From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Say it ain't so
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 00:41:34 GMT

In article <Bxv6vr.Dyu@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:

>>If the police actually had
>>another suspect...
>>He should have been arrested, as well.
>
>How do you know?  Maybe the police did their jobs for once, and didn't
>arrest a suspect when they lacked probable cause.  Or do you recommend that
>they just arrest everybody, and sort it out at the station?

The "police did their jobs for once"?  A gang of some 2 dozen blacks
attack a white guy screaming "Kill the Jew!" and stab him to death and
the police only manage to arrest one suspect (who you claim appears to
be the wrong guy) and this is "doing their job"?  You now appear to
agree with those who think that Dinkins ORDERED the cops to lay off
the blacks.

>>If he was indeed caught BEFORE Nelson, perhaps he hadn't tried as hard
>>as Nelson to get away.  Did Nelson have something troubling him that
>>made him try so hard to flee?
>
>Maybe being chased by police when he's near a murder scene would make a
>black teenager run away.  I would, and I'm not even black.  When running
>from the police becomes evidence enough to convict of murder, we'd all
>better learn to run *fast*.

When you see a police car driving behind you with it's light flashing
and siren screaming, do you: 
  a) Speed up and try to get away?
  b) Slow down and pull to the side?
Should the answer be different for Black drivers than for White
drivers? 

>>>There was a knife in Nelson's pocket.
>
>>I believe that this ITSELF is a violation of local law.  
>
>So?  Not meaning to slur anyone, but I'd bet quite a few Brooklyn teens
>commit this offense every day.  It's not murder.

After running away from the scene of a stabbing, with the police
chasing and presumably calling on you to stop, jumping over a fence in
an attempt at flight, and then being caught with an illegal knife in
your possession, it certainly doesn't look good.  This is what murder
cases are built on, you know. 

>>I have shown before that fingerprints needn't be on a knife,
>>especially after another person had pulled it out of Nelson's pocket.
>
>So now the *absence* of Nelson's fingerprints should be used to convict
>him of murder?  Jake, your evidence is getting thinner.

No, your debating logic is getting weaker.  The absence of
fingerprints won't convict him, but neither are they so surprising.

The knife was picked up by a policeman after a quick chase over a
wall. Perhaps the policeman should have called in a helicopter and
forensic team to pick up the weapon, but instead he picked it up with
his own hands.  This may well have obliterated Nelson's fingerprints.
It is perfectly believable to a non-biased juror that the knife came
from the suspect and MAY have been used in the stabbing.  THIS jury,
however, decided that the whole thing was fabricated by several
policemen in different commands almost instantaneously.

>>>>Identified by the victim himself?
>>>
>>>One man show-ups...
>>>leave room for a jury to find some doubt.
>
>>Reasonable doubt?  Every single rapist in this country can get off
>>with this excuse. 
>
>Bad comparison.  Rosenbaum died, and couldn't come to court

Rosenbaum was perfectly conscious and capable after his stabbing.  His
wounds were mis-treated by the hospital, where he died several hours
later.  There is no "reasonable" reason to doubt his ID at the scene. 

>or to a line-up to confirm his ID.  And yes, for better or worse, mere
>accusations of rape do not always yield convictions.  For better or worse.

Rosenbaum's identification of the assailant, after recognizing that
other suspects brought before him were NOT the stabber, is more
evidence against the accused.  I believe that the EMS (ambulance)
workers at the scene confirm Rosenbaum's identification of Nelson.
Somehow, the jury discounted THIS as a racial conspiracy, too.

>>>Without a lawyer, a black teenager arrested for murder surrounded
>>>by Brooklyn detectives might confess to a lot.
>
>>He might even confess to crimes he had committed.  
>
>Good point.  Let's use rubber hoses next time, and get that confession
>in time for dinner.

Who said anything about rubber hoses?  Nelson, at 16 years of age,
probably has little prior experience as a murderer and with police 
interrogations.  He might well have admitted to a stabbing (even
before Rosenbaum had died), not knowing how well the "system" can be
manipulated.  His lawyer, whose main objective is to win the case
irrespective of right and wrong and is trained in manipulating the
system, might have kept Nelson from making such a confession.  If we
didn't need lawyers who are skilled in manipulating the Justice system
in our benefit, then we wouldn't need lawyers, would we?

>>With a lawyer who
>>knows that there are legal loopholes large enough to drive a truck
>>through, the teenager may well be instructed to deny everything. 
>
>The Fifth Amendment is now a legal loophole?

Saying that you didn't do or say something when in fact you did is not
covered by the Fifth Amendment.   

>>Unfortunately for Americans who rely on the criminal justice system,
>>foolish jurors (there are lots of them) are easily swayed by lawyers
>>who perform stage-acts that color the facts and the evidence.
>
>Yah, they ought to base their verdicts on the New York Times.  Silly
>jurors, what a shame they aren't as perceptive as you, who can see
>so clearly what they could not.

No, they ought to base their verdicts on the facts.  When juries
dimiss considerable amounts of evidence and prefer arguments that
appeal to their sense of disenfrachisement, they are being used, not
being perceptive.

>>That a new lawyer like yourself is so valiantly defending the rights
>>of lawyers to manipulate gullible juries reflects poorly on the state
>>of justice and legal education in the USA.
>
>Tell me Jake, what gives you immunity to this gullibility?  

Nothing.  I try to be rational and fair and logical. 
Now, what makes you so insistent that the jury in the Rosenbaum murder
case is immune to gullibility and manipulation?

>You seem
>to think you have the direct line to the truth here, and that the
>judge and prosecutor and intelligences of 12 jurors were simply
>steamrolled by a manipulative lawyer.  Are you telling me that if
>you were in that jury box you would suddenly have become so gullible?
>If not, why are you so ready to ascribe gullibility to others?

The facts of the case are inconsistent with the outcome of the jury.
The suspect fled the scene, was caught, a weapon was alleged to have
been found on him, the victim positively identified the suspect, with
both police and ambulance workers testifying to this, other suspects
were dismissed by the victim, police testimony claims that the suspect
confessed to the stabbing and after all this  --  the jury decides
that the entire case was a fabrication by various members of the
police department in different parts of the city to railroad Lemrick
Nelson into jail.  They have somehow found ALL of the evidence and
testimony to be "reasonably doubtful" and prefer the conspiracy theory
presented by defense attorney Lewis.  As Brooklyn D.A. Hynes said,
"What do you do with a jury that says nine cops from three different
commands within one hour fabricated a case?  What do you do with
people who have so low an opinion of police officers?"  It seems that
I am not the only one who thinks that the jury was gullible and
manipulated. 


-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com              10 years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions. standard of a failed President.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish