Re: Just Too Bizarre: Man Wrongly Jailed for 18 Yrs, Now Charged With Murder


Hunter wrote:
> Kris Baker wrote:
> > "Hunter" <buffhunter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1131936229.767374.302020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > Kris Baker wrote:
> > >> <ScorpionKing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > >> news:j6efn1dg5ful10cv7ntb10sagjkn7fqpck@xxxxxxxxxx
> > >> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:16:49 +0100, Alan Hope <not.alan.hope@xxxxxxxx>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>ScorpionKing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx goes:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>Sounds to me like they had the right guy the first time, and by some
> > >> >>>fluke he got off in error.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Is he allowed to cash in the tokens for all those years he was
> > >> >>wrongfully in the can?
> > >> >
> > >> > I strongly suspect an error was made when they released this guy. I
> > >> > don't know how they convinced a judge or how good the DNA evidence
> > >> > was, but sounds to me like they had the right guy from the get go.
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Scorp
> > >>
> > >> Did you see the link I posted yesterday, to the WI DOJ investigation of
> > >> his
> > >> arrest and conviction? Pretty interesting stuff. They got a bad guy
> > >> off
> > >> the street, even IF it was the wrong bad guy.
> > >>
> > >> The sexual assault victim is still certain that he was the right guy, per
> > >> some 2003 news coverage and recent TV reports.
> > >>
> > >> What are the odds that she'd have the pubic hair of one man on her, and
> > >> fingernail scrapings that matched both herself and Avery (early DNA
> > >> testing
> > >> results)? I'm curious why no one has tested those fingernail
> > >> scrapings....or if they were destroyed in the early testing.
> > >>
> > >> Kris
> > > ----
> > > The pubic hair test was just the highly flawed hair comparison test,
> > > not with nuclear or mitochondrical DNA testing.
> > >
> > > They did test the finger nail scrapings. With the early DNA test in
> > > 1995, they could not conclusively exclude Avery as the owner nor could
> > > they conclusively include him. They also found the DNA of a third
> > > person besides the victims and what could had been Avery's DNA under
> > > the finger nails of the victim.
> > >
> > > It was a more powerful and accurate DNA test in 2002 on the pubic hair
> > > that conclusively excluded Avery that lead to his release and the
> > > apprehension of Gregory Allen as the man who raped the victim. More on
> > > it here:
> > >
> > > http://www.truthinjustice.org/avery.htm
> > >
> > > The article doesn't mention whether or not the new DNA test were
> > > performed on the fingernail scrapings. I would think the prosecution
> > > would have had it done. If not perhaps the evidence was consumed doing
> > > the first DNA test. However, common sense would say it is highly
> > > unlikely that DNA of Gregory Allen from a pubic hair would say that he
> > > raped her. No one, not the victim, not the DA has said that perhaps
> > > Allen had a partner. Add to the fact that at the trial Avery had
> > > sixteen alibi witness saying he was no where near the victim at the
> > > time and the time coded store receipts Avery had in his possession and
> > > you couple that with the DNA test I think it is a dead certainty that
> > > Avery did not rape the woman he was accused of raping. Yes, I know the
> > > victim still claims that Avery raped her, but eyewitness testimony,
> > > even of rape victims who have seen their attacker's face clearly have
> > > been wrong, most famously in the case of Reginald Cotton:
> > >
> > > http://truthinjustice.org/jennifer-and-ronald.htm
> > >
> > > Avery is probably a bad guy. He probably and given the evidence
> > > revealed so far likely did kill the woman that was photographing cars
> > > on his property, but it doesn't change the fact that he was innocent of
> > > the crime he spent 18 years in prison for. Some wrongly convicted
> > > people who were released on DNA evidence has gotten in trouble with the
> > > law, but it is a very small number of the 170 so far, like maybe 10.
> > > The vast majority have not gotten into trouble with the law even after
> > > years of release. Indeed, over half the wrongly convicted never had
> > > been in trouble of the law before their arrest for the crime they were
> > > wrongly convicted for; and many of the ones who were criminals before
> > > were in trouble for only minor offenses. Don't let Avery's alleged
> > > murder of this woman obscure that fact. There are still many innocent
> > > people in prison now; and they would stay innocent after they get out.
> > >
> > > --->Hunter
> >
> > Yes, I understand what you're saying. But don't forget that Avery
> > was serving a concurrent sentence for another crime, and had a
> > history. To say he's "innocent" implies that he's an innocent saint,
> > while he was actually only "not guilty" of the sexual assault.
> >
> > Kris
> ---
> No, innocent mean he was innocent of the crime he was accused of, which
> was rape. He had a record yes, but that does not change the fact he did
> not do that crime. It is still the state's and the jury's mistake. What
> was the crime Avery was concurrently sentenced for? Was it in relation
> of the crime of which he was cleared by DNA? I doubt it since he had 16
> alibi witnesses and store receipts that placed him away from the rape
> scene.

Avery had been charged with trying to abduct the wife of sheriff's
deputy at gunpoint six months earlier. He only let her go after she
said she had her baby in the car, and the infant would die if left in
the cold. The woman subsequently accused Avery of having stood naked
on the roadside on several occasions when she was driving to work in
the morning. Prior to that his arrest record included two burglaries
and putting gasoline on a cat and throwing it into a bonfire.


>
> As I said some of the wrongly convicted did have prior troubles with
> the law, most did not. And some including a few with no prior criminal
> acts before the wrongful conviction have gotten into trouble, but it
> does not change the injustice that was done. He may had been a animal
> before the wrongful conviction, he may be an animal if he did the
> present crime he is accused of, but it was still a wrongful conviction.
> Hopefully Gregory Allen was in prison for most if not of the time Avery
> was paying for Allen's crime. Most of the time that isn't the case.

I thought I read only one of the 165 former inmates released found not
guilty by DNA evidence has since committed a crime, a rape.

> As I said, most of the wrongly convicted did not have any or had only
> minor records. The next wrongly convicted that is freed maybe innocent
> even by your standards.
>
> ---->Hunter

.

Relevant Pages