Tuesday, October 19, 2010

SBI’s rule not just bad, but unfair!

As SBI Agent Duane Deaver testified at Gregory Taylor’s February 2010 hearing before the three judge panel, he was merely following established protocol by withholding from the 1993 jury, blood test results that would have been favorable to murder defendant Gregory Taylor. This revelation spewed forth from the front page of October 13, 2010 edition of The News & Observer in an article titled “SBI vet wrote bad rule for tests.” Whoever wrote that headline was generous towards the SBI director by merely stating that the rule written for the lab test was "bad." The truth of the matter is that it was downright unfair. The rule, which had been in practice for decades, and put in writing in 1997, embraced the practice of reporting positive lab results and withholding negative results… a practice which placed defendants at a definite disadvantage.

Prosecutors were aware of this policy and the general mindset in the lab, and in all likelihood, pushed for it. The SBI lab, instead of being an honest broker when it came to analyzing evidence, was instead a biased arm of the prosecution engaging in approved hocus-pocus with evidence in order to help the prosecution win a conviction. The 25 year veteran SBI agent who wrote the policy, Mark Nelson, retired from the SBI in 2002, and is currently a senior program manager at the National Institute of Justice in Washington, DC. The written policy put in place by Mr. Nelson was approved by officials in the Attorney General’s Office.

To suggest that prosecutors were unaware of the prejudicial and misleading policy and practices of the SBI lab, is not within the realm of belief, especially in light of the existence of 1997 policy. It was the prosecutor’s drive to win convictions at all costs that resulted in such a policy being implemented in the first place… especially the more inept prosecutors like Tom Ford who heavily relied on winning a conviction by using perjured testimony in exchange for promises of leaner sentences.

For a specific example of the gross injustice of the practice, consider the following. If a presumptive test for blood was positive (indicating that blood, along with other substances might be present), but the confirmatory test was negative (meaning that no blood was present and that the positive presumptive test was due to a non-blood agent), then the lab report was to read that the tests “revealed chemical indications of blood.” This would lead a reasonable person to believe that the substance tested contained blood. The scenario just mentioned is exactly what transpired in the Gregory Taylor case. And the so-called “blood on the bumper” evidence was a significant piece of the pie that resulted in Gregory Taylor’s conviction.

What is truly disheartening is the observation by Bob Gaesslin, a professor of serology at the University of Illinois in Chicago. He acknowledged that such incomplete and misleading reporting of test results is “not completely forthcoming, but people have always done it.” Mr. Gaesslin, who has written authoritative serology books used by law enforcement, I believe, is accurate in his assessment of prevailing practices in courts nationwide.

My eyebrow is raised with his comment about why juries are not told about negative confirmatory tests when presumptive tests for blood are positive. He states: “I don’t know whether we think that people aren’t going to understand the report if we put them in, or if it’s an effort to not give the cross examiner a lot of cannon fodder…” The answer is negative with regards to the first part of the statement. A person of average intellect should have no difficulty understanding the difference between a presumptive and confirmatory test and their implications. Laboratory techs should be able to satisfactorily explain this to the people seated in the jury box. Regarding the second part of his statement, he is absolutely right on… the person testifying about lab results unfavorable to the prosecution try to hide the truth from the defense attorney. By misleading the defense attorney, there is no doubt going to be very little in the way of cross examination. That is the sole reason why the court does not hear about negative confirmatory test results, when presumptive ones are positive… to mislead the defense, the judge, and the jury.

Regarding the misleading practice, Mr. Gaesslin concludes, “but everyone does that and they still do it.” This statement is sad but true. And the reason for this has to do with the "win-at-all-costs" attitude of many prosecutors, which has supplanted and made a complete and total mockery of its supposed “minister of justice” role.

As a proximate result of the uneven playing field, many innocent people are languishing behind bars at taxpayer expense, while funneling hard earned taxpayer dollars into corporations with financial interests in the correctional system and maintaining full occupancy. The politicians and media, alike, have no qualms about the unjust incarceration of innocents because they are in very large measure the poor, disenfranchised, and people of color… those within a capitalistic society who are expendable… a society with a tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color” which pampers the well-heeled and crushes the downtrodden who are caught up in the criminal system.

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

"The politicians and media, alike, have no qualms about the unjust incarceration of innocents because they are in very large measure the poor, disenfranchised, and people of color… those within a capitalistic society who are expendable… a society with a tenet of 'selective justice based on Class and Color' which pampers the well-heeled and crushes the downtrodden who are caught up in the criminal system."

Yes of course. Everyone is wrong but you, Sidney. Thank god that we have the one, true, honest man who can see the truth. All hail Sidney!

Anonymous said...

Hail Sidney ! !

Hail Sidney ! !

Hail Sidney ! !

Anonymous said...

Attention All Parents of Duke Students !

Have you ever wondered what your little Blue Devils

are up to in the Gothic Wonderland ?

Do you really know what sort of education

that $200,000 tuition bill is paying for ?


Well now thanks to the sex-scandal plagued

Duke University Men's Lacrosse Team,


THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS ABOUT

DEBAUCHERY ON DUKE CAMPUS !!

http://abcnews.go.com/nightline


Way to Go DUKE LACROSSE ! ! !

Anonymous said...

What a childish display! Grow up Anon @ 10:57.

Lance the Intern said...

Obviously, anonymous at 10:57 has NEVER attended college. This is not a Duke-specific issue.

Anonymous said...

"Well now thanks to the sex-scandal plagued

Duke University Men's Lacrosse Team,


THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS ABOUT

DEBAUCHERY ON DUKE CAMPUS !!"

The whole world learned of the extensive corruption in the Durham DA's office when Mike Nifong prosecuted three innocent men without probable cause just to further his own ambitions.

Pro Nifongers say it is the fault of the Lacrosse team because they hired strippers.

They resort to ad hominem attacks because they can not explain why there was no evidence of a crime.

I can explain it. There was no evidence of a crime because there had been no crime.

Anyone familiar with forensic testing for DNA could have seen that, unless he did not want to.

Anonymous said...

"Obviously, anonymous at 10:57 has NEVER attended college. This is not a Duke-specific issue."

We are talking about a specific incident, the alleged but never corroborated Duke rape.

What does that have to do with other campuses?

Anonymous said...

I do not think anyone would believe that any of the Group of 88 ever attended college, despite their CV's.

Anonymous said...

Maybe anonymous at 10:57 is a group of 88'er.

That rant has the characteristics of group of 88'ers, like Karla Holloway and Houston(farm animal) Baker.

Nothing else matters. Condemn the Lacrosse team.

Lance the Intern said...

Anonymous @1:26 -- The comments and the link provided by the previous anonymous commenter(anonymous @10:57) do NOT refer to any rape -- it is a story about the Duke student that chronicled her sexual activity in a manner that eventually made it onto the internet. It was this issue -- college students chronicling their sexual activity -- that my statements addressed.
Just curious, are you also the anonymous commenter from 10:57?

Anonymous said...

"Obviously, anonymous at 10:57 has NEVER attended college. This is not a Duke-specific issue."

Wahhhh! Everyone does it mommy! All the boys do it mommy! Don't spank me!

Anonymous said...

"We are talking about a specific incident, the alleged but never corroborated Duke rape."

You mean "falsely alleged," Duke rape. As for "never corroborated," that's inaccurate as well. It was "specifically disproved," as in it could not have happened the way the false accuser said it happened. That's "disproved," as in, the investigators proved it couldn't have happened that way.

But perhaps you hope that someone [clearly not God since you likely don't believe in God] will come along and change the laws of the universe in order to make Mangum's allegations - whichever one she may pick at a particular time (penises/no penises; ejaculation/no ejaculation; etc.) - potentially true.

Anonymous said...

"Obviously, anonymous at 10:57 has NEVER attended college. This is not a Duke-specific issue."

We are talking about a specific incident, the alleged but never corroborated Duke rape.

What does that have to do with other campuses?"

Again paranoid pro-spammer has no understanding that someone is agreeing with him.

He's on your team.

Pro-spammer thinks he's the only one on the side of the poor innocent soft fleshed white weak victimized boys. How could they even have sex, I wonder, with their little flaccid child penises? They're so weak and helpless. I guess they have to get drunk to bolster their strength.

The guy was on your side.

Anonymous said...

"I do not think anyone would believe that any of the Group of 88 ever attended college, despite their CV's."

Right, college professors have never attended college.

Good argument. You sold me.

Anonymous said...

"I do not think anyone would believe that any of the Group of 88 ever attended college, despite their CV's."

Right, college professors have never attended college.

Good argument. You sold me."

Who sold you the story that Ms. Mangun had been gang raped.

None of the gang of 88 acted like they had any education.

Anonymous said...

"Pro-spammer thinks he's the only one on the side of the poor innocent soft fleshed white weak victimized boys. How could they even have sex, I wonder, with their little flaccid child penises? They're so weak and helpless. I guess they have to get drunk to bolster their strength."

Another ad hominem comment from an anonymous pro Nifonger admitting anonymous pro Nifongdom does not want to face the truth about the Lacrosse hoax.

Anonymous said...

"But perhaps you hope that someone [clearly not God since you likely don't believe in God] will come along and change the laws of the universe in order to make Mangum's allegations - whichever one she may pick at a particular time (penises/no penises; ejaculation/no ejaculation; etc.) - potentially true."

I have posted numerous comments to the effect that the evidence showed no crime had happened in the first place.

I use "corroborated" because Mr. Cooper used the word, i.e. no evidence corroborated the allegation, no witnesses corroborated the allegation.

Anonymous said...

Question. When you yourself attack someone is it ad hominem?

Or just hominem?

Anonymous said...

"Obviously, anonymous at 10:57 has NEVER attended college. This is not a Duke-specific issue."

Wahhhh! Everyone does it mommy! All the boys do it mommy! Don't spank me!"

Mr. Nifong is the one who denounced the entire Lacrosse team as either perpetrators or collaborators. It is anonymous pro Nifongdom who now says the whole Lacrosse team did it.

Anonymous said...

"Pro-spammer thinks he's the only one on the side of the poor innocent soft fleshed white weak victimized boys."

Does anonymous pro Nifongdom call this comment not racist?

Anonymous said...

"Just curious, are you also the anonymous commenter from 10:57?"

No I am not.

I have asked pro Nifongdom what this case has to do with the Duke rape case and they refuse to respond.

Anonymous said...

"It is anonymous pro Nifongdom who now says the whole Lacrosse team did it."

No one has said the whole lacrosse team did it. Don't get your panties in a bunch, Nancy.

Anonymous said...

"Does anonymous pro Nifongdom call this comment not racist?"

This is the same poster who had a breakdown when it was revealed awhile back he was a racist. He promised not to comment anymore. Bur here he is.

He figured a way out. Call them racists.

Like a morbidly obese man who is called fat by a thin man. He runs away, then comes back and shouts at the thin man, "YOU'RE fat!"

Brilliant.

Anonymous said...

THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS ABOUT

DEBAUCHERY ON DUKE CAMPUS !!


"Duke coed’s scandalous sex ratings are viral sensation"

Karen Owen took kiss-and-tell to a whole new level when she combined her Duke University-honed academic acumen with her extracurricular wild side to create an elaborate sex list ranking the college men she bedded.

But now the recent Duke grad finds herself red-faced over attention she never bargained for: Her tongue-in-cheek “unofficial senior thesis” on sex with Duke athletes spread from the three friends she originally e-mailed to the whole 14,000-strong student body and, eventually, to websites the whole world can see.

“It’s funny because we know the people on it,” one Duke University student told NBC for a TODAY report on Owen’s now-infamous sex list."

‘Horizontal academics’

"Owen’s sex ranking is nothing if not precise. She took a list of 13 men she slept with, drawing mainly from Duke’s lacrosse team — the same team that was embroiled in a sex scandal of its own in 2006 — and created a bar graph ranking their sexual prowess. She left little to the imagination in creating a 42-slide PowerPoint presentation, detailing sex in the university library during finals week, sex in cars and, most of all, sex while inebriated.

“In my blackout state, still managed to crawl into bed with a Duke athlete,” Owen commented on one escapade."

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39552862/ns/today-today_people?Gt1=43001



Way to Go DUKE LACROSSE ! ! !

Kilgo said...

Oh my God ! ! What is going on here?

Why my pals on the lacrosse team are back in the headlines ! !


Way to Go DUKE LACROSSE ! ! !

We knew it was only a matter time
before you got your dicks caught in a wringer again.

Lance the Intern said...

"We knew it was only a matter time
before you got your dicks caught in a wringer again."

Really? Can you name one law that they've broken?

Kilgo said...

Well, Sidney, did you miss us?

We couldn't resist checking on the old crowd here at J4N.

A quick glance shows the usual insecure LIARS.

Have you ever figured out which law firm clones these things?

Lance the Intern said...

In response to my question, Kilgo states
"Well, Sidney, did you miss us?

We couldn't resist checking on the old crowd here at J4N.

A quick glance shows the usual insecure LIARS.

Have you ever figured out which law firm clones these things?"

First, let me thank you for bringing such meaningful dialog to the discussion.

Secondly, I'll simply take your response as "No, Lance, with regard to the recent news story from Duke about Karen Owen, I cannot name 1 law that the Duke Lacrosse team has broken".

You can return to your home under the bridge now.

Anonymous said...

THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS NOW

London Daily Mail

An essay in shame: How top university student's spoof thesis rating sex with 13 men became web sensation

An education Beyond The Classroom: Excelling In The Realm Of Horizontal Academics — the title of Karen Owen’s ‘senior ­honours thesis’ sounds innocent enough, until you realise just what sort of horizontal ­academics she’s talking about.

A recent graduate of one of America’s most prestigious ­universities, the biological ­anthropology student had written a spoof 42-slide ­PowerPoint presentation (intended to be shown to just three friends) about her sex life.

Unfortunately (but very predictably in this ­internet age), the document was leaked to the university’s 14,000 student body, and from there to websites all over the world.

Millions of people now know far more than they could ever want about the 22-year-old and her sexual partners.

Her gruesomely explicit and casually cruel ­commentary on these men’s ­performances and their prowess — or lack of it — has become an internet sensation.

Illustrating her ‘thesis’ with ­photos and bar charts (which gave explicit physical details and showed levels of her own ‘satisfaction’), Owen charted her four years of sexual activity at the £30,000-a-year Duke University, North Carolina.

No Mills & Boon romance here. Each encounter (from one-night stands to relationships of only slightly longer duration) is described from inception — usually with Owen being blind drunk in a student bar called Shooters — to the loveless resolution.

Some liaisons never made it as far as the bedroom, ending in tacky ­couplings in cars, on a freezing ­balcony and even on the stairs of the university library.

Owen crammed in all the dirty talk she could remember (most of which is unprintable).

The 13 men were named and ­pictured, all of them ­muscular sportsmen, most of them ­members of the Duke lacrosse team (which only four years ago gained notoriety after a stripper accused three team members of ­rape).

Each man was graded on ­attractiveness, physical details, ­talents and ­performance — with extra points awarded for ­creativity and aggressiveness (a good thing, apparently).

‘In my black-out state, still ­managed to crawl into bed with an athlete,’ she wrote about one ‘hook-up’

Self-awareness does not seem her strong point either, though she admitted she might have been a ‘tad whorish’ by once having sex with two lacrosse teammates within ‘five ­minutes’ of each other.

Not that the men come out of it well, either. Her confessions, none of which have been denied, provide a disturbing picture of just how ­meaningless sexual relationship­s have become for some U.S. ­students. Indeed, it’s clear the men swapped notes about their easy conquest, but this did not seem to bother Owen.

At the end of her ‘thesis’, she thanks one of them in her ­acknowledgements for giving her the idea for her ‘academic study’.

Owen sub-titled her ‘thesis’: ­Submitted To The Department Of Late-Night Entertainment In ­Partial Fulfilment Of The Requirements For A Degree In Tempestuous Frolicking.

Carefully typed out, it includes a series of photos of each of the 13 men, descriptions of how she met them, ‘memorable moments’ and a score out of ten.

Owen emailed this document to three female friends in May and, if you believe her, thought no more of it.

But one of Owen’s friends ­forwarded the document to ­someone else. What happened next was ­predictable.

After circulating around Duke ­students for a few weeks, it spread wider and was ­published last month by two gossip websites.

The men’s names were belatedly removed and their faces (­inadequately) blanked out after many of them ­complained. None of then has spoken ­publicly, though many are reportedly furious.

Way to Go DUKE LACROSSE ! ! !

Kilgo said...

Sidney, has the outrageous behavior of our Blue Devils rendered you speechless?

At least the London paper still considers Duke "one of America’s most prestigious ­universities".

Visit our campus on a football weekend and observe our students carrying-on firsthand and you may start to wonder otherwise.

Kilgo said...

And what of the normally loquacious peanut gallery?

Afraid to get your dainty hands dirty?

Come on down and wallow in the cesspool with Kilgo.

THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS ABOUT

DEBAUCHERY ON DUKE CAMPUS

Lance the Intern said...

Why bother? Your comments have NOTHING to do with Mike Nifong or the SBI, which is the topic at hand. You want to bash Duke and/or the students/lacrosse players? Feel free to find an appropriate place to do so.

Here your comments are just so much noise, driving away those who actually have something of value to say.

Kilgo said...

Let's start with this tender morsel of probative value courtesy of the Daily Mail:

"though she admitted she might have been a ‘tad whorish’ by once having sex with two lacrosse teammates within ‘five ­minutes’ of each other."

Does this sound a 'tad gang rapish' ?

Five minutes of bathroom debauchery ?

Anonymous said...

The Duke lacrosse team is humiliated internationally by an accusation of banging a "drunken" dancer.

So what does the new Duke lacrosse team do? Take turns banging a drunken "in a blackout state" student.

YEAH! See? How dare you say something against the poor victimized Duke lacrosee students!!

It's not illegal to take turns banging unconscious girls! Everyone does it! ALL COLLEGE STUDENTS TAKE TURNS BANGING UNCONSCIOUS GIRLS!

As Intern says - IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LACROSSE CASE!

NOTHING!

Nifong Supporter said...


Kilgo said...
"Well, Sidney, did you miss us?

We couldn't resist checking on the old crowd here at J4N.

A quick glance shows the usual insecure LIARS.

Have you ever figured out which law firm clones these things?"



Kilgo, in all honesty, I did miss you and I'm glad to have you back in the fold.

Have been busy working to complete Episode V of "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper." This is going to be a humongous episode, larger than the previous four combined, and is scheduled to begin its weekly release on Sunday, January 2, 2011. By far, it's the best comic strip ever, with more humor, more educational references, and more Tar Heel celebs. I should have another Preview trailer uploaded soon.

Unfortunately, work on the strip, blog, and other reports takes away from my time to answer some of the outrageous, uninformed, and misguided statements... especially since I don't have internet at home. (Too expensive. I go to the library where it's free.)


How about a little discourse on the topic of "ineffective counsel," of which the poor, disenfranchised, and people of color get plenty.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"The Duke lacrosse team is humiliated internationally by an accusation of banging a "drunken" dancer.

So what does the new Duke lacrosse team do? Take turns banging a drunken "in a blackout state" student."

It appears to me that the problem in BOTH instances lie with the women, not with the Lacrosse players. In both instances, it is the women making a claim rather than the players -- and as we all know, the 1st instance was proven to be false.

Anonymous said...

It's the women's fault again!

Hilarious!

Anonymous said...

When a girl is too drunk to stand up, it's her fault if I
f--k her. I mean, what does she expect?

If she didn't want to get f--ked, she should not have gotten drunk.

She was asking for it. Besides they all want us to f--k them. I mean we're the Duke lacrosse team. They're lucky we're paying attention to them. They're begging for it.

Oh, excuse me, one of my teammates is done with another one. It's my turn.

And completely the girl's fault.

Anonymous said...

Kilgo = Troll