Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

On Sep 8, 5:12 am, Mark Hickey wrote:

Ann Coulter wrote an editorial about how those
convicted in the notorious Central Park 'wilding'
case should not have had their convictions set
aside after the guilty party (who acted alone)
confessed and was matched to the DNA evidence.
She used the same arguments typically advanced
for limiting appeals from death row.

Was that satire? If so, given that she was writing
about a case in which the fact of innocence was
not in dispute, not even by her, it was indeed a
powerful defense of the appeals system..

Yeah, I'd say it was satire... some quotes:

"As part of the media's continuing series on how every criminal is
innocent, except asbestos manufacturers and abortion clinic
protesters, ..."

"But wait! The "Innocence Project" has produced an 11th-hour
confession from a sixth rapist, Matias Reyes. Stunning no one but
gullible reporters, he claims he acted alone. As is always the
case with surprise confessions exonerating others, Reyes faces no
penalty for this confession. To the contrary, Reyes is surely the
toast of his cellblock -- where, by happenstance, he is serving
time with another Central Park rapist, Kharey Wise. The statute of
limitations has run on the rape and Reyes is already serving life
in prison."

I have no idea about the context of that. Could you provide a link?
It sounds like it might be hyperbole (she is known for a bit of that
now and then...). ;-)

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimelaw/features/n_7836/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matias_Reyes
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter120502.asp

I'm finding hard to feel too sorry for those who were found guilty by
five unanimous juries. Coulter makes the point that if there was any
indication that the confessions were improperly obtained, they would
have been thrown out in the appeals process (which they weren't).

This particular article is more of an indictment of the media for
seemingly rooting for the criminals than it is of the guys who were
found guilty in this case (IMHO of course).

It is like name-recognition at the polls. If some bozo
changes his name to John F Kennedy it really shouldn't
give him an edge in the election, but do you suppose it
did?

An idiot's vote counts just as much as a thoughtful person's
and can be had with much less effort.

Or for a nominal payment (examples abound).

Perhaps you can present some as I am not aware of any.

Seriously? I typed "pay for votes" into google and got over 38,000
hits.

So? I googled "mark hickey apostle", and got over 55,000 hits.

Coool, I've been promoted.

Oh wait... I put my name in quotes and I'm down to 47 hits. Sigh...

I had a buddy who was paid to register dead people in Chicago,
for example.

He WAS, or he said he was? You see the problem
is that if we presume your buddy to be honest, then he
would not have done that, and if we presume him to be
dishonest then we cannot take his word for it.

BTW, Did you turn him in? If not, should we take your
word at face value?

If we are going to continue this, it ought to be posted
to misc.legal.moderated, do you think?

I guess I'll never really know if he did it or if it was just bravado
on his part. Either way, I don't really need his direct testimony
(and/or conviction) to know that there are problems with the voting
process in Chicago.

"voter fraud" chicago - this search yields 186,000 hits.

Mark "not an apostle yet, apparently" Hickey