In this case- the victim, unfortunately, doesn't even qualify as an eye witness since she never set eyes on the rapist. But even in cases where the victim did see the rperpetrator, eye witness accounts are rather unreliable. We have seen it in the dozen of overturned death sentences in Illinois. We've seen it n the 1980's era 'Central Park jogger' case. By now, everyone in the justice system should be fully aware that eye witness identification of strangers (ie. not acquaintances of the victim) without corroboration should not be the final word in any case.

Good thing that it isn't, and wasn't, then!

So are you just a racist redneck or what? If it was your 13 year old kid convicted on such flimsy evidence, with such inadequate representation, I'd be willing to bet you'd be the first one screaming foul. It's not an accident that the majority of INCARCERATED criminals are poor and minority; the fact is if you're not poor and minority you can probably afford representation that will get you a lesser sentence or get you off altogether. If the founding fathers could see our current legal system, they'd be apalled since this sort of unfair representation is exactly what many of them left Europe to escape.

sistersara:

So are you just a racist redneck or what? If it was your 13 year old kid convicted on such flimsy evidence, with such inadequate representation, I'd be willing to bet you'd be the first one screaming foul.

Who are you flipping out against? The previous poster was simply pointing out that the questionable veracity of eyewitness testimony is irrelevant in this case, because no one is claiming Sullivan was convicted because of it.

Take a breath.

Why was he convicted, then?

There was an eyewitness who saw nothing and was obviously unsure of her ID based on voice, there was hearsay by a party who had motive to lie, and there was a fingerprint with a plausible alternate reason for being there, and the defendant's previous crimes. Which piece of insufficient evidence do we blame for his conviction?

enfermot!!:

Why was he convicted, then?

There was an eyewitness who saw nothing and was obviously unsure of her ID based on voice, there was hearsay by a party who had motive to lie, and there was a fingerprint with a plausible alternate reason for being there, and the defendant's previous crimes. Which piece of insufficient evidence do we blame for his conviction?

By themselves they are insufficient, but combined they weighed more than the alternative. he couldn't prove he wasn't there. So robing someone first disqualifies you from raping them later? Sure we wish there was more evidence, but there isn't.

lesson learned - don't go around robing people.

gunsmoke:

.... he couldn't prove he wasn't there...

the standard in criminal court is 'innocent until proven guilty'. You seem to be functioning with the standard of 'guilty until proven innocent'.

gunsmoke:

.... Sure we wish there was more evidence, but there isn't.

Good reason to acquit then.

gunsmoke:

.... lesson learned - don't go around robing people.

Lesson learned: Don't go around convicting people on flimsy evidence.

I prefer to go around disrobing people myself. It is much more fun.