From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Say it ain't so
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:28:39 GMT

jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:

>In article <Bx74tn.E9r@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?

>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*.

>>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.

>>We don't know when the blood got on the knife, but we do know that
>>no blood was on Nelson's hands, and that Nelson's fingerprints were
>>not on the knife.

>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.

>>>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
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.

>>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.

>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?

>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.

>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?  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?
-- 
Stevens R. Miller J.D.