Can you say ego trip?

  1. I about screamed when I read this! What more proof does this guy need?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/06/na...odaysheadlines
    •  
  2. 7 Comments

  3. by   canoehead
    This link sends me to a page to register- no headlines there
  4. by   momrn50
    What is it ?????



    all I get is an offer to subscribe to the NY paper!!!!
  5. by   Mkue
    Convict's DNA Sways Labs, Not a Determined Prosecutor

    Is that the article you are referring to?

    mkue
  6. by   thisnurse
    here is the article....i am far too lazy to format it




    February 6, 2002

    Convict's DNA Sways Labs, Not a Determined
    Prosecutor

    By SARA RIMER

    HILADELPHIA, Feb. 5-In the
    summer of 1986, two women who did
    not know each other were raped in the same
    housing complex in King of Prussia, a suburb
    of Philadelphia.

    In May 1987, Bruce Godschalk, 26, who had been working for a landscaper,
    was convicted of both rapes, largely on the basis of a confession to detectives
    that he recanted long before his trial. He was sentenced to 10 to 20 years in
    prison.

    Recent tests by two laboratories hired by the prosecution and the defense
    came up with the same results: both rapes were committed by the same man,
    and that man was not Bruce Godschalk.

    Even so, the Montgomery County district attorney, Bruce L. Castor Jr., whose
    office convicted Mr. Godschalk, has refused to let Mr. Godschalk out of
    prison, saying he believes that Mr. Godschalk is guilty and that the DNA
    testing is flawed.

    Asked what scientific basis he had for concluding that the testing was flawed,
    Mr. Castor said in an interview today: "I have no scientific basis. I know
    because I trust my detective and my tape-recorded confession. Therefore the
    results must be flawed until someone proves to me otherwise."

    Mr. Castor said he wanted more time to review the results, and that if he
    concluded Mr. Godschalk was innocent, he would release him.

    The case highlights the difficulty of people in prison in obtaining DNA tests.
    Mr. Godschalk fought for seven years for DNA testing, with Montgomery
    County prosecutors battling against him and state judges backing the
    prosecutors, said Mr. God schalk's lawyer, Peter Neufeld, of the Innocence
    Project of the Cardozo School of Law in New York City.

    Last August a federal district judge in Philadelphia, Charles R. Weiner, found
    that Mr. Godschalk had a constitutional right to post- conviction DNA testing,
    and ordered Mr. Castor to release the evidence for testing. (Last week, faced
    with a similar question in a Virginia rape, an appeals court came to the
    opposite conclusion, overturning a decision by a district judge who had ordered
    testing for an inmate.)

    Mr. Castor then retained the Cellmark Diagnostics Laboratory in Maryland.
    Mr. Neufeld said Cellmark divided the evidence, retaining half of it to test, and
    sending half of it to Dr. Edward Blake, a forensics expert retained by the
    defense.

    DNA testing has freed more than 100 wrongfully convicted people in the last
    decade, with about a fifth of those convictions resulting from false confessions.

    Mr. Godschalk's only prior arrest record was for possession of four grams of
    marijuana and driving while impaired, said David Rudovsky, a Philadelphia
    lawyer who is Mr. Godschalk's co-counsel. His photo was in police files
    because of the marijuana arrest.

    Six months after the two rapes, Mr. Godschalk's picture was one of an array
    of mug shots of possible rapists shown to one of the victims by a police
    detective, Bruce Saville, from Montgomery County. After studying the photos
    for more than an hour, the victim identified Mr. Godschalk as her rapist, Mr.
    Neufeld said. The second victim could not make an identification.

    After several hours of interrogation by Mr. Saville, Mr. Godschalk made a
    taped confession. Mr. Saville did not tape the hours leading up to the
    confession, Mr. Rudovsky said.

    Mr. Godschalk later said he had given a false confession because the detective
    had threatened him and provided inside information to make his confession
    appear more credible, Mr. Rudovsky said. His motion to suppress the
    confession was denied during the trial, and the confession was upheld by the
    Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

    Mr. Rudovsky has asked the trial judge in Mr. Godshalk's case, S. Gerald
    Corso, to release Mr. Godschalk from prison immediately.

    Mr. Castor said today that before he would "release a rapist into society, I
    want to know whether the scientific evidence is accurate or not."

    Dr. Blake, who is a leading forensics DNA expert, and whose Richmond,
    Calif., laboratory did the DNA testing for the defense, said that the rapist had
    left the same genetic signature in both rapes. That signature, he said, "is
    expected to occur in no more than a few human beings who have ever lived."
    It was not Mr. Godschalk's signature, he said.

    Gary Harmor, a forensics serologist with a well-respected lab in San
    Francisco, reviewed both the defense and the prosecutor's DNA test reports
    today at the request of The New York Times. "Both profiles match each
    other, and can only come from one person in the world," Mr. Harmor said of
    the tests from the two rapes. "And that person is not Bruce Godshalk."

    The defense's DNA report was completed on Jan. 16, the prosecution's on
    Jan. 30.

    Mr. Neufeld asked Pamela Newall, who recently retired as head of the DNA
    unit of the Center of Forensics Sciences in Ontario, and is also an accrediting
    inspector for the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, to review
    the reports today.

    Ms. Newall said the tests excluded Mr. Godschalk as the rapist.

    Asked what the chances are of laboratory error, Ms. Newall said:
    "Nonexistent."

    Mark Stolorow, the forensics expert who runs the lab in Germantown, Md.,
    retained by the prosecution, said today that because of client confidentiality he
    could only talk with a reporter about the test results with the permission of his
    client, Bruce L. Castor.

    Mr. Castor said he would not permit Mr. Stolorow to discuss the results. "I will
    talk for the government," he said.
  7. by   thisnurse
    oh cool...it is formatted!

    Asked what scientific basis he had for concluding that the testing was
    flawed,
    Mr. Castor said in an interview today: "I have no scientific basis. I know
    because I trust my detective and my tape-recorded confession. Therefore
    the
    results must be flawed until someone proves to me otherwise."


    oh ok then.
    this guy needs to be smacked upside his head.
  8. by   kids
    The link worked when I tried it when I posted it -must be a cookie thing.

    What do you supose the odds are of Mr. Castor getting re-elected?

    I don't get bugged by many things but this just pissed me off.
  9. by   kelligrl
    What an idiot!!! I'm embarrassed for the guy that he'd even make a statement like that at all, much less to the media... Way scary that he's good with leaving an innocent man in prison so long as he doesn't have to admit he was wrong...what a world....

close