Liberal "DNA Test" Sets Rapist Loose

The individual pictured to the left is Luis Diaz.  Eight women identified him as the man who raped them.   

At his trial, his lawyers put on a weak defense.  First, his co-workers testified that he was at work as a cook when the rapes occurred.  Obviously, they are all lying, because people who work with rapists lie like that.  And they said that if the rapist had left work and committed the rapes like the prosecution contended, he would smell strongly of the grease and onions of the kitchen, and none of the victims had noticed such a smell.  Obviously, Mr. Diaz, who is believed to be not white, had learned in non-white rapist school how to remove the smell from himself while on the way home from his job.  Finally, the lying liar defense lawyers pointed out that Mr. Diaz was shorter and weighed less than the person in the descriptions of the rapist provided by all of the victims.  Obviously, Diaz could also control his height and weight with his mind.  Diabolical.

Fortunately, the court did not believe the rapist Diaz and his lying lawyers and witnesses and evidence.  The judge said, "I've never seen a case where I was more convinced of a man's guilt."  Heh.  Indeed.

Instead of being put to death, like sex offenders should, he was put in prison for the last 25 years, until today, when liberals have now succeeded in getting him released using a bogus, "scientific" "DNA test."  Using physical evidence from one of the rapes that was tragically preserved from the time of his crimes, the "test" "proves" that Diaz "could not possibly be" the person who committed the rapes. 

This is the same kind of science that says humans "evolved" from monkeys.  I've never even seen "DNA" - have you?  It probably doesn't even exist.  And even if it does exist, they can't prove that it does what they say it does.  It's just a theory.  But no one can watch this DNA do this stuff they say it does, or at least, I don't know if anyone can, and that's the same thing.

The lying liberal New York Times then prints this:

One victim, whose identification of Mr. Diaz led to his arrest, said she had originally thought none of the men in the nine photographs she was shown resembled her attacker. She had asked to see more pictures, she said, but settled on Mr. Diaz after the police twice told her to keep looking at the first batch. He was the only one who remotely looked like the attacker, she said.

"They told me to look closer at the ones I had," she told a state prosecutor in 1993, adding that the police were watching her study the photos "almost like people holding their breath."

So, the police were just being helpful.  The police are always helpful in identifying the guilty, and witnesses should listen to them.  If a police officer says he thinks someone did it, then they probably did it.  The fact that Diaz got convicted after the police did this proves they were right.

This victim said she grew more convinced that Mr. Diaz was her attacker when she "shook like a leaf" upon seeing him in a live lineup.

"All these girls couldn't be wrong, the detectives couldn't be wrong, it couldn't go this far," she recalled thinking.   

See??? Once the police had corrected the victim's faulty memory, she became more and more sure Diaz was the one.  They cleared up her doubts for her.  They smiled and patted her on the back when she picked the right guy.  They're the good guys.

Individual prosecutors want to keep the rapist Diaz in jail:

Katherine Fernandez Rundle, the Miami-Dade state attorney, said the fact that DNA absolved Mr. Diaz of one crime did not necessarily absolve him of the rest. The state could attempt to retry him on the other cases, Ms. Rundle said, but some victims do not want to testify again, some cannot be found, and the evidence absolving him of one rape could be introduced by the defense.

So, overwhelmed by the decadent energy of the rapist-lovers, the state has given up on keeping a dangerous man like the erstwhile cook in jail until he dies. 

Who is responsible for this travesty? 

Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project, a nonprofit group that fights for DNA exonerations, said most - about 120 of 160 exonerations since the advent of forensic DNA testing in 1989 - hinged on mistaken witness identification. But none involved as many mistaken witnesses as the Diaz case, he said.

"It's a landmark case for that reason," Mr. Scheck said. "These were crimes that upset people in the community, there was pressure to solve them, and there were, I think, unfortunate eyewitness techniques used that, in light of what we know now, were the kind that lead to error."

The only error is that the community's peace of mind and sense of safety will be shattered by the re-emergence of the raper who had been tagged and bagged years ago.  This will undermine the public's faith in the power of the police to guess at who the guilty are.  It will even allow liberal liars to raise doubts in cases of strong eyewitness identification with some police guidance when there is no "physical evidence" that can be subjected to "DNA testing."  It is believed that Mr. Scheck is a non-Christian.

Comments

[PZ Myers]

I've seen DNA. It's very liberal.

[Thomas]

From CNN: "Former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, who was the county prosecutor when Diaz was convicted, did not return a call for comment Wednesday."

Damn conservatives.

Another Mithras just-so story.

[Mithras]

Hee hee! Janet Reno is a liberal now! Now, that's a just-so story.

[eRobin]

Using physical evidence from one of the rapes that was tragically preserved from the time of his crimes, the "test" "proves" that Diaz "could not possibly be" the person who committed the rapes.

This is the part that got me. I feel like I'm always reading about evidence that is unavailable for testing.

[ol cranky]

Don't you people know that evidence is a bad thing (unless it's planted, that is)? It exonerates the innocent and punishes the guilty and if we start doing that our government is in really big trouble!

[Aaron]

"liberal liars" hunh?

[PG]

Does that mean Clinton's not a liberal either? He did go back to Arkansas during the campaign in order to ensure executions. Seems like political expediency; few Democrats can be nationally viable (or even just viable in Florida) without being "tuff on crime."

As for the Innocence Project, it's among many liberal works that's assumed by conservatives.

[Auguste]

Clinton's a moderate. Always was, always will be. Just because he's my moderate doesn't make him any less moderate.

[Lefty McLibby]

Most rapists are innocent. In fact, rape should be a misdemeanor. In fact, rape is cool. Fiscal conservatism and law-and-order are WACK! I say, even if 99.9% of people on death row deserve it, the 0.1% make it necessary to set them all free. Only conservatives hate rape, not good progressives.

[Hubris]

So Jeb Bush is a liberal?

[Hubris]

...and by the way, did you know that Katherine Fernandez Rundle is a Democrat? Not that I think that means anything about Democrats in general, but then, I'm not into the hasty generalization game.

[JRoth]

Boy, it's a real struggle for your conservative guests to keep track of whether they're supposed to be using irony.

Perhaps, once we're done reinstating science in the classroom, we can have irony class - How to Recognize Irony, How to Use Irony Your Ownself, etc.

[garth]

wow, two trolls in one thread, that's kind of a compliment isn't it? like your windows being so clean that two birds ram into it, rattling their little bird-brains. "what was that?" says bird one, shaking his tiny bird head to clear the cobwebs. "Lord, I dunno!" sez bird two, "i think it was the limits of my intelligence! I'm gonna go troll Mithras!"
Bird one: "Yeah! Hey, what's irony?"

[Thomas]

Hey, everybody, look! Garth is showing off some of that fancy left-wing humor!

It's funny! He said "little bird brains." Get it? It's great stuff!