Freed Man Still Fighting to Clear Name

[MountainLaurel]

This is how the story typically goes: A man is wrongly convicted of two rapes he did not commit. He spends years behind bars before DNA evidence exonerates him and he is released. Soon afterward, he receives a governor's pardon.

That's not how Arthur Lee Whitfield's story goes.

Virginia authorities released Whitfield on parole in August 2004 when a Norfolk prosecutor said DNA evidence proved Whitfield did not commit the two rapes for which he had served 22 years in prison. Since then, Whitfield, 51, has tried to clear his name in the official record, seeking remedies in court. In December he requested a pardon from Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D).

But there's a hitch: A victim in one of the rape cases is still adamant that Whitfield raped her, and she is trying to persuade the governor not to issue a pardon in her case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400939_2.html

[progressivegunowner]

1. Science is fact

If he is being cleared by DNA evidence, I would say that that is pretty darn reliable, and chances are roughly 99 odd percent that he did not committ the crime. I would say that is much more reliable than witness testominy, even of a victim of the crime.

[varkam]

2. Eyewitness testimony can be extremely flawed.

Most people think eyewitness identification and testimony is extremely reliable - mostly because it is convincing. But if you look at the research, eyewitness testimony is only marginally reliable. A lot of it stems, I think, from people's misconception that memory is like a video recorder: you record events that happen, and you can play them back at a later date. Memory is largely a reconstructive process that can be mistaken, yet many people - especially those who are wanting justice - refuse to believe that they could be in error.