Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sftri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!mom
From: mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: The Dotson Case
Message-ID: <449@sftri.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Jun-85 15:30:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: sftri.449
Posted: Mon Jun  3 15:30:35 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 02:27:18 EDT
References: <2220@decwrl.UUCP> <6078@umcp-cs.UUCP> <444@sftri.UUCP> <6213@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit N.J.
Lines: 42

> 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

My point is that he was already convicted.  If the original
testimony of the woman was a lie, why wasn't the conviction overturned?
In that case, it would have been wrong to keep Dotson locked up.
Since he was already convicted, he should remain in jail until it
can be established what effect the new testimony has (assuming that
the new testimony is true.)  None of that was really done in this
case; this whole new mess was handled abominably.

You're right, there may be room for doubt with the new evidence, but
what probably should have been done in that case would be to convene
a new trial, with Dotson perhaps released on bail.  In any case, I
stand by my point:  Dotson had already been convicted-- he should
have remained in jail until the effects of the new testimony were
assessed.  You don't release someone just because new testimony is
going to be forthcoming, even when it appears that testimony might
significantly affect the case (it may not; the conviction may have
been made based on some other evidence.  He was properly convicted;
he should have been properly treated when all this came up.

Dotson is now out as a convicted felon-- a retrial might have gotten
him not only freedom, but a clean record.

Mark Modig
ihnp4!sftri!mom