MovieChat Forums > joej2923
joej2923 (2959)
Posts
My S1 thoughts and observations (spoilers)
Season 2 Rant - Did they even read the books? (Spoilers)
Season 2 Rant - Did they even read the books? (Spoilers)
I predict that she leaves Disney on July 17, 2023. What is your prediction?
This is the first Transformers movie that I turned off out of frustration.
Should Harrison Ford be the only man to play Indiana Jones?
Maryland father dies after being beaten up on his doorstep by five UNARMED people.
The Anthony Broadwater conviction should not have been overturned!
Trump CNN Town Hall Highlights
Tyre Nichols toxicology results. BAC 0.049 with some THC. Was he driving drunk?
View all posts >
Replies
Uebelhoer went on to tell Sebold that Broadwater and Hudson were friends who used each other “in every lineup they do” to confuse victims, according to the book. “They’re dead ringers.”
In fact, Broadwater had never been in a lineup before, Fitzpatrick told Syracuse.com. During a recent interview, Hudson said he did not know Broadwater before meeting him at the jail.
Uebelhoer helped Sebold with the research for “Lucky,” according to the book. Uebelhoer did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story.
The appellate judges sided with the prosecutors. They spent 167 words denying Broadwater’s appeal. Rather than fret over the weakness of cross-racial identifications, they found it understandable that Sebold picked the wrong Black man out of the lineup.
Hudson “bore a remarkable resemblance to defendant,” the judges ruled.
Fitzpatrick, the current DA, pointed out that the people in a lineup should look similar. After all, the goal is to test the witness’s ability to point out exactly the right man, not just someone who looks like him.
It sounds like the hair analysis can certainly exclude suspects but it's not as good at matching suspects to the crime. The article I linked below does discuss the limitations of the hair analysis and the testimony. The article notes that the expert witnesses are using flawed statistics in their testimony and that is counted as erroneous testimony. My question is whether the errors in testimony had a material impact on the case. In some of these cases, the hair analysis was not the only evidence. The article also notes the 2002 FBI study that found an 89% success rate on 80 hair samples.
https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2016.00897.x
In 2002, an FBI agent performed an mtDNA analysis on 80 pairs of hair that his laboratory had previously been asked to evaluate microscopically. Despite the fact that all 80 pairs had been judged as being associated (a match), mtDNA proved that in 9 pairs (11%), the hairs were not from the same individual.
Both fact witnesses and expert witnesses have misused probabilities when interpreting hair comparison results in legalcases. Laboratory personnel, most of whom are not formally trained in probability theory, have been known to invent
probabilities when testifying on hair comparison results.
I never saw anything about menacing stares in the book but the Syracuse article notes that the prosecutor did tell Sebold that the attorney did request Hudson due to their close resemblance. The appeals court judges even noted that Hudson resembled Broadwater.
According to the book, Uebelhoer coached Sebold after the lineup in a way that seemed designed to bolster her confidence that Broadwater was the right guy. Uebelhoer told her that Broadwater and Hudson had conspired to trick her into choosing the wrong person, Sebold wrote.
“Of course you chose the wrong one,” Uebelhoer is quoted as saying. “He and his attorney worked to make sure you’d never have a chance.”
The hair analysis was convincing at the time and I've seen reports that it's still pretty accurate. All the social justice warriors are attacking this method with the intention of releasing prisoners. The FBI link you posted only references 28 cases and I'm not sure what they mean by erroneous statements.
I don't believe there is any evidence that the prosecutor LIED to Sebold and it would be totally irrelevant. Most of the details come from Sebold's memoir that was written twenty years later. Sebold may have had doubts after her failure to identify the suspect in the police lineup but she decided to press charges. Sebold took an oath in court and testified against Broadwater. I believe the victim. Broadwater's attorney did request the inclusion of Hudson in the police lineup per the Syracuse article.
From the Syracuse article:
Lawyer Steven Paquette requested that one of the men be replaced by Henry Hudson, an 18-year-old inmate whom Broadwater had met in jail.
The prosecutor is probably some woke social justice warrior who cares more about the welfare of criminals over victims of crimes.
When I types victims, I meant that I generally believe the testimony of victims. Alice Sebold is the only victim in this case. I refuse to believe that Sebold accused a random guy on the street of raping her.
You are entitled to your opinion and my opinion has not changed. I don't agree with old cases being overturned when new exculpatory evidence is not produced. Broadwater did not produce any new evidence to vacate his conviction. I generally believe the victims and Sebold identified Broadwater TWICE.
The rape kit was destroyed so Broadwater's DNA could not be used to exonerate him but the hair test used at the time was found to be 88% accurate.
From the article:
In 2002, the FBI reported that its own DNA testing found that examiners reported false hair matches more than 11 percent of the time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html
The questionable youtube video you posted and removed only showed two people in the lineup but both of the articles that I posted above showed the full lineup. I would never rely on some random person on youtube. I put a link to the youtube video below for others to view. I posted two articles from reputable news sources instead of some random person on youtube.
https://youtu.be/dD63CEDBsew?si=I_9-gOKp9gab-3gJ * Your questionable youtube video *
I contend that people might be confused or undecided when presented with five similar suspects in a police lineup. All the inmates in the lineup were wearing identical jail uniforms and had similar haircuts. I still think the 2nd and 4th guys from the left look very similar while the fifth guy on the far right has a similar body type and some similar facial features.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12113257/Black-man-Lovely-Bones-author-wrongly-accused-raping-disappointed-asked-meet.html?offset=67&max=100&jumpTo=comment-989953819#comment-989953819 * full police lineup in article *
It would be easier to identify someone on the street since they are talking, laughing, gesticulating and even wearing their unique clothing and accessories. She identified the suspect on the street and in the courtroom.
Trump is unfit to be Commander-In-Chief. LOCK HIM UP!
Trump is unfit to be Commander-In-Chief. LOCK HIM UP!
Pit bulls are a problem in the US and they are very often banned from apartment complexes. Not all pit bulls are bad but they are aggressive dogs with a powerful bite that occasionally snap. There are other potentially dangerous breeds like rottweilers and German Shepherds.
https://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/15-year-dog-bite-fatality-chart-dogsbiteorg.pdf
https://youtu.be/2vRm4k2hk54?si=jdZk1pQTFUivpyJ5 * Detroit pit bull snaps - attacks mail carrier *
My solution would be to require special licenses for owners of dangerous dog breeds and charge the dog owners with crimes when their dogs attack people.
Biden had German Shepherds in the White House and two out of the three were problematic. The first elderly dog didn't cause trouble but the next two German Shepherds were biting people. I believe Biden has given up on dogs at the White House.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/biden-dog-commander-white-house-b2424478.html
In my original post, I was referring to the Scooby Doo shows instead of the Scooby Doo character. I primarily watched reruns of the 70's shows Scooby Doo, Where are you and The New Scooby Doo Mysteries. Additionally, I was also referring to the Johnny Quest show instead of the actual character.
https://collider.com/best-scooby-doo-series-ranked/
I see a direct relationship between the Velma show and the Scooby Doo shows since regular characters from the original show are also regular characters on the Velma show. A cameo is a brief appearance by a famous character or celebrity but the classic characters are series regulars on the Velma show.
The article below states that WB Animation did not want Scooby Doo to appear in the show but I don't understand why WB would allow warped versions of the classic characters to appear in the Velma show.
https://www.popbuzz.com/tv-film/news/velma-scooby-doo-why-not-hbo-max/#:~:text=Charlie%20then%20continued%20to%20explain,%27t%20use%20the%20dog%27.
I do have my own opinion but you obviously cannot read. I certainly don't believe all media. I've posted articles from multiple sources and you have posted nothing to refute them. Feel free to post your sources. Most of the information in the articles that I posted can be found in other sources.
IN MY OPINION, TRUMP IS A CROOK, LIAR, PERVERT AND SEXUAL PREDATOR. I DON'T HATE HIM BUT HE IS UNFIT TO BE PRESIDENT.
View all replies >