05-10-2009, 11:26 AM
When Facts Bow to Authority: The Juan Rivera Jury Trial
by daddy4mak
Share this on Twitter - When Facts Bow to Authority: The Juan Rivera Jury Trial Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:13:15 AM PDT
The cops claim that on the night of August 17th, 1992, 11 year old Holly Staker invited eighteen year old Juan Rivera to her home (where she was baby sitting 2 kids) to have sex with him.
They also claim that when he failed to "perform" in bed, she made fun of him. This, according to the claim, enraged him so much so that he got a kitchen knife and stabbed her to death.
All they have for proof is a confession after four days of questioning. The questioning wasn't video taped (according to the cops, at the request of Juan Rivera), and the cops have "lost" the notes they kept during his questioning.
Juan Rivera has an IQ of 79 and claims to have no recollection of the crime.
So the only evidence convicting him is a signature that he put on a typed confession, that and the testimony of four retired cops.
The evidence of his innocence is overwhelming.
He was convicted in his 3rd trial yesterday.
daddy4mak's diary :: ::
Here is the evidence (most of it not disputed by prosecutors) of his innoncence
The DNA evidence shows some other man's semen on Holly Staker.
Rivera, 36, was able to force another trial after advanced DNA testing revealed in 2005 that semen found in the girl's body could not have come from him. His lawyers said that meant someone else must have killed her.
Prosecutors downplayed that evidence, however, suggesting the girl might have had sex with someone else before she met Rivera or that the sample had been contaminated.
link
He had a rock solid alibi, and no evience shows that he was at Holly Staker's house
An electronic home-monitoring device he was wearing while awaiting trial for burglary puts Rivera at home at the time Holly was raped and killed at a baby-sitting job. A fingerprint analysis of the crime scene, which he requested, does not implicate him.
link
The confession doesn't seem like he was capable of writing it
Detectives questioned him over four days before he signed two confessions, saying Holly had invited him into the home where she was baby-sitting and had sex with him. When she mocked his performance, according to the statements, he stabbed her to death. His lawyers have consistently argued that the confessions used words that were beyond the vocabulary of a defendant with an IQ of 79. They have also suggested that police hinted at the details they wanted to hear as they relentlessly questioned Rivera.
link
I do not see how this man could be convicted of murder. The whole story seems completely ludicrous. . .what kind of 11 year old baby sitter invites an 18 year old over for sex? What kind of individual of an IQ of 79 then proceeds to remove ALL physical evidence of this crime?
I was questioning why Drew Peterson's story is attracting so much attention and my wife said it was because it had aspects of an entertaining novel "sex" and "mystery."
This story has all that and more, why would the cops push such a story, why would the prosecutors even go after this man despite so much evidence to the contrary, why would the jury convict after seeing so much evidence?
Why isn't this story getting the media attention it should?
Illinois is the state where a Republican governor (Jim Ryan) suspended the death penalty after a string of nine death row inmates were shown to be innocent using DNA evidence in the late 90s (nearly all had "confessed" to their crimes).
Thankfully, the Illinois legislature now requires the video taping of all confessions (thanks, in part, to a little known state senator with a weird name)
In this case, the only evidence is the testimony of four cops who pressured the confession out of this (then) teenager. The jury believed them over the overwhelming evidence of this man's innocence.
by daddy4mak
Share this on Twitter - When Facts Bow to Authority: The Juan Rivera Jury Trial Sat May 09, 2009 at 10:13:15 AM PDT
The cops claim that on the night of August 17th, 1992, 11 year old Holly Staker invited eighteen year old Juan Rivera to her home (where she was baby sitting 2 kids) to have sex with him.
They also claim that when he failed to "perform" in bed, she made fun of him. This, according to the claim, enraged him so much so that he got a kitchen knife and stabbed her to death.
All they have for proof is a confession after four days of questioning. The questioning wasn't video taped (according to the cops, at the request of Juan Rivera), and the cops have "lost" the notes they kept during his questioning.
Juan Rivera has an IQ of 79 and claims to have no recollection of the crime.
So the only evidence convicting him is a signature that he put on a typed confession, that and the testimony of four retired cops.
The evidence of his innocence is overwhelming.
He was convicted in his 3rd trial yesterday.
daddy4mak's diary :: ::
Here is the evidence (most of it not disputed by prosecutors) of his innoncence
The DNA evidence shows some other man's semen on Holly Staker.
Rivera, 36, was able to force another trial after advanced DNA testing revealed in 2005 that semen found in the girl's body could not have come from him. His lawyers said that meant someone else must have killed her.
Prosecutors downplayed that evidence, however, suggesting the girl might have had sex with someone else before she met Rivera or that the sample had been contaminated.
link
He had a rock solid alibi, and no evience shows that he was at Holly Staker's house
An electronic home-monitoring device he was wearing while awaiting trial for burglary puts Rivera at home at the time Holly was raped and killed at a baby-sitting job. A fingerprint analysis of the crime scene, which he requested, does not implicate him.
link
The confession doesn't seem like he was capable of writing it
Detectives questioned him over four days before he signed two confessions, saying Holly had invited him into the home where she was baby-sitting and had sex with him. When she mocked his performance, according to the statements, he stabbed her to death. His lawyers have consistently argued that the confessions used words that were beyond the vocabulary of a defendant with an IQ of 79. They have also suggested that police hinted at the details they wanted to hear as they relentlessly questioned Rivera.
link
I do not see how this man could be convicted of murder. The whole story seems completely ludicrous. . .what kind of 11 year old baby sitter invites an 18 year old over for sex? What kind of individual of an IQ of 79 then proceeds to remove ALL physical evidence of this crime?
I was questioning why Drew Peterson's story is attracting so much attention and my wife said it was because it had aspects of an entertaining novel "sex" and "mystery."
This story has all that and more, why would the cops push such a story, why would the prosecutors even go after this man despite so much evidence to the contrary, why would the jury convict after seeing so much evidence?
Why isn't this story getting the media attention it should?
Illinois is the state where a Republican governor (Jim Ryan) suspended the death penalty after a string of nine death row inmates were shown to be innocent using DNA evidence in the late 90s (nearly all had "confessed" to their crimes).
Thankfully, the Illinois legislature now requires the video taping of all confessions (thanks, in part, to a little known state senator with a weird name)
In this case, the only evidence is the testimony of four cops who pressured the confession out of this (then) teenager. The jury believed them over the overwhelming evidence of this man's innocence.