Man serving life in prison despite DNA evidence pointing to different killer - Polidicks

Source: [url]http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/man-spends-life-prison-despite-dna-evidence-pointi/nqWd9/[/url] [QUOTE][B]ATLANTA — [/B] From the moment he was arrested for murder, Devonia Inman said police had the wrong person. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]"What do I got to do when we've got DNA evidence that proves I'm not the person who committed this crime?" he asked from inside a jail cell at the Georgia State Prison in Reidsville.[/QUOTE]

Fucking bullshit. One of many reasons why I'm against "life in prison" sentences.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;49807185]Fucking bullshit. One of many reasons why I'm against "life in prison" sentences.[/QUOTE] to be honest, i dont think it was a problem of life in prison, its more of an issue of an innocent person being punished for something they didnt do

Well, I guess I just learned that nothing can save you no matter what if you're past the time where you're able to file for a new trial if the court doesn't like you. So even if you've got the most solid exonerating evidence that exists you can still be fucked if it's been too long since the trial.

[QUOTE=da space core;49807193]to be honest, i dont think it was a problem of life in prison, its more of an issue of an innocent person being punished for something they didnt do[/QUOTE] Both aspects are bullshit is what I was getting at.

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;49807185]Fucking bullshit. One of many reasons why I'm against "life in prison" sentences.[/QUOTE] Life in prison isn't a bad thing, however it should only be used for extreme cases. This happens quite a bit as people get grilled and nervous then admit guilt to something they didn't do to get it to stop. My law teacher in highschool said deny everything and do not say anything until you have a lawyer because if they think you did it then you did it. Even if you didn't do it.

invoke your 5th and stay quiet til your lawyer shows up, let your lawyer talk for you. anything you say can get you into shit even if you're innocent.

and people still defend America's fucked up judicial system

I like how all evidence can point to this man being innocent and yet he still gets life in prison. And by like I mean "be strongly disgusted by".

[QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;49807185]Fucking bullshit. One of many reasons why I'm against "life in prison" sentences.[/QUOTE] Life in state prison is like 35 years. Life in federal prison is actual life. All this sounds like Georgia however. I can understand why the judges dismiss the DNA results, but when the prosecution's witnesses say they lied then the man needs a new trial.

ok so does the DNA just [I]point to[/I] a different killer or is it 100% irrefutable proof that the guy's innocent?

[QUOTE=Virtanen;49812666]ok so does the DNA just [I]point to[/I] a different killer or is it 100% irrefutable proof that the guy's innocent?[/QUOTE] Most likely they have a flimsy story of chained together circumstances, but no evidence to prove or disprove it, now DNA disproves it. It's alarming how many people have been put behind bars for life with circumstantial evidence like being similar to the suspect near a murder

[QUOTE=Virtanen;49812666]ok so does the DNA just [I]point to[/I] a different killer or is it 100% irrefutable proof that the guy's innocent?[/QUOTE] Well it's supposed to be 100% proof of guilt so why would that matter ?

This happens sometimes. Prosecution is so intent on getting their guy convicted that they'll blatantly ignore evidence that suggests they have the wrong man. It's a combination of public pressure and confirmation bias.

[QUOTE=V12US;49813513]This happens sometimes. Prosecution is so intent on getting their guy convicted that they'll blatantly ignore evidence that suggests they have the wrong man. It's a combination of public pressure and confirmation bias.[/QUOTE] It's like they only cared for closure and not justice

[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;49813972]It's like they only cared for closure and not justice[/QUOTE] That's like grabbing a bear and getting it to confess that its a rabbit.

after learning about people like Steven Avery, I wish these articles would still surprise me

[QUOTE=zakedodead;49813140]Well it's supposed to be 100% proof of guilt so why would that matter ?[/QUOTE] And you know for a fact they have no other evidence for guilt? Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating for the US justice system or guilty-until-proven-innocent, I just really hate sensationalist journalism

[QUOTE=Virtanen;49816464]And you know for a fact they have no other evidence for guilt? Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating for the US justice system or guilty-until-proven-innocent, I just really hate sensationalist journalism[/QUOTE] The OP's source explains that he was convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony from witnesses who later recanted, one because she was pressured into testifying against him, another because he thought he could get a reduced sentence, and a third because she wanted him out of her life. I mean, I'm with you, people throw around DNA evidence as irrefutable proof when it's far from the most reliable means of determining guilt or innocence. But when all the witnesses say they lied, DNA evidence implicates another man, that other man was one of the original suspects (and the defense had witnesses who would testify against him), [I]and[/I] that other man went and killed two convenience store employees two years later, a new trial seems more than justified.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49817614]The OP's source explains that he was convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony from witnesses who later recanted, one because she was pressured into testifying against him, another because he thought he could get a reduced sentence, and a third because she wanted him out of her life. I mean, I'm with you, people throw around DNA evidence as irrefutable proof when it's far from the most reliable means of determining guilt or innocence. But when all the witnesses say they lied, DNA evidence implicates another man, that other man was one of the original suspects (and the defense had witnesses who would testify against him), [I]and[/I] that other man went and killed two convenience store employees two years later, a new trial seems more than justified.[/QUOTE] Alright fair enough. I think this is what happens when you frame courtrooms as circuses like the US

The justice system does not like to admit it was wrong because if the system is wrong then who can trust the system in any decision . Especially the south where the "tough on crime" model is very enforced. They would rather let an innocent man die (which they have) than to say "whoops our bad". Even if he was freed he would get next to nothing for the damages.

[QUOTE=Potus;49822783]The justice system does not like to admit it was wrong because if the system is wrong then who can trust the system in any decision . Especially the south where the "tough on crime" model is very enforced. They would rather let an innocent man die (which they have) than to say "whoops our bad". Even if he was freed he would get next to nothing for the damages.[/QUOTE] No it's the damages they worry about, they can concoct a reason to release an innocent man, but they know when they do, he will come back with a team of lawyers and get a big settlement. So what's a system to do? Why simply leave him in prison where you control his rights