Alice Sebold identified her rapist on the street and in court. The only thing that tripped her up was the lineup of suspects. They have a picture of the lineup and two of the suspects looked like twins and the third guy had a similar build and facial features. I could see how she couldn't identify the suspect in a lineup when a lot of the guys looked alike.
The guy was convicted 40 years ago and some woke prosecutor decided to overturn the judgment and a $5.5M settlement was awarded to the guy. New evidence was not presented so I don't see any reason to overturn the original verdict.
What evidence was there to convict him beyond all reasonable doubt?
If Seabold was able to confuse various Black men in a lineup, how can her original identification be reliable?
Looking at the picture of the lineup, Anthony Broadwater and the man she mistakenly picked from the lineup, Henry Hudson, don't look that like, apart from their race and height. Hudson has much wider eyes, thinner lips, and a rounder forehead.
I feel awful for Seabold and the various ordeals she went through. She doesn't deserve to be made a pariah simply because she was raped. And the truth is, *a* Black man did do this to her, although the crimes of *one* evil Black man should still not be met on every, or any, other Black person.
I do wonder if mistaken identity (i.e. the other-race effect) occurs in the opposite direction. Do Black witnesses mistake white assailants, and in view of how much harder it is to get a conviction on the basis of an identification, would it be controversial to consider race an aggravating factor meriting a higher sentence (i.e. where the GUILTY assailant is a different race to the individual they've victimised). Like I say, it's a controversial proposition, but if we accept that the other-race effect is a thing, is it fair to penalise victims simply because they were particularly unfortunate enough to be attacked by a person of a different race?
The evidence that I discovered online was her identification of him on the street and in the courtroom and the microscopic hair analysis. People are now saying that the microscopic hair analysis is not reliable BUT the article below noted that the FBI determined that it was roughly 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.
A lineup is different because the suspects are not walking, talking, laughing, smiling and interacting with the victim. She identified him on the street and she may have interacted with him. A brief interaction might trigger a traumatic memory. As I noted previously, this lineup was confusing since two of the suspects looked like twins and the third guy looked similar. From left to right, the second and the fourth suspects look alike to me while the fifth guy is very similar. Another striking feature is the similarity of the male hairstyles.
Additional charges for hate crimes would be appropriate but adding sentencing enhancements based solely on race would be discriminatory.
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.
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.
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.
They aren't that similar, beyond their complexion. Number two looks even less like five than Broadwater did.
Identifying someone in the courtroom doesn't mean a damn thing. He was sitting in the defendant's chair. The reason they put suspects in similar clothing is so that it doesn't sway their opinion. They don't want it to be easier.
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.
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.
I should have written longtime friend. The prosecutor told Sebold that Broadwater and five had a strategy of having five come into a lineup and stare menacingly at an accuser in order to trick her into picking him and not Broadwater. Sebold was told they'd done it before. This comes from Sebold's book.
Edit: The FBI still uses hair analysis for preliminary screening, which means it's used to rule some people out as suspects, I believe.
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.
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.”
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.
A test of 80 matches performed by an FBI employee. Not a large sample size. How did they select the people to test? Were they taken from cases in which there was a conviction? Things like that can skew results. And an 11 percent error rate leaves a lot of room for doubt, even if that little study was accurate.
I don't care that some judge wrote in a ruling that they bore a remarkable resemblance. Judges are influenced by politics and have their own biases.
I don't think Fitzpatrick was saying they should be near doppelgangers, just that putting people in a lineup that have some similarity wouldn't be much of a test. If the suspect is swarthy with jet black hair it doesn't make much sense for someone who's fair skinned and blonde to be in the lineup.
This New Yorker article uses the words "scare and fluster her" to describe the reason for the staring.
"But, Sebold writes in “Lucky,” Uebelhoer reassured her that her mistake was understandable. “Of course you chose the wrong one,” Uebelhoer said. “He and his attorney worked to make sure you’d never have a chance.” She said that Broadwater had intentionally duped her by asking an almost identical-looking friend from jail to stand in the No. 5 spot and stare at her, to scare and fluster her. (In fact, Broadwater was not friends with the man in the No. 5 spot, and they did not look the same.) In a memo, Uebelhoer wrote that Sebold had chosen the wrong man because he was “a dead ringer for defendant.” "