4 ms·
There are not a ton of details in the article but I imagine what they are saying is the evidence used to convict him was wrong, but it still doesn't mean he did
by giarc 10y ago
There are not a ton of details in the article but I imagine what they are saying is the evidence used to convict him was wrong, but it still doesn't mean he didn't do it.
The victim identified him as 1 of the 2 rapists and DNA cleared him. He might not have left DNA behind, but the victim still identified him.
- aisengard 10y agoBut he wouldn't have been convicted without that evidence. It doesn't matter if he can't prove his innocence, the job of the prosecutor is to prove guilt.
- finid 10y agoHow might he "not have left DNA behind" when the charge was rape! And DNA evidence was used to used to clear him. According to the article: In October 1977 a Memphis woman was raped in her home by two intruders...
- vectorjohn 10y agoIt's not like they have a time machine to go pick up old evidence. They had an old sheet, it's easy to imagine how there wouldn't be DNA left there.
- giarc 10y agoI don't think we need to get into specifics, but you don't need to ejaculate for it to be considered rape.
- TillE 10y agoApparently he eventually made a false confession while trying to get parole. That probably did it. "Board members questioned McKinney during the hearing about admissions to the crime made at a parole hearing after he had already served 28 years in prison. McKinney said admissions were only in hopes of getting released,"
- finid 10y agoUnder intense questioning and pressure, people have been known to confess to crimes they did not commit. I recall reading about a druggie who confessed to being the Green River Killer or some other serial killer. The real killer was picked up after that.
- vectorjohn 10y agoWhy do you call it a false confession?
- sundaeofshock 10y agoEyewitness testimony is often incorrect. "Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts": https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-...
- giarc 10y agoSure, but it doesn't mean the opposite is true. If the victim says "John did it", because eye witness testimony is often incorrect, doesn't mean we can assume John didn't do it.
- vectorjohn 10y agoDNA didn't "clear him." They just failed to find new evidence, although the DNA evidence that his friend was there corroborates the victim's story. I think they just let him go to save the money of another trial since he already served so much. He probably would have lost the retrial since the evidence didn't change, but they decided not to spend the money. Seems OK.