evidence just wasn't there, but two people on the jury would not consider if the person was innocent since "if he was charged, they must have done it" and a third "guilty" just wanted it over so they could get back to their job. When we ended up as a hung jury the Judge acknowledged that was good.
Pray for this man's victims
he is guilty
Troll alert!
Presidents have been using this excuse for years.
HMMM.. I do not recall.
When Reagan said it, he was probably telling the truth.
Don't confuse Troy Davis with anyone who may be actually innocnet. It ruins your credibility.
Troy Davis & The Innocent Frauds of the anti
death penalty lobby
Dudley Sharp
The Troy Davis campaign, like many
before it (1), is a simple, blatant fraud, easily uncovered by the most basic of
fact checking (1).
The case for Davis' guilt is overwhelming, just as
were his due process protections, which may have surpassed that of all but a few
death row inmates.
The 2010 federal court innocence hearing
found:
" . . . Mr. Davis is not innocent: the evidence produced at the
hearing on the merits of Mr. Davis's claim of actual innocence and a complete
review of the record in this case does not require the reversal of the jury's
judgment that Troy Anthony Davis murdered City of Savannah Police Officer Mark
Allen MacPhail on August 19, 1989." (2)
"Ultimately, while Mr. Davis's
new evidence casts some additional, minimal doubt on his conviction, it is
largely smoke and mirrors." (2)
"As a body, this evidence does not
change the balance of proof that was presented at Mr.
Davis's
trial."(2)
"The vast majority of the evidence at trial remains intact,
and the new evidence is largely not credible or lacking in probative value."
(2)
None of this came as a surprise to anyone who actually followed the
case, in contrast to the Save Troy Davis folks who were, willingly,
duped.
1) a) "Troy Davis: Worldwide anti death penalty deceptions,
rightly, failed",
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2011/09/25/troy-davis-worldwide-anti-death-penalty-deceptions-rightly-failed.aspx
b) "Troy Davis fairly convicted, not 'railroaded' "
http://savannahnow.com/column/2011-10-06/column-spencer-lawton-troy-davis-fairly-convicted-not-railroaded
2) "Innocence Hearing", ordered by the US Supreme Court, US
DISTRICT COURT, in the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, SAVANNAH DIV.,RE TROY
ANTHONY DAVIS, CASE NO. CV409-130
http://multimedia.savannahnow.com/media/pdfs/DavisRuling082410.pdf
dudleydull....you and navyvet are cut from the same stupid ignorant racist cloth..........
Yeah. One thing I've noticed in all of the cases I've read where a man claims he was wrongly convicted: The person is always involved in some type of other crime. He may not have done the crime he was convicted of but I've never seen one who, when you look at his background, didn't have prior arrests and/or do prison time for *something* before.
Don't hang with criminals and your chances for being wrongly convicted significantly decrease.
Timothy Masters leaps to mind. Try a little research.
It works the other way around too. My husband saw an accident involving a death. The police said he did not see it the way he saw it. He ended up in jail for falsifying a police report. All of this makes people afraid to report what they see.
Other then possibly giving the police a vague direction in which to aim their investigation, eye witnesses are worse then useless. As soon as the witness pointed at the juror, two things should have happened. The juror should have been arrested and the original charges dropped. Actually, just the latter although if that guy could be jailed by that testimony then why not the juror? Too many times, jurors are impatient and just want to get on with their life. It's to damn easy to say "guilty", go home and pop a brewski and forget that the poor 'guilty' person is going to jail. Without strong, positive, physical evidence, I would be very leery of finding a person guilty. I would give eye witnesses little credibility. I can't imagine the horror and anger that must go through a persons mind when they are found wrongly guilty and sent to prison.
navyvet --
Dudley, above, when he wanted to argue that Troy Davis was guilty, at least produced some links and actual, you know, evidence.
If you have some inside knowledge about this case and the "inbred scum"'s guilt, please share it with us. Otherwise, it sounds as if you just figure that yelling loudly enough will convince everyone you're right. That isn't true in this country yet -- at least I hope not.
Maybe these people are guilty -- maybe not. I wasn't in the court room, so I couldn't hazard a guess. What are you arguing -- that our court system is so perfect that it's incapable of making mistakes? Do you have the same kind of faith in Congress and all the other branches of government that you have in the courts? How rare these days!
Or is it just that he's a darker skin tone than you, so you figure he must be guilty of something? That's kind of what your ranting looks like. If so, kindly keep your racist trap shut.
Numerous studies have shown eyewitness testimony to be the worst and most unreliable of all possible forms of evidence, yet it is the form most trusted by jurors and the most used for convictions.
Lawyers read up on the topic during their education. It is well established how inaccurate eyewitness testimony can be. But jurors still find it very convincing when a witness points at the accused and says flat out, "I saw that man right there commit the crime. I swear it was him, I got a really good look. Absolutely sure. 100%."
If there are multiple witnesses, they often describe the criminal drastically differently. The police pick the witness who most matches their "most likely" suspect, figuring that logically they must have gotten the best look because the information lines up.
Or the witness can be easily swayed by questions like "are you sure he didn't have a tattoo? Think really hard" and very soon the witness will remember, on their own, that the criminal they saw had a tattoo, even when they didn't.
Our memories are much, much more malleable than we think. But we trust our own eyes and memories even beyond video and photo evidence -- after all, photos can be doctored, but we assume our minds are accurate.
This kind of testimony reminds me of the days before DNA when defendants would be convicted because hair found at the scene "matched" the hair of the defendant. It was all bogus.
dudleysharp#7: I contend your post proves nothing more than claims by the system that killed "Troy Davis". A reasonable doubt was always glaring. That case was the best example of a goddamn judicial travesty. No point in arguing with me. I know more than the average person about that particular state murder.
Navy Veteran clearly You are some kind of sick puppy. why? Were you in prison and sexually abuse by other darker skin prisoners or what?....justa sayin'.
But this is America ,we have an exceptional justice system ,just like we have an exceptional healthcare system , well it is if you have enough money I suppose . If not you are SOL.
I feel sorry for your family, if your display of ignorance and bigotry is what they have to regularly put up with.
navyveteran2 banned, re-reg of multiple accounter george-3541144.
Our justice system is broken, there are many who are in prison so unjustly while there are many who are deserving to be there, but this is America wrongfully convicted should not be tolerated.
We need a special team in each state, to reopen cases that are in question.
Watched a show once where they staged a crime in front of 8-10 people and only about two got even part of what happened right- clothes, ect. The ex-detective said he never trusted an eye witness.
I saw that to and I couldn't have gotten more than a small fraction of the details right. If you describe someone as short and latino where I live that would cover most of the population.
Until I became personally involved in some law enforcement situations, I had 100% confidence in them. Take a simple case. My nephew had a psychotic break. They tried to get people at the scene to press charges and they refused. I later talked to them and they said they called the cops because they wanted to get him help. Well, they kept him in restraints and he still has damaged nerves from it. They did not get him properly evaluated. I drove 900 miles to get him when I finally found out where he was. I was told there was a huge bail. When I arrived, it had been dropped and they turned him over to me. After I signed the papers, the deputy said, "Good luck. He's talking to his little friends. He has been in restraints till now." Well, yes, I tried to get him home but had to call 911. The cops arrived and took him away. Had it not been for my vigilance, he would have again been thrown in the slammer and the key thrown away. The cops begged me to press charges against him because he struggled to get away from my husband and I. ASSAULT!!! No, he was psychotic and once we got him transferred to a hospital, they gave him medication and in a couple of days, he was back to himself. But they insisted he was drunk or on drugs and made us drive back 900 miles 2 months later and then there was no evidence of that and they dropped the charges and then 900 miles back. Do you think if I hadn't supported him it would have gone this well (which was awful). Hell, no. So you go ahead and trust them until they risk your life and try to destroy the life of someone who was at most guilty of being psychotic and trying to rescue his friend Lisa by removing the screen from an empty hotel room. That's all. Good luck if you are a person of color with no support. But if you aren't, you are going to go on thinking they are protecting you. Well, some are and some have completely lost their way.
Janet-333165,
I have three brothers and two nephews who are cops. Based on this sampling (admitted small) I conclude that most cops have completely lost their way. Out of the five, four are wholly psychotic and the fifth one is almost there, but their psychoses go dressed up with badges and guns. Scary.
Lune
Being a cop is hard job. Stressful as hell and you have to work with people, and anyone working with people know how insane people get. Cops are only human and use the tools they are provided with. Are there some bad cops, yes but hell that is in every segment of life.
Besides just blaming the cops isn't fair, he went through the whole legal system. Somewhere through there are supposed to be checks and oppurtunities for the truth to make itself availible. That doesn't happen always and as citizens we have to accept that; so, when mistakes happens we are able to let the innocent go free and get cleared of them. That we as a whole society can say look we are sorry but sometimes the system does make huge mistakes. We should keep hammering out the kinks until we make minimum mistakes. We should also be fairly swift when it becomes clearly evident that a mistake has been made to correct it.
You know, I hear the excuse "cops are only human" over and over. I wonder if these same people would accept the excuse that "'alleged perps' are only human"?
Most of the cops I've dealt with or talked to over the years were just people trying to help make the city they live in a better place. I've met a couple who were wack or afflicted with Rambo-itis but most really did just want to keep the peace.
THX,
The root of police work is the violent assertion of authority by one human over another. The criminal asserts his authority, and the cop comes in and asserts her authority. Sometimes the criminal asserts his authority with nary a cop in sight, and so he gets away with his violence. Sometimes the criminal is long gone and unknown, but the cop still comes in and asserts his authority over innocent people, and so the cop gets away with her violence.
That we've built a violent society that makes criminal authority possible and police authority inevitable ought not obscure the fundamental identity of criminal and police actions: the violent assertion of authority by one human over another. People choose criminal or police careers because (for whatever reasons they may parade forth to justify their choices — I had a bad childhood, I wanted to serve and protect —) they choose to give over their adult lives to the violent assertion of authority over other humans.
Cops don't want us to keep the peace. If we kept the peace, they would be out of jobs.
Lune
And why aren't the police departments training their personnel to recognize signs of mental breakdowns? Millions have been spent for psychiatry programs, ever since it became a major in the universitys about a 100 years ago. Then, after graduating, a psychiatrist is the highest paid of the professionals. So this money really represents a social cost, and society needs to shut these programs down if these incidents, like Janet-333165 relates, keep happening. Or how can anyone really claim that there is a money problem serious enough to cause a recession?
this is an appreciable comment!
Until I became personally involved in some law enforcement situations, I had 100% confidence in them. Take a simple case. My nephew had a psychotic break. They tried to get people at the scene to press charges and they refused. I later talked to them and they said they called the cops because they wanted to get him help. Well, they kept him in restraints and he still has damaged nerves from it. They did not get him properly evaluated. I drove 900 miles to get him when I finally found out where he was. I was told there was a huge bail. When I arrived, it had been dropped and they turned him over to me. After I signed the papers, the deputy said, "Good luck. He's talking to his little friends. He has been in restraints till now." Well, yes, I tried to get him home but had to call 911. The cops arrived and took him away. Had it not been for my vigilance, he would have again been thrown in the slammer and the key thrown away. The cops begged me to press charges against him because he struggled to get away from my husband and I. ASSAULT!!! No, he was psychotic and once we got him transferred to a hospital, they gave him medication and in a couple of days, he was back to himself. But they insisted he was drunk or on drugs and made us drive back 900 miles 2 months later and then there was no evidence of that and they dropped the charges and then 900 miles back. Do you think if I hadn't supported him it would have gone this well (which was awful). Hell, no. So you go ahead and trust them until they risk your life and try to destroy the life of someone who was at most guilty of being psychotic and trying to rescue his friend Lisa by removing the screen from an empty hotel room. That's all. Good luck if you are a person of color with no support. But if you aren't, you are going to go on thinking they are protecting you. Well, some are and some have completely lost their way.
Nice fictional story.
It is essential to get the right guys behind bars. Every wrongful conviction means the guilty party is free to continue hurting people. Eyewitness ID's are tricky at best in cases were there has been violence especially. Witnesses are upset, stressed, and likely to be easily influenced by the police. The police are not sufficiently trained. They don't really have a good grip on a lot of issues, and so they will aggravate a situation rather than improve it, however unintentionally. ID's should be done under the most stringent possible conditions. Conflicting ID's and descriptions should be a red flag, and they don't seem to be treated that way.
These are serious issues, which should be taken seriously. No person should end up in jail for something they did not do. Justice is not served, and we are not safer for it.
DNA what if the person who kidnaps, brutally beats and kills a child or woman while his partner actually does the rape? I heard of felons being released because their DNA didn't match the rape, they get turned loose and again their on the hunt with their old partner. I don't think much of felons who get released on DNA they have much more to do with things then they let on to make you believe. Just a thing to think about before you start celebrating a killer's release due to DNA not matching. There is no perfect system sometimes you get them sometimes you don't, funny how killing's stop after these jokers get caught though. Maybe their partners don't have the stomach for the hunt?
Your just making that up. Yes,there are cases where there was a partner involved,but clearly if that was the case,where there were two men involved in a rape and they only caught one,DNA did not match and the witness identified the perp,they are not going to vacate the conviction because in that case,DNA does not DISPROVE that the defendant was there. In the case of the cases that were dismissed,the DNA PROVED it COULD NOT HAVE BEEN the defendant.
Seriously,if an eye witness says "Thats the man that raped me" and the DNA does not match,the excuse "maybe he had a partner that did it" is absurd. Did she SAY there was a partner? Your just making up excuses for some bizarre reason to justify your belief the system is infallible. Remember,that rapist,that was not caught will go and rape other women. Thats why its important to take steps to prevent mistaken witness identifications. Witness statements need to be understood in context.
Here is an example of bad witness testimony. I,and a friend of mine,were walking up to a coffee shop. We both saw a man walk out the door,turn around,draw a gun and fire six shots into the shop. He was about 20 feet from us. I clearly remember a silver semiautomatic. To this day I still remember it. I could swear up and down that's what I saw. The thing was,I was not really paying that much attention to the gun itself,so I must have filled in the details. My friend was really into guns. He said it was a blued Ruger security six. The police officer that responded asked him how he knew that sort of detail. He said it was because he OWNED one. He WAS paying attention to the gun,and he knew exactly what he was looking at. My brain simply registered "man with gun" and when asked for details I filled in the rest. His brain said "man with ruger security six". If they had arrested a man with a silver automatic,I'm quite sure I would have been able to tell the police honestly that it was in fact the gun I had seen and they could have used that to help convict him. On the other hand,my friend would have said with just as much conviction that it was NOT the gun he had seen. Whats worse,many prosecutors and police might simply have ignored him as the unreliable witness when he didnt confirm their suspect had the gun used in the crime.
You have heard of innocent until PROVEN guilty haven't you. I know some guilty may go free but that is better than 1 innocent man or woman sitting in jail for years. Just throw everybody in jail is not the answer and doesn't make you any safer if the one in jail wasn't guilty.
Remember,this is not just about protecting the innocent. Every time you convict an innocent man,you also have let a guilty man get away.
To people like navyveteran that's not important. As long as someone is punished...
I just hope you people realize why recantations happen - In the hood a snitch is somebody that talks to the police. period, you can't tell them who killed who and still walk around like everything is good. These people learned the error of their way and are trying to save themselves has nothing to do with the defendant. I just hope you happy go lucky people (mostly whites) that have never lived the rough side of life understand that.
Also are we suppose to stop convicting people on eyewitness accounts? I don't think I understand what the author is trying to convey here... Make a point next time please instead of useless dribble about how this may or may not be the guy.
AKA woman fingered wrong person in court not cause she didnt know who pulled the trigger, but because she didnt want her neighbors to think shes a snitch and harass her every time she comes out the house. god you people are so ignorant to life in Harlem. lol
An ambitious successful technique to break-up black families and put their kids on the street so as never to be able to compete with the ruling class as they buy success for their off-spring - same old racism with an innovative stance.
If eye-witnesses are all that reliable to convict the innocent than explain the presence of flying saucers they see every day all the time as per eye-witness reports...what to say of the alien abductions, procreation with reptiles and demons, and cattle mutilations - eyewitnesses for all of them, over and over again.
Caveat: Human being are prone to error or malice. Never rely on eye-witnesses alone, and not on self-confession of guilt either, if you are indeed for justice and fair play and serious in nailing the true guilty, other wise throw you stone...imprisonment is big business now, bigger than education and building universities.
I grew up in the South. All it takes to get on death row in this country is: "Nig... done it. I seen him. Ain't that right Bubba?" "That's right your Honor...I seen it, too" and some poor bastard is fighting for his life. There are people out there who do not deserve to live...but until we can get it right EVERY TIME, there is no place for the death penalty in a civilized society. Sorry about the language...
About every week I see another story that describes in detail all the things wrong with our "Justice System" yet very little ever changes. Too many sheep are being lead around by the wolves.
Very true, Silly. I once had a professor describe democracy as 15 wolves and and 10 sheep voting on what to have for dinner (the wolves win every time). Sure majority rules but the sheep are no less dinner at the end of the day. Our Justice System like our Government maybe far better than systems in other countries, but that does not mean there is not miles of room for improvement.
SillyBilly, things won't change until we start seeing children/wives/husbands of the privileged class being thrown in jail and treated like the poorer classes when they're thrown in jail. You can bet your rump that things will start to change, then.
To most cops and prosecutors its just a job , working for a paycheck and a pension. so what if their wrong , they still go home to their wives and kids and its just another day at work.
It's very simple! Have several lineups with those that are known not to be suspects. (like from prison that have been sering time long before the crime in question) If one is picked . . . Well they are not a very reliable eye witness, now are they? Untill after a few, put the suspect in one lineup then if picked that would reduce falsely accused drasticly.
Nothing really said beyond basic mention of the police's role in forming suggestive witness memories. Perhaps there is need to talk about how the police convert the use of the popularly taught "Reid Technique" of interview and interrogation, which is widely used by police detectives and investigators to extract custodial confessions from suspects, and how the police convert that into a like-minded method to extract victim and witness statements? Basically, it is the only interviewing tool most police learn and know and unfortunately they use it equally on both suspects and witnesses. When you look at an unsophisticated witness as an potential adversary while extracting information, you can lead their mind most anywhere.
The term "all men in prison SAY they are innocent" was started by the cops and DAs. It's pure bull-chit.
I've talked to HUNDREDS of inmates that say they are guilty and know why they are there.
There IS an uncountable number of people in prison that don't belong there. But citizens on the outside are trained to accept what police and courts tell them.
Grow up. Look at all the facts. THINK FOR YOURSELF. Do not always believe what cops tell you.
Why would you be talking to "HUNDREDS of inmates " ?
Raymond-1126037,
If your question is a mere expression of interest, well and good. Any number of people could have any number of reasons to speak with hundreds of inmates. I, for example, taught classes in prisons, so during that time I spoke with hundreds of inmates. Other people may be chaplains or prison guards or community volunteers or nurses or, well, good heavens, you finish the list.
If your question is a veiled expression of disbelief, then shame on you for being the sort of juror or eye witness who would conclude, "He's here after all so he must be guilty of something, fry his ass!" As an expression of disbelief, your rhetoric ignores the fact that any number of people could have any number of reasons to speak with hundreds of inmates. I, for example, taught classes in prisons, so during that time I spoke with hundreds of inmates. Other people may be chaplains or prison guards or community volunteers or nurses or, well, good heavens, you finish the list.
Lune
LuneKeltkar, I understand what you are saying. It is just a expression of interest.
I worked in corrections for almost 4 years, and 90% of the inmates were quite willing to admit they were guilty. They usually blamed it on circumstances beyond their control, but were still up-front about having done it.
Well he could be in a prison ministery team? Most of them look like they belong in prison but that is because they are the ones bad guys will talk to.
lonereb,
On what real evidence do you base your assertion that most members of prison ministry teams look like they belong in prison? I think that your claim is a couple ribs short of a full chest, as I certainly never saw a single prison ministry man who met your description. Mostly they were pretty well non-descript, earnest in their own ways and frankly wishing everyone the best but still brushing their thinning side-hair over that bald spot and wondering why after they went to all the trouble to go to theology school at the Nazarene college (it might be a university by now, you all keep getting so uppity in your refusal to pay taxes these days, I can't hardly keep up with it) in Mount Vernon, Ohio has god made them go to prisons in Backwater, WV when ALL I WANT (all they want, I meant) is to LECTURE GOD'S CHILDREN in some quiet valley of the shadow of death?
That's a convoluted sentence, the thrust of which you likely lost hand to, depending on where your hand is at the moment, so for the wildly whacking among us, I'll kick out the grammatical brush and rephrase, Why has god kicked me into this prison? And why are they making fun of me?
For @!$%#'s sake, he finds this prison duty onerous enough without you calling him a perp therefore, especially by sole reason of his looks, which on this day aren't all the best because Sally's with child again and he gets a hard-on any time Roger comes about and Sis 'Tilda says that Sally has a secret and he *knows* beyond measure that Roger has a secret too because he just hasn't been so open lately and Sally was likely boinked by the guy he's boinking, and isn't that just a fine fettle of fish and
For the love of God, lonereb, can't you just leave the prison ministry team alone? Once you start turning over stones, God alone knows who you'll have to brush the dirt off of.
Lune
Lune, consider becoming a writer (if you are not). Well, many bookstores are closing. But the film script field is always a winner.
fgh-1038628,
I would in fact enjoy being a writer, but I'm just too busy brushing the dirt off of me. All these people turning over stones!
Lune