Thursday, January 30, 2020
The documentary we watched today.
I just found extremely confusing on why that one man was charged for aggravated rape. I do not recall any mention of DNA. I find the witness to be extremely unreliable due to the quote about African Americans . I would understand if there wasn't sufficient DNA and if she was a lot less racist. What do you guys think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree with you. There was nothing with DNA found and the man even found evidence that the girls were virgins, so really he couldn't have raped them. It really didn't mention any evidence at all that he did it besides when the girl called him out in the lineup. But really that wasn't even fair because he was the only was with handcuffs on, so immediately he looked more guilty than the other men. And like Andreas mentioned, the girl said she couldn't pick him out because she felt "all blacks look the same" so how could she pick him out in the lineup anyways? I think it said the man had already been there for 20 years and he still has 60 left to serve. He has used his 20 years to research and find evidence to prove himself innocent, yet still the board didn't believe him and sent him back into prison gaining nothing.
Hey there Andreas!
You know what I think is confusing, why you think it's odd that they didn't use DNA evidence in this case from the 1950s. Wanna know why? It's because the technology to collect said evidence wouldn't have existed for another 30 years. Ain't that wacky!
Sincerely,
Brandon Clementine Stokes
P.S. I agree with you that there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict this man, and that the lineup was mega unconstitutional.
Hey there, Malorie!
You know what I find confusing? Why you thought it would be a good idea to spread claims without fact-checking them. Its almost like you had already made up your mind and passed judgment without considering that other evidence might exist.
Sincerely,
Andrew Gary
P.S. The courts, should have ordered a retrial given that exculpatory evidence was withheld in the original trial, which is a severe violation of ethics rules and the bill of rights.
Although Andrew and Brandon make great (yet harsh) points, I do I find the witness to be extremely unreliable and emotional for the wrong reasons. When she says she feels terrified when she’s around black people and that all black people look the same, it reflects her degrading and exaggerated emotions related on race, and not integrity. Unfortunately, this is the case in many circumstances, and African Americans are charged for crimes they didn’t commit because of the color of their skin. I wonder if this commonality will ever change.
Hey Brandon,
Sorry, I got the timing off and that I don't know when DNA testing first started off the top of my head.
I also wanted to say @Malorie, that testing to see if she was a virgin is impossible. Virginity in a social construct and there is no physical test to see if she was actually a virgin.
I also agree with Andrew that it was very unjust to see her choose him from that line, especially since he was the only one with handcuffs, it could be easy to see that she was swayed by that.
Post a Comment