From: Seth Ness <ness@aecom.yu.edu>
Subject: Re: Say it ain't so
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <Seth Ness <ness@aecom.yu.edu>>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:09:53 GMT

On Thu, 5 Nov 1992, David Marc Nieporent wrote:

> In<1992Nov2.212815.3740@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
> >In <BwyBBp.54K@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
> >[...]
> >>unfair, unfair."  Nelson's lawyer argued that the circumstances still
> >>allowed for reasonable doubt as to Rosenbaum's identification of Nelson as
> >>the stabber.
> 
> >Doubt?  After arresting the murderer within a few minutes of the
> >attack?  With the murder weapon still in his pocket?  Bloodied with
> >the victim's blood?  Identified by the victim himself?  After
> >confessing at the police station to the murder?  Doubt?
> 
> That wasn't what I heard about this case.  Any of it.
> 
> The jury simply didn't believe what the police said.  (For those of you
> who aren't aware of NY politics, the police do NOT have much credibility
> right now.  The fact that they were rioting last month, busy shouting
> racist slurs at the mayor, over the idea of civilian oversight of the
> police department probably doesn't help.)
> 
> The police said they found the murder weapon, which was bloodied with
> the victim's blood, in Nelson's pocket.  But Nelson's clothes had NO
> blood on them.  (Police have been known to plant evidence on occasion,
> you know.)
> 
> The victim identified the guy based mostly on his red shirt.  But there
> were several other people who testified they were also wearing red shirts.

he didn't identify the guy based mostly on his red shirt. he said " the
red shirt, thats him, why did you do it?" the red shirt certainly was a
distinguishing point, but he definately identified the person; he said
'thats him', why did YOU do it'
 
> The police CLAIMED he confessed at the police station.  But there was no
> written or taped confession anywhere.  And he denied that he did.

there were several cops testifying. the testimony of many is worth more
than that of one.

>>A judge told me this week that he knew the outcome longago,that
>>"there isn't a jury in Brooklyn that would convict this guy".  The
>>jury didn't suffer doubt.  They suffered prejudiced blindness.
> 
> Or the police did, which is the other possibility.  Many people felt
> that the cops needed someone to arrest quickly to quiet down the Jewish
> community, so they just picked Nelson and creatively fit the evidence to
> him.
> 
> >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.
> 
> 10 years from now?  I think he's managed to do it already.  All those
> Republican candidates who lost today were sounding really bitter about
> the whole thing, too.
> --
> David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
> niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------
>    princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
> Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
> 
and how come no one was arrested or tried for accessory to murder. the
cops certainly had their hands on people who were in the mob that killed
him. how come lemrick nelson wasn't convicted of accessory? in howard
beach and bensonhurst everybody in the groups involved was tried for
various accessory or secondary crimes if not for the murders themselves?




Seth L. Ness                         Ness Gadol Hayah Sham
ness@aecom.yu.edu                      




Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish