Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: The Dotson Case
Message-ID: <6213@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-May-85 21:28:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.6213
Posted: Fri May 31 21:28:56 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Jun-85 14:33:35 EDT
References: <2220@decwrl.UUCP> <6078@umcp-cs.UUCP> <444@sftri.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 17
Keywords: innocent until proven guilty

In article <444@sftri.UUCP> mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) writes:
>> my local paper.  Perhaps the coverage was defective or unbalanced,
>> but it definitely was a newsworthy case.  What outrages ME is that
>> IT TOOK WAY TOO LONG FOR THE STATE TO RELEASE DOTSON.  The testimony
>[...]
>And that's why I get a bit annoyed when people start talking about
>Dotson being innocent, because, at least to me, it is not at all certain
>that he is.  As far as the case itself is concerned, I find it a

It isn't certain that he is, but I think it explains things better
than the hypothesis that he's guilty.  Anyway, the new testimony
definitely opens plenty of doubt, and I think you're forgetting
something here:  innocent until proven guilty.  I stand by
my main point: the case was newsworthy because Dotson should
have been released immediately, but the case dragged on.

--Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink