DNA Again Proves A Man’s Innocence

Innocent!

Well I think there may be a party going on in New York tonight in honor of Frank Sterling who has just been exonerated after spending 19 years behind bars for a crime he didn’t commit. Hallelujah for DNA people. Mr Sterling originally confessed to the murder of 74 year old Viola Manville in 1988 after being interrogated all night and then slipping into a hypnotic state. Despite years of protesting his innocence it was only recent DNA testing that vindicated the truck driver and also identified the real killer as being Mark Christie ( who has now confessed).

7 Comments

Filed under I'm Just Saying !, Thanks For Nothing, Well I Never, Whoops!

7 responses to “DNA Again Proves A Man’s Innocence

  1. I still think when something like this happens, they ought to give the guy the current lottery jackpot as compensation.

    • The Celtic Queen

      Yeah they need to be paid for all the wasted time spend in jail. That alone would make you feel like KILLING !!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. Lynn

    agreed, we can pay these people enough for what they’ve lost. tsk tsk..

  3. Susi Spice

    lets look at this as the glass half full Frank.. at least u werent sentenced to death by lethal injection…

  4. ‘after being interrogated all night’

    Too often, innocent people ‘confess’ simply to put a stop to the endless interrogation.

    Knowing they are innocent, they assume wrongly that it’ll all get sorted when the case comes to court – that the jury will believe them when they say they made a false confession because they were tired, frightened, stressed out by the police interrogation and said anything the police wanted them to say just to put an end to the nightmare.

    Sadly, in many cases jurors are already biased against the defendants simply because they are standing where they are – the assumption being that the police wouldn’t have charged them in the first place unless they had good reason. And a confession simply adds to the negative view the jurors have of the defendant because they can’t imagine themselves ever doing the same thing in a similar situation. The defendant has the additional problem in persuading the jurors he (or she) is telling the truth at the trial while at the same time exposing themselves as someone who sometimes tell lies, i.e., the false confession.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.