Kelly said in a statement that he applauded Syed’s efforts to improve himself by getting a degree, but as a Georgetown graduate himself he was also “appalled that Mr. Syed has been deemed an ‘exoneree’ based on a deeply flawed process in which his victim’s family had no voice and at which no evidence of actual innocence was presented.”
२४ डिसेंबर, २०२२
"Hiring Mr. Syed at this point is, at best, premature and I am deeply concerned that Georgetown is placing the value of celebrity over the Jesuit values that made the school what it is today."
Said Steve Kelly, lawyer for the family of the murdered teenager Hae Min Lee, quoted in "Georgetown hires Adnan Syed after court tossed his murder conviction/Prosecutors have acknowledged Syed, subject of the true-crime ‘Serial’ podcast, was wrongly convicted" (WaPo).
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३० टिप्पण्या:
Georgetown is hardly Jesuit today. It’s been captured by liberals and the Deep State.
Creighton University is the number one Jesuit University in America.
St. Ignatius Loyola told this story. He was walking on a road and a Muslim was mocking the Blessed Virgin Mary. Before his conversion, Ignatius was a hothead and soldier. He decided he was going to kill this guy depending on which road his donkey took at the fork in road. The donkey spared the Muslim. A sign from God.
Lesson? Not the first time the Jesuits were lead by an ass.
Amen.
Does that mean the prosecutors think the jury got it wrong?Or is it a clever way of saying their predecessors committed grievous wrongs in the prosecution...and got caught? Eventually?
Excluded by DNA, the wrongly convicted Muslim man is still guilty in the eyes of deplorable christians... unexpectedly
Howard
I don’t trust Mosby to get the testing right. Or to tell the truth about the test results.
Georgetown and Jesuit values LOL
Our 'top tier' universities have a long track record of hiring celebrity criminals, activists, and others who have killed, maimed, or destroyed. For some reason, they think it gives them more cred.
At this point, they have no cred.
PROOF, of innocence?
How many degrees does this duffus have?
Mr. Syed has been deemed an ‘exoneree’ based on a deeply flawed process in which his victim’s family had no voice and at which no evidence of actual innocence was presented.
Is that really how the legal system is supposed to work?
I must have watched HBO's Adnan Syed documentary, but I remember nothing about it. Same thing with their Riz Ahmed crime drama, which may have had nothing to do with Adnan Syed.
Notice that Georgetown considers itself Jesuit and not Catholic. Of course, Jesuits no longer consider themselves Catholic except to hijack Catholicism.
If you want to know the why of the problems of the Catholic Church today, it is its increasing Jesuitization.
Jesuitism is not Catholicism.
Georgetown’s Jesuit values were tossed a while ago
“Georgetown is hardly Jesuit today. It’s been captured by liberals and the Deep State”
I think that this was obvious several years ago, when that Georgetown LS chick (Sandra Flake) got feted by the top Dems in the country, instead of thrown off campus, when she protested the school not covering contraceptives and the like. Come to find out that one of the arguments against her was that there were buckets of condoms in the health care center. That’s when it became obvious that they were much more interested in being leftist loons and knee jerk activists, than good Catholics, and that schools like Georgetown had parted ways from its Roman Catholic past.
I stand by what I wrote two months ago about this case- Syed committed the crime, but the lack of DNA evidence got him released. People need to actually go read the case details to understand why he was convicted in the first place. He apparently had an accomplice in disposing of the body who led the police to it. Now, it is possible the accomplice committed the murder, but one of those people killed that girl, so if it wasn't Syed, why hasn't the accomplice been arrested and tried?
Mr. Syed has been deemed an ‘exoneree’ based on a deeply flawed process in which his victim’s family had no voice and at which no evidence of actual innocence was presented.
Is that really how the legal system is supposed to work?
He had previously been convicted. This wasn't a retrial.
This kind of wimpy language is NEVER used by the left or in support of blacks, etc. Noting you're "Concerned" gets you nowhere. Where is the moralism and justified outrage?
I agree with the families lawyer. Someone killed their daughter. And all the evidene pointed to Mr. Syed. Why large numbers of people are excited about getting guilty criminals out of jail is beyond me. Maybe its because they hate the crime victims.
'Jesuit values.'
That's a good one : )
Georgetown's "Jesuit Values" gives one historical insight into what sort of problems within the Jesuit order led to their papally ordered suppression in 1773.
Blogger Howard said...
Excluded by DNA, the wrongly convicted Muslim man is still guilty in the eyes of deplorable christians... unexpectedly
Howard has "proof of innocence." When do you start your true crime show, Howard?
The modern generation of Soros-style prosecutors readily confess the errors of their predecessors - whether or not errors existed.
That happened in my former office on a slam dunk capital case until I reported the current officeholder to the Bar Association for dishonesty resulting in a recantation.
End of story.
If Syed has been exonerated of guilt for the crime, why would the victim's family have any expectation of having a voice in Syed's release from prison? He is a free man, one who suffered an injustice in having been incarcerated for over half a life for a crime he apparently did not commit. (If the state had confidence in his guilt, we must presume they would retry him, rather than simply free him. However, among other difficulties, it seems Syed's DNA was not found on any of the physical evidence related to the crime.)
If he were deemed guilty but rehabilitated and thus paroled, then, perhaps, the family might expect to have a voice in the state's decisions about his fate. It must certainly be devastating to the victim's family for someone they believe to be guilty of the murder to be freed. However, it is worse for them to labor under this belief if, in fact, there is is another party (or parties) actually guilty of the murder. What satisfaction can there be to have an innocent party punished while a guilty party remains unpunished?
A baby until judged, labeled, and planned as a fetus is black letter Constitutional law.
"I agree with the families lawyer. Someone killed their daughter. And all the evidene pointed to Mr. Syed."
Did it? How do you know? How deeply-steeped in the details of this case are you that you can be so certain?
"Why large numbers of people are excited about getting guilty criminals out of jail is beyond me. Maybe its because they hate the crime victims."
Or, maybe its because the reality is that innocent parties are convicted of crimes, and when reviews of convictions raise serious questions or doubts about those convictions, decent people want to see real justice done: this requires not just that a party be convicted, but that it be the actual guilty party. When people are convicted on faulty or incomplete evidence, or because of procedural mistakes or malfeasance, justice requires they either be retried or, if the facts warrant, exonerated and freed.
Robert,
He wasn't exonerated as in someone else was shown to have committed the crime. What happened is that on testing for DNA years later, and after the body had been buried for a number of days, none of his DNA could be found on the body. His conviction was set aside and the prosecutors decided to not retry the case. In short, he was released on the basis of there being no DNA evidence linking him to the crime, but there was plenty of other evidence that did so, and was why he was convicted previously.
Cook is in favor of emptying the prisons. Don't argue.
"He wasn't exonerated as in someone else was shown to have committed the crime. What happened is that on testing for DNA years later, and after the body had been buried for a number of days, none of his DNA could be found on the body. His conviction was set aside and the prosecutors decided to not retry the case. In short, he was released on the basis of there being no DNA evidence linking him to the crime, but there was plenty of other evidence that did so, and was why he was convicted previously."
If you read more about the case, (and I didn't even read comprehensively), there appear to be significant uncertainties other than just the lack of any DNA. Given the great resistance by any prosecutors ever to admit they got the wrong person, or to consent to even retrying convicted persons, much less to letting them go free, Syed being freed here is a big tell that they have great (or even definitive) cause to believe he is not the murderer.
He wasn't excluded by DNA, you moron. He's wrongly acquitted, like most of the so-called Innocence Project scum today.
Even when they still pretended to abide by their founders' commitment to only investigate using new DNA evidence, they were freeing serial violent offenders and murderers left and right. Read Martin Prieb's Crooked City.
"He wasn't excluded by DNA, you moron. He's wrongly acquitted, like most of the so-called Innocence Project scum today.'"
You, of course, do not know he or "most of the so-called Innocence project scum" were wrongly acquitted, no matter how much it satisfies you to fulminate (if not also salivate) about criminal "scum" running amok throughout innocent American towns and cities, freed by their fellow "scum" comprising the Democrat party.
Working with accused sex offenders, that's basically the gig. They evidence is usually a mess and the people trying to get a conviction are so angry that they make tactical errors that prevent that. Everyone blames everyone. The accused claims exoneration and that innocence was "proved," never a good sign.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा