Kid guilty of dressing in black to be freed after 8 years in prison

The BBQ Pit
81

What am I reading here?

The kid didn’t do it and susbequent DNA now proves it beyond doubt, there was no eyewitness circumstantial evidence, no forensics of any sort, in fact the only ‘evidence’ amounted to a dodgy profile evaluation that was disowned before it was even presented in court this being put before a jury in a highly improper manner.

The investigation process itself was flawed (which is a very mild way of describing it) and you have to wonder about others who have been put before the courts by the same team.

The lack of proffesssionalism by these investigators makes me wonder just how many others have been ‘fitted up’, because you can be sure that this pattern of investigative behaviour is very unlikely to be an isolated case.
It also means there is a significant risk that the public are not being protected by having dangerous individuals taken out of society - so how may further serious criminals are living nearby having gotten away with it ?

…and you use the word ‘probably’ :dubious:

82

[QUOTE=brazil84]
As I said earlier, it’s quite a coincidence that a woman is murdered in a sexual fashion by a lefty who uses a serrated knife and a scalpel, and there just happens to be a lefty who owns a serrated knife and a scalpel, who has fantasies about murdering women in sexual fashions, living within eyeshot of the crime scene; and who admitted to seeing the body but not reporting it.
[/QUOTE]

And has been pointed out to you, over and over, that another supect, a doctor, fit all that criteria.

That the cuts were ‘skillful’ in nature.

Does that point to 15 year old goth or Doctor?

The drawings were presented to the FBI who told them the drawings ment nothing.

Do you then throw out the ‘evidence’ that points to the goth kid, or do you ignore the FBI and find someone who will agree with the theory you already have and like?
Personally I don’t see the Goth as why he was convicted. See, they didn’t convict a 15 year old boy. As a teen he was scrawny, and non threatening looking. When he was a man and got back from the Navy, he looked big enough to carry the victim to where she was found. Oh yeah, the body was dumped there, a bit of big job for a kid, does that make you suspect the kid or the Doctor?

The fact is that in this country today a DA goes for convictions. Who was easier to convict for the crime? A Doctor? (who can afford better lawyers) or man who drew some dark things when he was kid? DAs sometimes go for who they can convict, and the guilt or innocence of the person in question is secondary to their concerns.

The prosecutors in this case should go to jail.

83

[QUOTE=Zebra]
And has been pointed out to you, over and over, that another supect, a doctor, fit all that criteria.
[/quote]

Cite that the doctor was a lefty, please.

Cite that the doctor had a scalpel and a serrated knife capable of inflicting the stab wounds in question, please.

Cite that the doctor had explicit fantasies involving killing and mutilating women, please.

Cite that the doctor lived within eyeshot of the crime scene, please. (And not just the uncorroborated statements of Masters’ attorneys, please).

Cite that the doctor saw the body but did not report it, please.

Not that it really matters, because you’re missing the point. Masters was not convicted just because he was a goth and drew some violent pictures. It’s as simple as that.

84

[QUOTE=Jayn_Newell]
I think at this point we may simply be splitting hairs. I didn’t come here to argue with you over semantics, and I don’t really feel like continuing this. My main point was that being a goth made him stand out, and so people jumped to conclusions.
[/quote]

I think you may be the one who is jumping to conclusions. Based on the evidence, it was completely reasonable for the police to see Masters as the prime suspect.

85

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Cite that the doctor was a lefty, please.

Cite that the doctor had a scalpel and a serrated knife capable of inflicting the stab wounds in question, please.

Cite that the doctor had explicit fantasies involving killing and mutilating women, please.

Cite that the doctor lived within eyeshot of the crime scene, please. (And not just the uncorroborated statements of Masters’ attorneys, please).

Cite that the doctor saw the body but did not report it, please.

Not that it really matters, because you’re missing the point. Masters was not convicted just because he was a goth and drew some violent pictures. It’s as simple as that.
[/QUOTE]

You’ve been given plenty of cites that indicate the Dr. lived very close to the crime scene, you just choose to ignore them. The rest of your questions are requests for citations for things no one here has claimed, and anyone could come up with a a similar list for the doctor. Of course, that would be dumb, because that is what brazil84 wants. He has a well established track record on these boards of arguing in bad faith, refusing to acknowledge legitimate cites when presented to him, recycling old settled arguments, and picking at nits. It is his M.O. He is one of those people who think that as long as he is still talking to someone, he hasn’t lost the argument.

I guarantee you that if he is engaged, this thread will go on for ten pages of idiocy, so I hope no one falls for his tired schtick.

I hereby refuse to engage, and will let the stink settle where it belongs, and we all know at whose feet that is.

86

[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
You’ve been given plenty of cites that indicate the Dr. lived very close to the crime scene, you just choose to ignore them.
[/quote]

You’ve given me one self-serving and uncorroborated quote by a defense attorney. Sorry, but I’m skeptical of such things.

What was so compelling about the Duke Lacrosse case was that the defense attorneys backed up their statements with solid documents.

That’s completely false:

Zebra specifically claimed that the doctor met the criteria.

Then please do so.

Sheesh. Why can’t you just admit that you overstated your case?

87

Here’s a video of the police interrogating Masters. He holds up very well for a 15 year old kid. (Video loads automatically.)

88

DrDeth, I don’t recall anyone stating that everyone involved was, ahem, evil and stupid. However, the police willfully and flagrantly violated all standards of evidence and justice, not to mention the law, in seeking to appease a mob. The DA apparently was in on it.

The OP does NOT claim they convicted the kid because he wore black. That was clear and obviously a deliberate use of hyperbole, and all the more effective because it is so nearly accurate. In fact, your contrary statements here mark as you dishonestly arguing.

Secondly, there’s no reason the decision wouldn’t have been confirmed on appeal, as the evidence itself wasn’t fake; it was inadequate. And appeals are often, in fact always, highly technical and have little if anything to do with justice per se. It has happened numerous times before and will continue to happen.

IN this case, the defendant was apparently convicted solely on the basis of vague, circumstanctial evidence. The police and prosecution had ample reason to believe he was NOT the kiler, and chose in cold-blood to conduct a witch-hunt.

You are attempting to pretend this was not a miscarriage of justice. I do not know whether or not the jury was motivated by personal issues. It’s also irrelevant. From the actual evidence presented, I personally could not have voted guilty. The police had, essentially, nothing but a theory and character assassination.

89

[QUOTE=brazil84]
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.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not a “goth kid” and never was, but I do own a scalpel (for sharpening drawing pencils and charcoal sticks) and a “five inch serrated knife” (for cutting tomatoes and what-not). I dunno if the latter is similar enough to a “survival knife” to make the same kind of cutmarks, but if anyone is found dead with scalpel marks within a five-mile radius then I guess I’m your woman :rolleyes:

JRB

90

[QUOTE=JR Brown]
but I do own a scalpel (for sharpening drawing pencils and charcoal sticks) and a “five inch serrated knife” (for cutting tomatoes and what-not). I dunno if the latter is similar enough to a “survival knife” to make the same kind of cutmarks, but if anyone is found dead with scalpel marks within a five-mile radius then I guess I’m your woman :rolleyes:

JRB
[/QUOTE]

Lol. Want some extra straw for your strawman?

91

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Lol. Want some extra straw for your strawman?
[/QUOTE]

Well, if you are going to describe scalpels as “specialized weapons”, I’m entitled to point out that a non-zero number of people have them for perfectly peaceful and respectable reasons. Google sharpen drawing pencil scalpel.

JRB

92

[QUOTE=JR Brown]
Well, if you are going to describe scalpels as “specialized weapons”, I’m entitled to point out that a non-zero number of people have them for perfectly peaceful and respectable reasons.
[/quote]

Sure you can point it out, but what’s your point?

93

The point is, that your point that since the kid had these items in his possession automatically makes him a suspect of greater priority than anyone else is false.

That point you made is false, easy isn’t it ?

Yes he lived in the same town, yes he had some disturbing drawings, yes he had some sharp pointy things, but as has been alluded none of these, or even all of them constitute a robust reason to set someone before the courts on a murder charge.

They could be indicative, but nothing more, indicative is not guilty, indicative is not even evidence.

Association is not evidence, it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these items were relevant, and not for the defendant to prove they were in possession of them with no malicious intent.

Anyway, what you put in your posts is utterly irrelevant, because its now an established fact that this kid hadn’t done it, and therefore the investigation was flawed.

The only argument that can be, is just how much the investigators abused their position, and/or how incompetant they were.

My view is that it is extremely serious, because the real killer is still at liberty and likely to remain so, and may kill again.

94

[QUOTE=casdave]
The point is, that your point that since the kid had these items in his possession automatically makes him a suspect of greater priority than anyone else is false.
[/quote]

And where exactly did I make this point? Please use the quote feature. Thank you.

95

Doctors have access to scalpers.

Doctors have the skill to use scalpers. Kid does not.

The drawings mean nothing, according the FBI profiler. The drawings are not evidence that makes the kid a suspect.

So now the scale reads thusly.

The kid

Has knives,
Saw body, but did not report it because he thought it was a dummy.

The Doctor
Has knives.
Has skill to use scalpel. (Cuts on body required skill)
Knew the victim

Are you saying that if you were the police, you would continue to investigate the boy and drop the Doctor as a suspect?

96

[QUOTE=Zebra]
Doctors have access to scalpers.

Doctors have the skill to use scalpers. Kid does not.

The drawings mean nothing, according the FBI profiler. The drawings are not evidence that makes the kid a suspect.

So now the scale reads thusly.

The kid

Has knives,
Saw body, but did not report it because he thought it was a dummy.

The Doctor
Has knives.
Has skill to use scalpel. (Cuts on body required skill)
Knew the victim

Are you saying that if you were the police, you would continue to investigate the boy and drop the Doctor as a suspect?
[/QUOTE]

:confused:

I’m not sure if this post is addressed to me, but I have no idea what your point is.

If I were the police at this point, I would investigate the person whose DNA was found on the victim.

97

[QUOTE=brazil84]
:confused:

I’m not sure if this post is addressed to me, but I have no idea what your point is.

If I were the police at this point, I would investigate the person whose DNA was found on the victim.
[/QUOTE]

Great plan. Watch a lot of cop shows, do you? I do, too.

Are you aware that the police do not, in fact, have a database containing the DNA profile of every person in a particular area? at best, they have some profiles of some known offenders, but it doesn’t seem to work like you see on cop shows - they don’t simply take the sample, and ‘run it through’ and a name pops out.

There’s a local case for me where a woman was killed about two years ago. She was found, DNA under her fingernails, she’d fought the attacker, a rather gruesome attack. Cops ID’d a local semi homeless guy w/a learning disability, who had habitually hung out where she was found (local community college - he was taking classes there). they questioned him for hours and hours, finally coming up w/a statement that they called a confession wherin he said stuff like “if I’d done it I had to be sleepwalking or something”. They used that extensively during the trial. They found a fiber on him that was ‘similar’ to one from her coat/sweater (of course, since she taught at the college and he lived there, the presence of a single fiber shouldn’t have been a surprise - I suspect if you search 3/4 of the people I work w/, you’ll find fiber and hair evidence of contact from me as well).

he was convicted and sentenced to life. Funny thing, before the trial, the cops had a surveilance video taken the day of the killing, a short time before, showing him quite a distance away, so he’d have had to RUN there and quickly murder/rape the woman and quickly exit w/o being detected again.

And, of course, they’d found DNA under her fingernails. It did NOT match the suspect. Didn’t matter.
They’ve released him. They have some one else in custody now who they suspect really killed the woman. You know what? they had the second guy’s DNA available at the time the woman was killed. Apparently, the DNA discovered under her fingernails wasn’t screened against known offenders at the time.

98

[QUOTE=wring]
Great plan. Watch a lot of cop shows, do you?
[/quote]

Actually not. I had been under the impression that there was DNA on the victim that matched an ex-bf of hers. I’m not sure where I got that impression though.

99

[QUOTE=brazil84]
:confused:

I’m not sure if this post is addressed to me, but I have no idea what your point is.

If I were the police at this point, I would investigate the person whose DNA was found on the victim.
[/QUOTE]

Yes it’s directed at you.

The murder in question took place in 1987. DNA testing not common.

DNA testing now is what set the innocent person free.

Take the DNA test off the table and tell me which suspect to persue.

100

[QUOTE=Zebra]
Yes it’s directed at you.

The murder in question took place in 1987. DNA testing not common.

DNA testing now is what set the innocent person free.

Take the DNA test off the table and tell me which suspect to persue.
[/QUOTE]

For reasons stated earlier, I would definitely have considered Masters a suspect.

You have claimed (without any cites) that the doctor knew the victim; that he was in posession of a serrated knife and scalpel; that he was a lefty; that he had fantasies of killing and mutilating women; and that he saw the body but did not report it. It has also been claimed (with 1 poor cite) that the doctor lived very near to the crime scene.

Assuming for the sake of argument that all these things are true, then I would have considered the doctor to be a suspect too.

Now please tell me what your point is.

Thank you.