The supreme court felt otherwise. The majority opinion held that execution for rape was excessive punishment and thus unconstitutional.
Obama says child rapists should be executed
- Thread starter Thunder
- Start date
The supreme court felt otherwise. The majority opinion held that execution for rape was excessive punishment and thus unconstitutional.
While Sheck was not a "witness" for the Simpson defense, Sheck managed a ridiculous 10-day cross examination of LAPD forensic scientist Dennis Fong during the Simpson case. If he was not an expert, why was Simpson paying him to be on his legal team? His own bio describes him as a "leading DNA fingerprinting expert."
Did you think someone could not be an expert in more than one field? So much for the Renaissance man.
So why doesn't Sheck offer his services to prosecution offices? He would not need to be a defense "witness," since his expertise in DNA would best be served in the capacity as a lawyer, as he did in Simpson. But he can't prosecute a case, not being a prosecutor, so he could only be a "witness" for them.
Last edited:
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
Yes, I do. Quite a lot, in fact. Perhaps that's why I noticed the phrase "only... in a narrow class of cases" -- you seem to have misunderstood which part of the clause the word "only" applies to -- and the word "most".
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
That, of course, is the point I raised very early on, and which none of the advocates of DP for rapists bothered to address.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
The Simpson case is not a good example, because it involved police tampering.
The question the jury had to decide was this: What do you do with a guilty man who has been framed?
In the end, they decided that they had to acquit because of the actions of the police during the investigation. And frankly, I agree with them. Dirty cops are much more of a threat to the public safety than Simpson is now.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
"We can now use DNA to get suspects"
"it's going to essentially create a much better system for apprehending the truly guilty"
Because he doesn't use your magic word, you somehow construe these statements as denying the utility of DNA to prosecute guilty parties?
That's like creationist-level thinking.
Why do you think that police want to keep DNA databases of convicted felons? It's not to exonerate them. It's to catch them the next time they commit a crime.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
Um... I don't get your leap there.
I was only talking about one person's mis-interpretation of cherry-picked quotations by one attorney.
It has nothing to do with law enforcement in general.
My father was a cop, and I have a brother who's a prosecutor. I'm not dissing cops and prosecutors.
What are you talking about? What "dirty" cops? Where did any Simpson attorney, including Scheck, prove "police tampering?" Your bizarre recollections of the Simpson case make "creationist-level thinking" look positively numinous by comparison.
Sorry. My post was meant to be in support of your POV, that DNA can be used both to exonerate and convict. It was a response to Cicero.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
You may want to find out what "soliloquy" means, but yes, you do have a kind of point --- the only conceivable function of people like you is to give peoplle like me someone to score off.
Right, he specifically says that DNA can be used to "get suspects" and to "apprehend the truly guilty". So when you pretended that: "the notorious Barry Sheck of The Innocence Project beleive DNA is only reliable as a tool for exculpatory, but not inculpatory", you were, as usual, talking complete bollocks, weren't you? I'm not even going to mention your grammar, you've suffered enough.
Simpson's defense did not have to prove police tampering, they just had to raise enough doubt in the jury's mind about the chain of evidence that tampering might have taken place, thus making the DNA evidence that so convincingly linked Simpson to the scene of the crime less credible. All they needed was a "reasonable doubt" that there was really any of Simpson's blood at the scene. The burden of proof is on the prosecutors.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
The case hinged on evidence tampering by the police.
If you don't recall that, then you don't recall the trial.
ETA: Does the phrase "Something wrong" ring any bells for you?
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
In fact, they had to do less than that, as it turned out.
The jury was put in a rather sticky situation. The evidence clearly pointed to Simpson's guilt. Yet it also clearly indicated police tampering (e.g. the matching glove in the shrubs allegedly found outside the house where no plausible scenario could have reasonably placed it, and DNA evidence supposedly gathered from the Bronco later than DNA collected at the crime scene which was somehow less degraded) as well as legal misconduct (entering Simpson's property with no warrant supposedly to "protect" him, when in fact he was certainly a prime suspect).
The evidence of tampering and misconduct outweighed the evidence of guilt, including legitimate DNA evidence at the crime scene.
What evidence of police tampering was presented? It was alleged by the defense but no evidence was provided. You are trying to rationalize the simple fact that the OJ jury was never going to convict OJ on any grounds.
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,691
He's been like this since the debates with Alan Keyes in 2004 and more recently his book. It's not new.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
Apparently, you were not watching the same trial that I was watching.
And no, evidence tampering was not proven, of course, because it did not have to be. However, evidence of evidence-tampering and illegal warrantless search was indeed provided.
On the other hand, you belittle the jury with no support for what you're saying.
By their own accounts, they had a tough decision to make, and there is no indication that there was any predisposition to acquit.
In my opinion, they made the right choice. If I had been on the jury, I would probably have concurred and acquitted Simpson despite being convinced of his guilt.
Pookster
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,786
Sorry, but not surprised, to here you are only "scoring" on the internet. Have you thought about getting out of your humble abode? Or from where you are posting, do they only allow for visiting days every other week?
You keep ignoring the fact that if Scheck truly believed DNA was equally reliable as a determiner of guilt, he would not have hitched his wagon to Simpson.
You mean the words mumbled by Henry Lee? The guy who said he wished he had never been involved in the Simpson trial. The guy that Court Judge Larry Fidler concluded had "hid or accidentally destroyed a piece of evidence" from the scene of actress Lana Clarkson's shooting. That guy?
OK. As Vince Bugliosi has already deflated that testimony long ago, here it is again for your edification.
"The principle suspicious thing that caused Lee to say "something wrong," to wit, the transfer stains, wasn't suspicious at all. Contemporaneous with these transfers from the blood drop swatches (item 47), some of the swatches of Nichole's blood (item 42) taken from the pool of blood around the body also leaked, on the very same day at the LAPD lab, onto the paper of the separate bindle enclosing them. Since no one would be crazy enough to beleive that LAPD, for no reason whatsoever, would be planting Nichole's blood in the crime lab, we know there was a perfectly innocent explanation for the transfer stains on the other bindle, too."
Nobody but the Simpson jurors, and their like-minded fans, such as yourself.
What else you got? The bloody glove found at Rockingham? Sure. Furham planted that glove at Simpson's home, without even knowing if Simpson was in town, much less at his house, when the crime was committed. Explain again why Furham would put his career, and risk a jail sentence, for planting evidence on someone who might have had an air tight alibi, but unbeknownst to Furhman, turned out he didn't?