Gosh! He convicted them with scant evidence and they will go to prison!
In your world, there would be no way to form opinions about anything. And since you are incredibly, overbearingly opinionated, you are either a hypocritical idiot or… nope. That’s the only option.
What evidence was that? *Exactly *what “scant” evidence did the jury hear? 
Since you don’t know, how can you say it was “scant”? :dubious:
Certainly- it’s called “an informed opinion” which is based upon facts. Try them sometime. This is the “Straight Dope…Fighting Ignorance” not “endless loudmouthed ignorant opinion board”.
I have asked the OP for some facts about the original conviction, and it is clear he has none. His opinion was bought and sold by the media.
Jesus fucking christ, are you stupid?
Do you know what evidence the Jury had in hand when they convicted him? So- you may ask if I am stupid, but I have proof that you and the OP are ignorant.
The fact that new DNA evidence has since cleared him does not mean that the original evidence was not adequate to convict someone.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t the problem here that in the original case,
a) they latched onto an easy target (goth kid in a small town) and focused on finding evidence to convict him specifically, and
b) that some of the original evidence was not made public, evidence which may well have changed the outcome of the '99 trial?
I believe both of these points are brought up in the linked article (I don’t feel like reading it again right now to make sure).
So, your answer is that yes, you are stupid since you are apparently incapable of following a fairly simple conversation in which I actually quoted the relevant bits of your posts and even used the same words you did.
And it just occurred to me that I didn’t explain myself very well. Neither of those points have dickall to do with the jury members and everything to do with a police force that cares more about getting a conviction and appeasing the townspeople than about actually finding out what really happened. This guy was lucky that they were able to bring in new DNA evidence now.
So yes, the evidence on hand was enough to convict him (obviously). The problem is that the evidence the jurors had wasn’t all of it, and the hidden evidence would’ve casts doubts on whether or not he was guilty.
Well OK, doc, what evidence have you seen that would incline you to believe this wasn’t a miscarriage of justice?
I have none, and I have said that several times. I have no problem at all of the kid getting off with new DNA evidence. Hooray for him and for Justice! (You really should read my posts, I made this clear). Yeah, it happens. Some poor snook who was in the wrong place at the wrong time is convicted with what seems to be plenty of fairly good evidence… and then later DNA evidence shows he wasn;t the dude after all. This doesn’t mean that the Justice system is fucked up, in fact it shows the opposite- that Hustice will often prevail. And it certainly doesn’t prove that several cops, a DA, 12 jurors and a Judge were all eviiil and stupid. Wrong- yes. Eviiiiiil- no.
The issue is that the OP claims they convicted the kid more or less entirely because the kid wore black- they had no real evidence. Nothing in any of his links says this. Nor has he read the transcipt or read an interview of the jury members. He has more or less admitted he knows nothing about what evidence they did use to convict.
I don’t know either (the articles aren’t very clear on that). But I have been on both a regular and a Grand Jury. Not to mention, I have read *far too many *fucking trial transcipts. Based upon what the OP claims, they didn’t even have enough to indict, let alone convict, and certainly not go through the many levels of Appeals (yes, see I know more than the OP. I know it went through more than one level of appeals) this case has had . Yes, I can beleive a DA can scare up a *baseless *Indictment (seen it done). But a baseless conviction? Doubtful. And have it survive the several levels of appeals? **Impossible. ** Wrong- yes! Baseless? No fucking way.
So the Op has posited a point which is nigh impossible, has nothing whatsover to back it up, and refuses to even try. He’s not only ignorant,* he’s proud of it.
*
I am not saying the kid was guilty- this new evidence is enough to convince both me and the Courts. But there *was *more to the trial that “*he’s wearing black!”= *“GUILTY!!” :rolleyes: The Op knows this, he knows he was full of shit= he just won’t admit it, and to cover up his bullshit he’s just attacking me.
Now, it’d be fine if he said the initial evidence seemed awful weak to him, and he has now been vindicated by the new exculpatory evidence. Sure, and it’d be an OK MPSIMS thread, or maybe an IMHO. But he wanted to do this
in the PIT and make eviiiiil bad guys not only of the DA and Cops, but also the Judge, Jury and about half a dozen Appeals Judges. :rolleyes:
His choice- he wanted to turn this into a PITing of the mean nasty legal system that convicted this poor innocent kid who did nothing but wear black. :rolleyes: That’s the point of his OP- not that the kid has not been vindicated. It’s a PIT thread. The Op is full of shit, ignorance and misplaced anger. And I am calling him on the ignorance part, as this is the SDMB goddamnit. :mad:
So, it’s your contention that there has never been a conviction upheld on appeal where the evidence was scant or nonexistent? That it is “impossible”?
As far as I know, and unlike you I’m willing to be wrong (how’d that going back and reading our actual exchange work for ya? Did you notice how I said “he” and “them,” yet?), appeals are generally based on law, not on whether additional juries would have convicted with the same evidence. Once convicted, a person doesn’t get the chance for multiple retrials unless new evidence comes up.
Again, I could be wrong. I’m not a lawyer.
Just for kicks, I did a few searches. This appears to be an appellate opinion in the case:
Although the case against Masters was admittedly not the strongest, it would appear to be a bit stronger than some reports are suggesting.
Reality check. NO ONE besides you has claimed that the kid was convicted for merely wearing black. The OP claims that this kid was an easy scapegoat due to being a goth and living nearby. From the article:
Bolding mine. The kid being convicted unfairly wasn’t a factor of a biased jury, but of a biased police force. There was nothing wrong with the trial itself. I’ll believe the OP when he says that the general consensus among townspeople was essentially “He’s a weirdo, he had to have done it”. The police, from the sounds of it, picked up on that vibe and instead of trying to find out what happened, built a case designed to convict this one kid, to the point of hiding evidence pointing towards his innocence.
This doesn’t mean that the initial trial and appeals did anything wrong, they just didn’t have all the relevant information, and made the best decisions possible based on what evidence they did have. The blame goes on the police force, not the jury.
Probably both, I’d imagine. Juries are just people, after all, prone to the same assumptions and biases and blind spots as everyone else.
They never convicted the ‘kid’.
The killing took place in 1987. The trial took place in 1999. There was no new evidence to convict but the jury would see a grown man, back from serving in the Navy and not a skinny teenager who drew some violent stuff.* A skinny little teen that was dragged out of school and questioned for about 8 hours by the cops and never waivered in his story. That he saw the body in the field but thought it was a dummy so he didn’t report it.
It is unfortunate that the thread title is totally hijacking the discussion of the travesty of justice.
*Drawings that if a teen was caught with now, he would be shipped off to a loony bin and pumped full of Throazine and his parents would be glad to do it.
The title of the thread has nothing to do with the hijack. The hijack is entirely the responsibility of DrDeth, desperately trying to make a point that everyone knows doesn’t apply in this case.
Yes, this kid never should have been convicted. Why? Because he didn’t do it! Secondly, the testimony the jury heard was not strong. Remember, there was no physical evidence tying Masters to the victim. Not just a little, not one or two minor things that weren’t really incriminating - none. The prosecution was mostly based on the testimony of a pathologist from California who created a scenario (untrue, as we now know) based almost entirely on Maters drawings. Why do I say almost entirely? Because the pathologist never even met or talked to Masters. He made all his without ever speaking to the defendant. He was also only called in after an FBI profiler said that Masters couldn’t have done it, and that his drawings pointed to any conclusion. He specifically told the Ft. Collins police not to place their case on the drawings. His conclusions were disregarded, correct as they were, and were witheld from the defense.
Masters never would have been convicted if the witheld testimony from the FBI agent and the information about alternate, stonger suspects had been turned over as rules dictate. This is a textbook case of a wrongful conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct and fear-mongering. Anyone can see it, except apparantly DrDeth. Timothy Mastrers can pray in his own bed tonight that DrDeth isn’t in charge of his case, for he would rather an innocent man spend the rest of his life in prison rather than remove the stick from his own ass.
As long as you are summarizing the evidence, it’s worth considering that the Defendant apparently did possess the specialized weapons necessary to commit the crime.
I don’t know how many goth kids keep survival knives and scalpels around.
Granted, possessing weapons doesn’t prove anything in and of itself. Still, it seems like quite a coincidence that a woman is stabbed and mutilated by a lefty with a serrated knife and a scalpel and there happens to be a lefty with a serrated knife and a scalpel who fantasizes about stabbing women and who lives within a couple hundred feet of the crime scene.
Now, it’s probably the case that there isn’t enough evidence to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. At the same time, it would appear not to be a situation like the Duke Lacrosse case where the Defendants are clearly innocent.
ETA: I would be happy to reconsider this view after learning about the “other suspects.”
One of the other suspects was a doctor who knew the victim, who also lived within a few hundred yards of the location of the body. He was also later (but before Masters’ trial) convicted of crimes of a sexual nature. Because the victim was sexually mutilated, a plastic surgeon was called in by the police to evaluate the cuttings.
Interestingly, the DNA evidence did not indicate the doctor was involved either, but having this and other evidence available to the defense
would have cast serious doubt on Master’s guilt.
The police had a different suspect but stopped investigating him when they found the ‘kid with the knives and the drawings’. They closed their eyes to what the evidence actually said, to only hear what they wanted it to say. Then they suppressed the evidence that pointed away from the kid/man, which is against the law, to assure the conviction. The fact that they did it 12 years after the fact, so it wasn’t something like a in the heat of the moment reaction to the a horrible crime, is quite disturbing. 12 years later they calmly persued a person that they should not have. Even though they had evidence of another suspect, they decided he was guilty and put him in jail. The evidence didn’t show he was guilty, the police and the DA did. They skewed the evidence to put away the person they thought did it. They lied to the public about the evidence. They withheld evidence that should have been shown to the jury but they did not because they felt they were the law and not servants to the law.
Do you have a cite for that? TIA!