Premeditated Murder #972

[Marina2]

I just want to comment on wrongful convictions in general. Another type of wrongful conviction happens when a person, wrongfully accused of a crime, accepts a plea bargain even though he is innocent of any wrong doing. This happens very often and is not included in statistics citing wrongful convictions.

The reason this happens is because most people do feel that a prosecutor must have something or he would not bring the charge up. The defendant, knowing this, takes the plea to a lesser offence. He is thinking, "Who are they going to believe, the state or me?'

Most charges are pled down. Prosecutors do bring charges up with evidence that may not legally hold up during a trial. They do this because they know it will never go to trial and the defendant will accept a plea. Innocent defendants who accept this plea do so because the public generally feels that a prosecutor must have something or he wouldn't be charged.

I just wanted to bring this up because it is a very common practice amongst prosecutors and results in many wrongful convictions that are never considered.
They don't always have the evidence but usually get a conviction of some sort.

 

[Kentjbkent]

High profile cases creates tremendous pressure on LE and the D.A.s office. My experience is that what they both want to do is lessen the pressure on themselves, so they will happily throw someone to the crimetainment wolf pack based on but minor particles of evidence or just a suspicion. And they do not have to arrest someone to ruin their lives. The experience of being wrongfully demonized by the media does a superb job of that.

I could list high-profile case after high-profile case where there was wrongful demonization and/or a wrongful conviction or, sometimes, a likely wrongful acquittal (often a result of celebrity justice). When a case is goes under the floodlights, my experience is that it's a great environment for bad things to happen, especially in our rush-to-judgment culture.

As for framing, just remember that most every wrongful conviction represents a framing. Sometimes it's a passive framing, because the person who truly committed the crime does not step forward. And sometimes D.A.s frame people by withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense -- 999 times out of a 1,000, nothing will happen to them. Moreover, LE has certainly been known to manufacture false evidence and use it to convict people, but I'm sure you know that.

I completely get what you are saying, but in all fairness, aren't you basing your opinion on over 50 years of having an interest in following high profile murder cases (I believe you stated 50 years?)?

Technology has advanced to the point that I believe prosecutors have had a much easier task in pinpointing a suspect to a crime than say, 15 or 20 years ago? DNA testing is a perfect example. Juries no longer have to make decisions based on mostly circumstantial evidence or testimony. They are now armed with more scientific fact.

So I agree with you that over the last 50 years, the percentage of wrongful convictions would be much higher than say, the last 10 years?

(Yes, I have been known to watch A & E Cold Case Files too..:dance

 

[Kentjbkent]

I just want to comment on wrongful convictions in general. Another type of wrongful conviction happens when a person, wrongfully accused of a crime, accepts a plea bargain even though he is innocent of any wrong doing. This happens very often and is not included in statistics citing wrongful convictions.

The reason this happens is because most people do feel that a prosecutor must have something or he would not bring the charge up. The defendant, knowing this, takes the plea to a lesser offence. He is thinking, "Who are they going to believe, the state or me?'

Most charges are pled down. Prosecutors do bring charges up with evidence that may not legally hold up during a trial. They do this because they know it will never go to trial and the defendant will accept a plea. Innocent defendants who accept this plea do so because the public generally feels that a prosecutor must have something or he wouldn't be charged.

I just wanted to bring this up because it is a very common practice amongst prosecutors and results in many wrongful convictions that are never considered.
They don't always have the evidence but usually get a conviction of some sort.

But we can't necessarily state that a wrongful conviction (based on the underlined above) would be the fault of the prosecutor. The defendant should take responsibility for his decision if he opts to go this route.

In the cases I have read about (and certainly not a vast amount), the defendant usually takes a plea because it is a guarantee of a shorter sentence than a guilty conviction in trial...a gamble that doesn't always work out the way the defendent (or his attorney) plan it will. THAT is usually when you start seeing a backtracking of "I had no choice but to plea"...

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

Juries no longer have to make decisions based on mostly circumstantial evidence or testimony. They are now armed with more scientific fact.

So I agree with you that over the last 50 years, the percentage of wrongful convictions would be much higher than say, the last 10 years?

(Yes, I have been known to watch A & E Cold Case Files too..:dance

'Scientific' evidence is circumstantial evidence.

I never said "that over the last 50 years, the percentage of wrongful convictions would be much higher than say, the last 10 years." I have no idea where you got that idea.

As for your TV show, what was said on the show as regards wrongful convictions?

 

[marspiter]

High profile cases creates tremendous pressure on LE and the D.A.s office. My experience is that what they both want to do is lessen the pressure on themselves, so they will happily throw someone to the crimetainment wolf pack based on but minor particles of evidence or just a suspicion. And they do not have to arrest someone to ruin their lives. The experience of being wrongfully demonized by the media does a superb job of that.

I could list high-profile case after high-profile case where there was wrongful demonization and/or a wrongful conviction or, sometimes, a likely wrongful acquittal (often a result of celebrity justice). When a case is goes under the floodlights, my experience is that it's a great environment for bad things to happen, especially in our rush-to-judgment culture.

As for framing, just remember that most every wrongful conviction represents a framing. Sometimes it's a passive framing, because the person who truly committed the crime does not step forward. And sometimes D.A.s frame people by withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense -- 999 times out of a 1,000, nothing will happen to them. Moreover, LE has certainly been known to manufacture false evidence and use it to convict people, but I'm sure you know that.

Ok let me tell you why I don't neccsarily agree with this.

Hear in our neck of the woods in North Carolina we had a pretty high-profile case for our area. Nothing like the Caylee case but it drew a lot of local attention. This case involved a local sheriff's deputy who was charged with molesting (indecent liberties with a minor) his step-daughter. Based on testimony from the child to a teacher (day-care) that her bottom hurt.

The suspect was given a polygraph test by the SBI. This test was given to him at 10pm. He was picked up from his home at 9pm (after consuming a number of beers) and driven an hour away. The polygraph was inconclusive but he was fired from his job as a deputy. He was given a second polygraph in which he passed. There was of course the normal "witch hunt" mentality that follows these types of molestation cases because they excite lots of emotion.

However there was no physical signs of abuse and the little girl never indicated that it was anything of a sexual nature. The father admitted to spanking the girl because she refused to go to bed.

The DA's office dropped the charges for lack of evidence. So to me despite the emotion that this case stirred up in the local community the DA's office knew the evidence they had before them and opted for dropping the charges. Also some other things to note. Because this was a sheriff's deputy the sheriff's department turned it over to the SBI for the investigation. The DA's office also brought in a DA from another county for the case so there would be no accusations of favoritism or what have you.

So despite public opinion LE, and DA's have a job to do, and for the most part they do it to the best of their ability. Just like any profession though you can have bad apples and people can make mistakes.

 

[Kentjbkent]

'Scientific' evidence is circumstantial evidence.

I never said "that over the last 50 years, the percentage of wrongful convictions would be much higher than say, the last 10 years." I have no idea where you got that idea.

As for your TV show, what was said on the show as regards wrongful convictions?

Sorry, let me clarify. I wasn't "quoting" you. I was surmissing that I agree with the statements you have made that there have been many wrongful convictions since you began your interest in following high profile cases (used 50 years as I believe you stated that you have been doing this for 50 years?)

Perhaps I should have worded it this way.

During the last 50 years that you say that you have been following crime cases, particularly those considered high profile, you have stated that there have been many wrong convictions. I agree with you.

What percentage of all those cases (you have studied over last 50 years) would you consider to be wrongful convictions?

What percentage of all those cases (you have studied in the LAST 10 years) would you consider to be wrongful convictions?

 

[coco puff]

High profile cases creates tremendous pressure on LE and the D.A.s office. My experience is that what they both want to do is lessen the pressure on themselves, so they will happily throw someone to the crimetainment wolf pack based on but minor particles of evidence or just a suspicion. And they do not have to arrest someone to ruin their lives. The experience of being wrongfully demonized by the media does a superb job of that.

I could list high-profile case after high-profile case where there was wrongful demonization and/or a wrongful conviction or, sometimes, a likely wrongful acquittal (often a result of celebrity justice). When a case is goes under the floodlights, my experience is that it's a great environment for bad things to happen, especially in our rush-to-judgment culture.

As for framing, just remember that most every wrongful conviction represents a framing. Sometimes it's a passive framing, because the person who truly committed the crime does not step forward. And sometimes D.A.s frame people by withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense -- 999 times out of a 1,000, nothing will happen to them. Moreover, LE has certainly been known to manufacture false evidence and use it to convict people, but I'm sure you know that.

My bold. So you have been able to find solid evidence that there was wrongful conviction? I would like to know the cases you are refering to and what evidence of wrongful convictions you have been privy to. You have a very high standard of what you consider evidence so I'm very interested in what you know.

 

[ronstet]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90168&highlight=oil+pan

snow walker: (quote)
"People keep mentioning traces of decomp in the oil pan.. how on earth would that get there, if it were actually found there? the oil pan would be at the front of the car, under the engine, not near the trunk, where the body apparently was placed."

Reply:

George must have changed the oil in his cars himself. So the oil would have been drained into a pan, before being disposed of.
One of the gas cans may of been sitting in the oil pan. Also, even after a oil pan has been washed, it still has a oil film, which will keep things it has come in contact with, say hair, skin cells, ect...

Sorry about the way this post turned out, Im still learning

 

[Wudge]

Sorry, let me clarify. I wasn't "quoting" you. I was surmissing that I agree with the statements you have made that there have been many wrongful convictions since you began your interest in following high profile cases (used 50 years as I believe you stated that you have been doing this for 50 years?)

Perhaps I should have worded it this way.

During the last 50 years that you say that you have been following crime cases, particularly those considered high profile, you have stated that there have been many wrong convictions. I agree with you.

What percentage of all those cases (you have studied over last 50 years) would you consider to be wrongful convictions?

What percentage of all those cases (you have studied in the LAST 10 years) would you consider to be wrongful convictions?

Since the birth of the internet and Mosaic back in 1991, I've posted heavily against roughly 30 high-profile cases that went to trial. And of those 30 or so high-profile cases, probably 30% of the guilty verdicts eventually proved to be a wrongful conviction. However, several of those trials had two defendants who were wrongfully convicted, so the true proven damage is higher. Further, out of those 30 trials, 7 convictions are on my list of likely wrongful convictions. Overall, between proven wrongful convictions (30% rate) and likely wrongful (around another 20% remain to be proven), my assessment is around a 50% wrongful conviction rate.

I should note that I hold some of the verdicts to be wrongful acquitals. So my assessment of the jury's error rate exceeds 50% for those 30 or so trials.

Further still, during this time frame, I've posted heavily on another 15 high-profile cases (or so) that never made it to trial. And I hold the wrongful demonization rate out of these 15 cases to be 80% or higher.

Net, the 30 (or so) high-profile trials that I've posted against since 1991 have a proven error rate of 30% that could go as high as 50% after the dust settles on all appeals. And around another 15 high-profile cases never even made it to trial, and I hold there to be at least an 80% wrongful demonization rate for this group of cases.

All in all, a truly ugly picture.

 

[Wudge]

My bold. So you have been able to find solid evidence that there was wrongful conviction? I would like to know the cases you are refering to and what evidence of wrongful convictions you have been privy to. You have a very high standard of what you consider evidence so I'm very interested in what you know.

I assessed the evidence and held that the jury's verdict was a wrongful conviction. Eventually, on a good number of high-profile cases that I've posted against since 1991, a trial Judge or an Appellate Court came to agree with me.


HTH

 

[USARDOG]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90168&highlight=oil+pan

snow walker: (quote)
"People keep mentioning traces of decomp in the oil pan.. how on earth would that get there, if it were actually found there? the oil pan would be at the front of the car, under the engine, not near the trunk, where the body apparently was placed."

Reply:

George must have changed the oil in his cars himself. So the oil would have been drained into a pan, before being disposed of.
One of the gas cans may of been sitting in the oil pan. Also, even after a oil pan has been washed, it still has a oil film, which will keep things it has come in contact with, say hair, skin cells, ect...

Sorry about the way this post turned out, Im still learning

Now I'm confused. An oil pan is a thing on the bottom side of an engine that holds the oil in the engine. An oil pan covers the crank shaft.

A drip pan, also know as a drain pan, is something you drain your oil into when you change it.

So, which one had the decomp traces in it or on it, the oil pan, or the drip pan?

Thanks,

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Since the birth of the internet and Mosaic back in 1991, I've posted heavily against roughly 30 high-profile cases that went to trial. And of those 30 or so high-profile cases, probably 30% of the guilty verdicts eventually proved to be a wrongful conviction. However, several of those trials had two defendants who were wrongfully convicted, so the true proven damage is higher. Further, out of those 30 trials, 7 convictions are on my list of likely wrongful convictions. Overall, between proven wrongful convictions (30% rate) and likely wrongful (around another 20% remain to be proven), my assessment is around a 50% wrongful conviction rate.

I should note that I hold some of the verdicts to be wrongful acquitals. So my assessment of the jury's error rate exceeds 50% for those 30 or so trials.

Further still, during this time frame, I've posted heavily on another 15 high-profile cases (or so) that never made it to trial. And I hold the wrongful demonization rate out of these 15 cases to be 80% or higher.

Net, the 30 (or so) high-profile trials that I've posted against since 1991 have a proven error rate of 30% that could go as high as 50% after the dust settles on all appeals. And around another 15 high-profile cases never even made it to trial, and I hold there to be at least an 80% wrongful demonization rate for this group of cases.

All in all, a truly ugly picture.

BBM (and not snipped!) I appreciate your years of experience, but I must say w/ utmost respect, that IMO.........The truly uglier picture is the number of offenders and perps who have been released to wreak more tragedy on their victims, and the offenders and perps who have never even been brought to trial in the first place. That makes me far more uneasy and disgusted than the converse. JMO

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Since the birth of the internet and Mosaic back in 1991, I've posted heavily against roughly 30 high-profile cases that went to trial. And of those 30 or so high-profile cases, probably 30% of the guilty verdicts eventually proved to be a wrongful conviction. However, several of those trials had two defendants who were wrongfully convicted, so the true proven damage is higher. Further, out of those 30 trials, 7 convictions are on my list of likely wrongful convictions. Overall, between proven wrongful convictions (30% rate) and likely wrongful (around another 20% remain to be proven), my assessment is around a 50% wrongful conviction rate.

I should note that I hold some of the verdicts to be wrongful acquitals. So my assessment of the jury's error rate exceeds 50% for those 30 or so trials.

Further still, during this time frame, I've posted heavily on another 15 high-profile cases (or so) that never made it to trial. And I hold the wrongful demonization rate out of these 15 cases to be 80% or higher.

Net, the 30 (or so) high-profile trials that I've posted against since 1991 have a proven error rate of 30% that could go as high as 50% after the dust settles on all appeals. And around another 15 high-profile cases never even made it to trial, and I hold there to be at least an 80% wrongful demonization rate for this group of cases.

All in all, a truly ugly picture.

Not really. There's no way to show that the 'high profile' aspect of the cases had anything to do with it.

 

[ronstet]

Now I'm confused. An oil pan is a thing on the bottom side of an engine that holds the oil in the engine. An oil pan covers the crank shaft.

A drip pan, also know as a drain pan, is something you drain your oil into when you change it.

So, which one had the decomp traces in it or on it, the oil pan, or the drip pan?

Thanks,

Yea,You are right. Oil pan, drip pan, I guess where you live and who you talk to, as to the correct name for the pan you drain oil into.
Also, You are right agin, there is a oil pan on a car motor.
You just have to go by the reasoning, Why would LE pull a oil pan off a car motor to test for decomp traces?
Could be, the person who wrote the report just was not that big on correct terminology.

USARDOG: Thanks for calling me out on that! I sometimes wonder if my posts are read

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Yea,You are right. Oil pan, drip pan, I guess where you live and who you talk to, as to the correct name for the pan you drain oil into.
Also, You are right agin, there is a oil pan on a car motor.
You just have to go by the reasoning, Why would LE pull a oil pan off a car motor to test for decomp traces?
Could be, the person who wrote the report just was not that big on correct terminology.
I think to him (and me) oil pan and drain could be the same thing...as long as its sitting on the ground

Wouldn't they test for decomp to prove Casey was lying about the squirrel plastered to the frame of her car, and the dead one that crawled onto her engine?

 

[Brini]

Wouldn't they test for decomp to prove Casey was lying about the squirrel plastered to the frame of her car, and the dead one that crawled onto her engine?

TWO dead ones crawled into her engine.

 

[ronstet]

Wouldn't they test for decomp to prove Casey was lying about the squirrel plastered to the frame of her car, and the dead one that crawled onto her engine?

Well no, If LE was looking for squirrel decomp in the oil pan attached to a car, The squirrel would have had to unscrewed the oil fill cap, crawled inside the motor, then screwed the cap back on.
The oil pan (or drain pan, drip pan) they tested had to be on the floor in the same area as the gas cans.
They were looking for human decomp in an oil pan, on the floor.
Squirrel decomp-no value

 

[cecybeans]

Okay - new teeshirt for the trial

SQUIRREL SCIENCE IS NOT JUNK SCIENCE!!

 

[USARDOG]

Ronstet, I'm following what they are saying. She claimed to her father hit some squirrels, and that is what produced the smell. It would make sense for them to test the outside of the oil pan on her car.

As far as testing the drain pan and finding decomp... Wow... I'm having a hard time believing the A drain pan was so clean you could set a gas can in it. It's possible, knowing what clean freaks they are, but I'm having a hard time picturing it.

 

[countzero]

Ronstet, I'm following what they are saying. She claimed to her father hit some squirrels, and that is what produced the smell. It would make sense for them to test the outside of the oil pan on her car.

As far as testing the drain pan and finding decomp... Wow... I'm having a hard time believing the A drain pan was so clean you could set a gas can in it. It's possible, knowing what clean freaks they are, but I'm having a hard time picturing it.

Give me a moment and I will give you the link to the docs about the 2 swabs LE took from the oil pan.