- 15 Dec 2021 02:39
#15202943
Here's a simple (yet very complicated) murder case, which raises several troubling (controversial, highly questionable) issues.
Some of you wonder why people would admit to crimes they do not commit. Well here's one more example of that. This man has to admit to the murder if he wants to be released from prison. Sounds insane and crazy? The justice system can be, in many situations.
This man has already spent 28 years in prison for a murder, which he claims he did not commit.
The man who is in prison is Joseph Gordon, a 78-year-old Black man.
In 1991, Daniel Pack, a 38-year-old neurologist, was killed in Gordon's basement.
Gordon admitted to hiding the body, but claimed he was not the one who actually killed Pack.
Gordon's attorneys alleged throughout the initial investigation that his son killed Pack. The defense attorney put his son on the stand, where he insisted that his father committed the murder.
Citing a likely motive, prosecutors alleged that Pack went to the Gordon residence to work out a dispute over a $70,000 investment they said Pack made in baseball cards.
Gordon was a Westchester County baseball-card dealer, and the prosecutor James Rooney alleged that the cards were worthless.
Gordon did not publicly accuse his son, who was 16 at the time, of committing the murder until his second parole hearing, which was more than 25 years after his conviction.
At his March 2020 parole hearing, Gordon said he chose to hide the body and not call the police because he wanted to protect his son. "I didn't trust the system, society. I didn't trust any of it. All I know is I wanted to take care of my son. ... I was not going to be compelled to testify against my son. I was not going to put my son in prison."
In response to these claims, his son told a reporter, "My father is a sociopath", and denied any connection to the murder.
Sperm was found in the victim's mouth, and later in 2015 authorities retested that sperm and found that it did not belong to Gordon or his son.
Another witness came forward in 1996, after the trial. She was a neighbor who claimed that she saw Gordon leave his house that day, and then later saw a white man pull into the driveway 15 minutes later, and said she saw Gordon's son greeting him.
Gordon has been denied parole 5 times, beginning with his first hearing in 2017.
The New York State Board of Parole has refused to release him, citing his refusal to confess.
Michelle Lewin, the executive director of the Parole Preparation Project, explained a likely reason for this: "The board expects them to accept responsibility and express remorse. People who maintain their innocence remain in an impossible situation."
So if the prisoner continues to claim his innocence, the parole board is likely to view that as "not accepting responsibility" for the crime. They know the prisoner was found guilty at trial and are reluctant to question the verdict. (It's far easier to deal in simple facts)
This, of course, can put a prisoner who actually is innocent into a difficult position. To put it simply, they might have to lie and claim they committed a crime which they did not do if they want to have a chance of being released.
That seems outrageously unfair.
The New York State Board of Parole provided a news investigator with a statement that said:
"Prior to making a final decision, the Board members must follow the statutory requirements which take into consideration many factors, including statements made by victims and victims' families, if any, as well as an individual's criminal history, institutional accomplishments, potential to successfully reintegrate into the community, and perceived risk to public safety."
An official parole appeal document for Joseph Gordon cited the following two points in its decision:
"The Board may consider the inmate's capacity to tell the truth... Several of appellant’s answers to questions were short or evasive."
"Once an individual has been convicted of a crime, it is generally not the Board’s role to reevaluate a claim of innocence."
Robert Tendy, the current district attorney of Putnam County, also added:
"It is not just the physical threat. It is a threat that this person will be given a soapbox to preach his innocence and become part of the ever-growing movement to undermine the justice system. There is a lot of it going around these days."
This is a kind of indirect way of implying they usually don't want to release a prisoner who claims they never committed the crime.
They probably see such a person as a manipulative liar, who is in denial about his mistakes, has not changed, and will be likely to commit the crime again.
And that might be true, if the person actually is guilty.
The problem is, they're making the automatic assumption that the person is guilty, because they were found guilty at trial and have spent a long time in prison.
So obviously this view is very unfair to that small minority of people who are actually innocent.
This story raises several issues.
Should someone who hides the body in a murder automatically be assumed guilty of the murder, in all situations?
Should parole boards be denying parole to prisoners because they refuse to admit to the crime and express remorse at what the parole board believes the prisoner has done?
Another issue is burden of evidence. After the trial is over and the defendant has been found guilty, how much higher should the new burden of evidence be able to exonerate the defendant of the alleged crime than it was in the original trial?
So this man hid the murder victim body and was assumed guilty of murder. But there are three complicating additional pieces of evidence, which we will go over one by one.
1. The semen found in the victim's mouth. What does this even mean? It could mean something very significant or it could mean nothing. This suggests that it was likely not just an ordinary murder. Supposedly the test found that the semen neither belonged to Gordon nor his son. But these tests can sometimes be in error. They are not always right, like authorities would have people think. There are five possibilities here.
1) It was Gordon's sperm. If this was the case, obviously he would have to be a reprehensible man, probably put it there after the victim had been killed to take out his animosity and revenge on the victim, even after death.
2) It was the son's sperm. This point has two possibilities.
Maybe Gordon was telling the truth and the victim, Pack, somehow manipulated Gordon's son into allowing him to suck him? Perhaps with an offer of money or a threat? But then Gordon's son later changed his mind and killed Pack for doing that, which would not be an unusual response in that sort of situation.
Or Gordon's son killed him and for some reason, being an irresponsible teen, put the semen in his mouth just to disrespect him after death.
3) Perhaps Gordon's son had a younger friend with him at the time? Perhaps Gordon's son walked in on them, the younger friend out of shame claimed he was being raped, and Gordon's son grabbed a gun and shot Pack? Then Gordon's father would have found out about it later and wanted to protect his son.
4) It could possibly be that just before he arrived the victim had had a sexual encounter with another man. I am not sure how likely this possibility could be. Would semen be likely to stay in his mouth for that long? Was the male victim homosexual, and circumstantial evidence that might suggest he could have just had sex?
5) Could Gordon have intentionally put that semen there to try to mislead police? Maybe he even thought of this explanation before he killed the man. But if that is the case, where did this semen come from? Men usually don't just have semen from some other man lying around, and it's usually not that easy to obtain.
This one little piece of evidence raises so many questions. There are so many different logical possibilities.
2. The son claimed his father committed the murder. So he is an important witness. But he could have been the actual killer.
Was he so selfish that he feared for himself and did not care what happened to his father? (I think that is a likely possibility) Or maybe he assumed at that time that his father was sacrificing himself, and since his father had already been separated from him for a time, being in prison, the son (who probably would have been 18 at the time) did not know exactly what he should have said.
At that point it would have been too late and the father would not have wanted to claim his son was lying, because that would mean his son had done it, and so the father just accepted the sacrifice, still perhaps hoping that there might be a chance the jury would not convict if they had doubt about whether it was the father or the son who committed the murder.
When the son later responded to a news reporter that his father was "a sociopath", it is important to point out that this statement was not made in a courtroom or in front of a parole board. The son could have just been afraid for himself at that point. His father had already spent 28 years in prison, so it would not make sense (assuming that he cared about both himself and his father equally) to admit guilt and go to prison himself at that point, because then all those years his father had already had to spend in prison would have been for nothing.
3. And lastly the witness who came forward three years after the trial. Could this witness be lying? Maybe she lied because she thought her neighbor was probably innocent so thought her lie could help him? Maybe Gordon or a family member paid or convinced her to lie? What is the race of this neighbor? Maybe she just did not want to see another black man put away in prison?
Her testimony clearly implies that Gordon's son was probably the murderer and not Gordon.
There is more reason for a false witness to come forward after the trial because why should they have to lie and risk punishment if they might not need to.
But if we view her testimony as equal to Gordon's son, then it is sort of like there is one witness saying Gordon did it and one witness saying he didn't, so I think wouldn't the testimony of those two witnesses cancel out?
And then we would be back to the only evidence that matters being the fact that Gordon hid the body.
"Man who has been imprisoned nearly 30 years is unlikely to be released unless he confesses to a murder he says his son committed", Taiyler Simone Mitchell, December 13, 2021, Insider
https://www.insider.com/joseph-gordon-n ... on-2021-12
Some of you wonder why people would admit to crimes they do not commit. Well here's one more example of that. This man has to admit to the murder if he wants to be released from prison. Sounds insane and crazy? The justice system can be, in many situations.
This man has already spent 28 years in prison for a murder, which he claims he did not commit.
The man who is in prison is Joseph Gordon, a 78-year-old Black man.
In 1991, Daniel Pack, a 38-year-old neurologist, was killed in Gordon's basement.
Gordon admitted to hiding the body, but claimed he was not the one who actually killed Pack.
Gordon's attorneys alleged throughout the initial investigation that his son killed Pack. The defense attorney put his son on the stand, where he insisted that his father committed the murder.
Citing a likely motive, prosecutors alleged that Pack went to the Gordon residence to work out a dispute over a $70,000 investment they said Pack made in baseball cards.
Gordon was a Westchester County baseball-card dealer, and the prosecutor James Rooney alleged that the cards were worthless.
Gordon did not publicly accuse his son, who was 16 at the time, of committing the murder until his second parole hearing, which was more than 25 years after his conviction.
At his March 2020 parole hearing, Gordon said he chose to hide the body and not call the police because he wanted to protect his son. "I didn't trust the system, society. I didn't trust any of it. All I know is I wanted to take care of my son. ... I was not going to be compelled to testify against my son. I was not going to put my son in prison."
In response to these claims, his son told a reporter, "My father is a sociopath", and denied any connection to the murder.
Sperm was found in the victim's mouth, and later in 2015 authorities retested that sperm and found that it did not belong to Gordon or his son.
Another witness came forward in 1996, after the trial. She was a neighbor who claimed that she saw Gordon leave his house that day, and then later saw a white man pull into the driveway 15 minutes later, and said she saw Gordon's son greeting him.
Gordon has been denied parole 5 times, beginning with his first hearing in 2017.
The New York State Board of Parole has refused to release him, citing his refusal to confess.
Michelle Lewin, the executive director of the Parole Preparation Project, explained a likely reason for this: "The board expects them to accept responsibility and express remorse. People who maintain their innocence remain in an impossible situation."
So if the prisoner continues to claim his innocence, the parole board is likely to view that as "not accepting responsibility" for the crime. They know the prisoner was found guilty at trial and are reluctant to question the verdict. (It's far easier to deal in simple facts)
This, of course, can put a prisoner who actually is innocent into a difficult position. To put it simply, they might have to lie and claim they committed a crime which they did not do if they want to have a chance of being released.
That seems outrageously unfair.
The New York State Board of Parole provided a news investigator with a statement that said:
"Prior to making a final decision, the Board members must follow the statutory requirements which take into consideration many factors, including statements made by victims and victims' families, if any, as well as an individual's criminal history, institutional accomplishments, potential to successfully reintegrate into the community, and perceived risk to public safety."
An official parole appeal document for Joseph Gordon cited the following two points in its decision:
"The Board may consider the inmate's capacity to tell the truth... Several of appellant’s answers to questions were short or evasive."
"Once an individual has been convicted of a crime, it is generally not the Board’s role to reevaluate a claim of innocence."
Robert Tendy, the current district attorney of Putnam County, also added:
"It is not just the physical threat. It is a threat that this person will be given a soapbox to preach his innocence and become part of the ever-growing movement to undermine the justice system. There is a lot of it going around these days."
This is a kind of indirect way of implying they usually don't want to release a prisoner who claims they never committed the crime.
They probably see such a person as a manipulative liar, who is in denial about his mistakes, has not changed, and will be likely to commit the crime again.
And that might be true, if the person actually is guilty.
The problem is, they're making the automatic assumption that the person is guilty, because they were found guilty at trial and have spent a long time in prison.
So obviously this view is very unfair to that small minority of people who are actually innocent.
This story raises several issues.
Should someone who hides the body in a murder automatically be assumed guilty of the murder, in all situations?
Should parole boards be denying parole to prisoners because they refuse to admit to the crime and express remorse at what the parole board believes the prisoner has done?
Another issue is burden of evidence. After the trial is over and the defendant has been found guilty, how much higher should the new burden of evidence be able to exonerate the defendant of the alleged crime than it was in the original trial?
So this man hid the murder victim body and was assumed guilty of murder. But there are three complicating additional pieces of evidence, which we will go over one by one.
1. The semen found in the victim's mouth. What does this even mean? It could mean something very significant or it could mean nothing. This suggests that it was likely not just an ordinary murder. Supposedly the test found that the semen neither belonged to Gordon nor his son. But these tests can sometimes be in error. They are not always right, like authorities would have people think. There are five possibilities here.
1) It was Gordon's sperm. If this was the case, obviously he would have to be a reprehensible man, probably put it there after the victim had been killed to take out his animosity and revenge on the victim, even after death.
2) It was the son's sperm. This point has two possibilities.
Maybe Gordon was telling the truth and the victim, Pack, somehow manipulated Gordon's son into allowing him to suck him? Perhaps with an offer of money or a threat? But then Gordon's son later changed his mind and killed Pack for doing that, which would not be an unusual response in that sort of situation.
Or Gordon's son killed him and for some reason, being an irresponsible teen, put the semen in his mouth just to disrespect him after death.
3) Perhaps Gordon's son had a younger friend with him at the time? Perhaps Gordon's son walked in on them, the younger friend out of shame claimed he was being raped, and Gordon's son grabbed a gun and shot Pack? Then Gordon's father would have found out about it later and wanted to protect his son.
4) It could possibly be that just before he arrived the victim had had a sexual encounter with another man. I am not sure how likely this possibility could be. Would semen be likely to stay in his mouth for that long? Was the male victim homosexual, and circumstantial evidence that might suggest he could have just had sex?
5) Could Gordon have intentionally put that semen there to try to mislead police? Maybe he even thought of this explanation before he killed the man. But if that is the case, where did this semen come from? Men usually don't just have semen from some other man lying around, and it's usually not that easy to obtain.
This one little piece of evidence raises so many questions. There are so many different logical possibilities.
2. The son claimed his father committed the murder. So he is an important witness. But he could have been the actual killer.
Was he so selfish that he feared for himself and did not care what happened to his father? (I think that is a likely possibility) Or maybe he assumed at that time that his father was sacrificing himself, and since his father had already been separated from him for a time, being in prison, the son (who probably would have been 18 at the time) did not know exactly what he should have said.
At that point it would have been too late and the father would not have wanted to claim his son was lying, because that would mean his son had done it, and so the father just accepted the sacrifice, still perhaps hoping that there might be a chance the jury would not convict if they had doubt about whether it was the father or the son who committed the murder.
When the son later responded to a news reporter that his father was "a sociopath", it is important to point out that this statement was not made in a courtroom or in front of a parole board. The son could have just been afraid for himself at that point. His father had already spent 28 years in prison, so it would not make sense (assuming that he cared about both himself and his father equally) to admit guilt and go to prison himself at that point, because then all those years his father had already had to spend in prison would have been for nothing.
3. And lastly the witness who came forward three years after the trial. Could this witness be lying? Maybe she lied because she thought her neighbor was probably innocent so thought her lie could help him? Maybe Gordon or a family member paid or convinced her to lie? What is the race of this neighbor? Maybe she just did not want to see another black man put away in prison?
Her testimony clearly implies that Gordon's son was probably the murderer and not Gordon.
There is more reason for a false witness to come forward after the trial because why should they have to lie and risk punishment if they might not need to.
But if we view her testimony as equal to Gordon's son, then it is sort of like there is one witness saying Gordon did it and one witness saying he didn't, so I think wouldn't the testimony of those two witnesses cancel out?
And then we would be back to the only evidence that matters being the fact that Gordon hid the body.
"Man who has been imprisoned nearly 30 years is unlikely to be released unless he confesses to a murder he says his son committed", Taiyler Simone Mitchell, December 13, 2021, Insider
https://www.insider.com/joseph-gordon-n ... on-2021-12
- By Potemkin
- By FiveofSwords
- By KurtFF8