Sotomayor doesn't mind getting an innocent defendant's off UNLESS...

This total right wing pea brain BULLSHIT... you right wingers are scumbags and morons!

HERE is the case...IF anyone is to blame for his incarceration, it is the police and the DA

DNA testing was conducted before trial. The results showed that Deskovic was not the source of semen in the rape kit.

Jeff Deskovic


On November 2, 2006, Jeff Deskovic's indictment charging him with murder, rape, and possession of a weapon was dismissed on the grounds of actual innocence. Postconviction DNA testing both proved Deskovic's innocence and identified the real perpetrator of a 1989 murder and rape.

The Crime
On the afternoon of November 15, 1989, the 15-year-old victim went out after school to take pictures for a photography class. She never returned home. Her naked body was found by police dogs the morning of November 17, 1989. Her clothes and cassette player were recovered from the vicinity. She appeared to have been raped, beaten, and strangled.

The Confession
Jeff Deskovic, then 16 years old, was a classmate of the victim’s. He became a suspect because he was late to school the day after the victim disappeared. Police also believed he seemed overly distraught at the victim’s death, visiting her wake three times.

Police spoke with Deskovic eight times in December 1989 and January 1990. Deskovic had begun his own “investigation” of the case, giving officers notes about possible suspects. Police asked Deskovic to submit to a polygraph examination and he agreed in late January 1990. He believed that, if cleared, he could continue to help police with their investigation.

Deskovic was taken to a private polygraph business run by an officer with the local Sheriff’s Department, who, according to trial testimony, had been hired to “get the confession.” Deskovic was held in a small room there with no lawyer or parent present. He was provided with coffee throughout the day but no food. In between polygraph sessions, detectives interrogated Deskovic.

Deskovic’s alleged confession occurred after six hours, three polygraph sessions, and extensive questioning by detectives between sessions. One of the detectives accused Deskovic of having failed the test and said he had been convinced of Deskovic’s guilt for several weeks. According to the detective, Deskovic then stated he “realized” three weeks ago he might be the responsible party. Deskovic was asked to describe the crime and began speaking in the third person, switching to first person part way through the narrative. Deskovic said, “I lost my temper” and admitted he had hit the victim in the head with a Gatorade bottle, put his hand over her mouth and kept it there too long. During the confession, Deskovic sobbed. By the end of the interrogation, he was under the table, curled up in the fetal position, crying.

The Biological Evidence
The victim was found naked and her autopsy revealed genital trauma. Semen was identified on the vaginal swabs from her rape kit but no semen was observed on her clothes.

DNA testing was conducted before trial. The results showed that Deskovic was not the source of semen in the rape kit. Deskovic had been told before the alleged confession that if his DNA did not match the semen in the rape kit, he would be cleared as a suspect. Instead, prosecution continued on the strength of his alleged confession.

The Trial
In January 1991, Deskovic was convicted by jury of 1st degree rape and 2nd degree murder, despite DNA results showing that he was not the source of semen in the victim’s rape kit. The state argued that the semen had come from a consensual sex partner and that Deskovic killed the victim in a jealous rage.

Post-Conviction
In January 2006, the Innocence Project took on Deskovic’s case. The semen from the rape kit was tested with newer technology for entry into the New York State DNA databank of convicted felons. In September 2006, the semen was matched to convicted murderer Steven Cunningham, who was in prison for strangling the sister of his live-in girlfriend.

On September 20, 2006, Jeff Deskovic was released from prison when his conviction was overturned. Following an apology from the assistant district attorney, the court dismissed Deskovic's indictment on the grounds of actual innocence on November 2, 2006.

Steven Cunningham subsequently confessed to the crime for which Jeff Deskovic served nearly 16 years.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/44.php
 
if i wanted to use board rules against you because i don't like you, i'd have done so before now. here's another board rule for you to ponder. if you have an issue with moderation, take it up with staff via PM. and for the record, the context of sotomayor's remarks make them worse, not better.

have a nice day, liar.

more whining expunged:

but i did note it nikki, and therefor i'm not guilty of lying. there are several ways to do it, ranging from "fixed that for you" as i did in your earlier post, or the above example. i do it all the time as do a lot of posters. it's not my fault you're too stupid to get it right and then try to fall back on that bullshit "context" excuse.:lol:

you're not the brightest bulb in the sign, are you?


Of course you noted it, liar. :cuckoo:

*shrug* do what you want Del. Far be it from me to make you insecure about using what little power you have in this world.
 
more whining expunged:

but i did note it nikki, and therefor i'm not guilty of lying. there are several ways to do it, ranging from "fixed that for you" as i did in your earlier post, or the above example. i do it all the time as do a lot of posters. it's not my fault you're too stupid to get it right and then try to fall back on that bullshit "context" excuse.:lol:

you're not the brightest bulb in the sign, are you?


i'm almost done whining, but i feel the need to get a little more out, waaah

fixed that for you.
 
but i did note it nikki, and therefor i'm not guilty of lying. there are several ways to do it, ranging from "fixed that for you" as i did in your earlier post, or the above example. i do it all the time as do a lot of posters. it's not my fault you're too stupid to get it right and then try to fall back on that bullshit "context" excuse.:lol:

you're not the brightest bulb in the sign, are you?


i'm almost done whining, but i feel the need to get a little more out, waaah

fixed that for you.

Funny that you really like doing what you dinged me for, while I pretty much never do it. But then, consistency was never your strong point :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

You need to learn the difference between whining and laughing at you. You are so transparent its ludicrous.
 
i'm almost done whining, but i feel the need to get a little more out, waaah

fixed that for you.

Funny that you really like doing what you dinged me for, while I pretty much never do it correctly. But then, consistency was never my strong point :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

i need to learn the difference between whining and laughing. i am so transparent its ludicrous.

fixed that for you
:lol:
 
she didn't know he was innocent.
That wasn't in question, it's just a weak strawman for you to cling to.

Despite Sotomayor's best efforts, justice was finally done and an innocent man freed.

If its not in question, then why do you keep saying he was innocent? Since she didn't know it, that fact is irrelevant.
He WAS innocent. I made ZERO claim that Sotomayor knew he was. NO ONE has made that claim!

You're continuing to cling to that strawman because you cannot get around the fact that justice was done DESPITE Soto's best efforts. Where was her "empathy" for this guy, whose lawyer simply missed a deadline by 24 hours? And missed it most probably because of an error by the court clerk! All they were asking for was another hearing.

Which, the defendant actually, finally got anyway. And then justice was done.
 
Funny that you really like doing what you dinged me for, while I pretty much never do it correctly. But then, consistency was never my strong point :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

i need to learn the difference between whining and laughing. i am so transparent its ludicrous.

fixed that for one
:lol:

Fixed that for you, buddy.

:clap2::clap2::clap2:

:rofl:

nice job, nikki. you sure showed me.
 
That wasn't in question, it's just a weak strawman for you to cling to.

Despite Sotomayor's best efforts, justice was finally done and an innocent man freed.

If its not in question, then why do you keep saying he was innocent? Since she didn't know it, that fact is irrelevant.
He WAS innocent. I made ZERO claim that Sotomayor knew he was. NO ONE has made that claim!

You're continuing to cling to that strawman because you cannot get around the fact that justice was done DESPITE Soto's best efforts. Where was her "empathy" for this guy, whose lawyer simply missed a deadline by 24 hours? And missed it most probably because of an error by the court clerk! All they were asking for was another hearing.

Which, the defendant actually, finally got anyway. And then justice was done.

That he was innocent is IRRELEVANT, since Sotomayor did not know that fact. You keep saying it over and over again because its an emotional appeal.

And it wasn't "24 hours", they missed the deadline by 4 days. They had 7 years to appeal for Habeas. SEVEN YEARS. And they missed the deadline. Whats the excuse for that, eh?

Sotomayor did the same as any other judge would have done. This part of the system that they don't let people break the rules. You apparently seem to have difficulty with this concept.
 
Not really, no. Her court opinions are measured, precise, and well reasoned. Whatever her personal opinions, they don't seem to enter into it. Nobody has been able to cite, and back up, a case where her opinion was absurd, or racist.
Oh how neat! We should just dispense with the Senate hearings then!

Please don't. The farce will only hurt the Republicans more. Maybe they can call her a racist some more, or say that because she is a Latino who voted a certain way on a discrimination case, she must be racist.

Speaking of racism...Ghook, would you have said she was a racist for ruling that way if she had been white? Do you think the USSC justices who ruled the way they did were racists, since 4 of them were white?

I would call them liberal hacks and yes I would bash them for their rulings! Unlike Justice Thomas, who appears to be the only black man besides Bill Cosby, to actually heed to the masterful words of MLK "just not by the color of one's skin, but by the content of their character!" Thomas consistently makes opinions that are impartial and color-blind!

Just as I call Scalia a fraud when he diverts from his masterful originalist philosophy when it suits him (meaning when it goes against his principles!)!
 
Last edited:
Oh how neat! We should just dispense with the Senate hearings then!

Please don't. The farce will only hurt the Republicans more. Maybe they can call her a racist some more, or say that because she is a Latino who voted a certain way on a discrimination case, she must be racist.

Speaking of racism...Ghook, would you have said she was a racist for ruling that way if she had been white? Do you think the USSC justices who ruled the way they did were racists, since 4 of them were white?

I would call them liberal hacks and yes I would bash them for their rulings! Unlike Justice Thomas, who appears to be the only black man besides Bill Cosby, to actually heed to the masterful words of MLK "just not by the color of one's skin, but by the content of their character!" Thomas consistently makes opinions that are impartial and color-blind!

Just as I call Scalia a fraud when he diverts from his masterful originalist philosophy when it suits him (meaning when it goes against his principles!)!

The only black man besides Bill Cosby? Because you know all black men? Because they have to justify to a racist asshole like you how they feel?

Care to respond to my rebuttal to your asinine point about how Sotomayor would have ruled differently if the Defendants were Latino?
 
Please don't. The farce will only hurt the Republicans more. Maybe they can call her a racist some more, or say that because she is a Latino who voted a certain way on a discrimination case, she must be racist.

Speaking of racism...Ghook, would you have said she was a racist for ruling that way if she had been white? Do you think the USSC justices who ruled the way they did were racists, since 4 of them were white?

I would call them liberal hacks and yes I would bash them for their rulings! Unlike Justice Thomas, who appears to be the only black man besides Bill Cosby, to actually heed to the masterful words of MLK "just not by the color of one's skin, but by the content of their character!" Thomas consistently makes opinions that are impartial and color-blind!

Just as I call Scalia a fraud when he diverts from his masterful originalist philosophy when it suits him (meaning when it goes against his principles!)!

The only black man besides Bill Cosby? Because you know all black men? Because they have to justify to a racist asshole like you how they feel?
I take huge offense to that. 2 of the Americans that I admire most in history are Fredrick Douglass and MLK!

The reason I say they don't heed the teachings of one of the best teachers in history, is you constantly hear the Black leaders of today; Jesse Jackson, Rev Wright, Sharpton, New Black Panther, Farahkan, NAACP, etc all see only the color of one's skin and care not of he content of one's character!

Also fresh in my mind was the disgusting characterization of Michael Jackson by Jamie Fox (an actor who I like a lot, I think he is highly talented)!

"Michael was ours (Black People) we loved him...we just lent him to you (white people)!"
Jamie Foxx does the Moonwalk at the BET Awards: Fitting tribute? | PopWatch Blog | EW.com
 
I would call them liberal hacks and yes I would bash them for their rulings! Unlike Justice Thomas, who appears to be the only black man besides Bill Cosby, to actually heed to the masterful words of MLK "just not by the color of one's skin, but by the content of their character!" Thomas consistently makes opinions that are impartial and color-blind!

Just as I call Scalia a fraud when he diverts from his masterful originalist philosophy when it suits him (meaning when it goes against his principles!)!

The only black man besides Bill Cosby? Because you know all black men? Because they have to justify to a racist asshole like you how they feel?
I take huge offense to that. 2 of the Americans that I admire most in history are Fredrick Douglass and MLK!

The reason I say they don't heed the teachings of one of the best teachers in history, is you constantly hear the Black leaders of today; Jesse Jackson, Rev Wright, Sharpton, New Black Panther, Farahkan, NAACP, etc all see only the color of one's skin and care not of he content of one's character!

Also fresh in my mind was the disgusting characterization of Michael Jackson by Jamie Fox (an actor who I like a lot, I think he is highly talented)!

"Michael was ours (Black People) we loved him...we just lent him to you (white people)!"
Jamie Foxx does the Moonwalk at the BET Awards: Fitting tribute? | PopWatch Blog | EW.com

Take all the offense you want. You wouldn't have said this was a racist ruling if it was done by someone who was white. But because Sotomayor was a Latina, you were all over it.

Oh, and way to just snip out and pretend I never challenged you on your stupidass "la raza" bullshit.
 

Forum List

Back
Top