Hey, there! Log in / Register
Man admits to three rapes, one of which sent an innocent man to prison
By adamg on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 3:55pm
Jerry Dixon got sentenced to 30 years in prison today for rapes in Roxbury and Jamaica Plain, including one for which an innocent man spent 12 years in prison, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.
Dixon, 38, formerly of Dorchester, admitted in Suffolk Superior Court he raped an 18-year-old woman waiting for a bus on March 20, 1991 off Townsend Street in Roxbury, a 33-year-old woman near the Academy Homes project in Roxbury on April 24, 1991, and a 25-year-old woman who stopped to ask him directions near Amory Street in Jamaica Plain on July 13, 1991.
Suffolk Superior Court Judge Carol Ball imposed three consecutive terms of 10 years each. Prosecutors had asked for three consecutive terms of 20 to 25 years each.
Anthony Powell was convicted of the Townsend Street attack, but was later exonerated through DNA testing. DNA testing later found a match between two of the three attacks. However, in 2006, with no suspect in hand and the 15-year statute of limitations running out, the DA's office obtained an indictment against "John Doe." Last year, the state Supreme Judicial Court upheld such "John Doe" indictments, saying a person's DNA was as fundamental to his identity as his name.
In 2007, Dixon had to supply DNA samples after being convicted of motor-vehicle offenses in Boston. When they matched the two rape samples, prosecutors and police re-opened their investigations - and found evidence to link him to the third case.
In addition, it turned out that Dixon had spent seven years living in New Hampshire, which stops the clock on Massachusetts statutes of limitations. Because of that, the Suffolk County DA's office re-charged Dixon under his own name for the initial two cases, as well as the other case.
"After herculean efforts by prosecutors, police officers, victim advocates, and others, we've accomplished what was once impossible," DA Dan Conley said in a statement. "We've brought to justice a man who eluded identification and accountability for decades, and in the process we changed the way our cases are investigated, built, and prosecuted."
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Now tell us about the
Now tell us about the herculean efforts by prosecutors, police officers, victim advocates, and others that put an innocent man in prison.
I wasn't around in 1991, but
I wasn't around in 1991, but there's no doubt that cases were investigated, built, and prosecuted very differently back then. In that particular case, it relied on a good-faith, positive, and horribly mistaken identification of the defendant by the victim.
There is no way to undo or explain away the injustice done to Anthony Powell. The only way even to begin to address it is to completely overhaul the way such identifications are gathered and used to ensure -- as best as possible in a human endeavor -- that it doesn't happen again.
You think cases were made
You think cases were made differently 20 years ago? We're not talking the 19th Century here. There's nothing we know now that wasn't known then. It was no secret that repeatedly asking a victim 'Are you sure that's not him?' over and over biased identifications. Tilting one photo in a group, or repeating 'take your time' when the victim fails to identify a suspect was always wrong, no matter how you slice it. The only difference between then and now is that it's harder to get away with corrupting suspect IDs now.
Yes, they were made differently
I know it seems like forensic science, genetics, and DNA fingerprinting has been around forever...but it really hasn't. The first case where DNA was introduced as evidence (by the defense, not the prosecution) wasn't until 1986, a mere 4 years before the 1991 conviction of Powell (Prosecutors used DNA 1 year later in 1987 for the first time to secure a conviction). It wasn't until 1992 when a national committee was held to introduce the first standards that DNA handling was hallmarked for maintaining its integrity as evidence....and they had to have another committee years later because of advancements in the technique. Early fingerprinting was not the exact science that it is today...or could even be better tomorrow. It's a nascent technology that we only just started understanding in the 50's and 60's.
The one big thing that we know now that neither prosecutors nor defenders knew then is that the DNA didn't match. That's what eventually freed him and it's what convicted the true perpetrator. The rest of it is moot.
DNA is what got him out -
DNA is what got him out - it's not what convicted him. Are you saying that it was perfectly reasonable to convict an innocent man of rape because there was no DNA testing? The evidence that convicted him was the victim's testimony - that's it.
What's your point?
No, I'm saying it's perfectly understandable that more innocent men were convicted before there was DNA testing. You ascribe malice where incompetence or, even simpler, naivety suffices. Occam's Razor says the simplest answer is more likely correct.
If he was convicted out of malice and ill will, then why would we improve our pratices? Media spotlight? Where's your fabled cynicism at how the government works? They can do whatever they want...but they can't convince the fourth estate to look the other way in order to keep egg off their face? They're devious when it suits your point about putting innocent men in jail, but not devious when it comes to dealing with today's corporate media shills? Convenient.
Occam's Razor doesn't factor ulterior motives
In the best of circumstances and with the best motives cops and victims are looking for a perp.
ID's are therefore suspect.
Occam's razor would say look to the evidence and cut away all the subjective explanations of the crime.
I would not say malice but self preservation and/or ambition gone awry.
Detectives and prosecutors are judged, if not promoted and rewarded, based on their conviction rates.
Their mandate is to convict, not exonerate, suspects.
That's fundamental. Grasp the concept and you'll see why old convictions are now being reversed.
Not really
Detectives and prosecutors are judged, if not promoted and rewarded, based on their conviction rates.
Police promotions have nothing to do with conviction rates. In fact, covictions mean very litte to anyone, since witnesses and victims often don't show up to court, and a good defense lawyer is going to beat most cases anyway, regardless of the evidence. And maybe Jake can chime in more on this one, but DA's are evaluated like any other profession would be. Go to any court room and watch different DA's prosecute cases. You can tell just by watching which ones are more prepared, care more about their job, are better at their job, etc. Too many random events and factors in criminal cases to base promotions on conviction rates. Like any job, some people are just better at what they do. Police officers have way more to lose by malicous police work than they have to gain by getting good prosecutions.
There is actually a huge
There is actually a huge difference between the way eyewitness cases were made then and made now. And, in fact, there's a lot we know about perception now that we didn't know then -- it's a field of scientific research.
Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project says the policies now in use in Boston and Suffolk County put us "at the forefront of the country" in preventing what happened to Powell from happening to someone else. The leading expert in eyewitness identifications said the reforms we implemented after Powell's exoneration represent "the new gold standard for eyewitness identifications in the United States."
Ask a defense attorney -- they were well-represented on the task force that came up with the policies now in place.
The idea that police and
The idea that police and prosecutors didnt' know what they were doing when they set up bogus suspect IDs is laughable. The scientific method wasn't invented ten years ago. Everyone knew that asking leading questions was wrong. Everyone knew that hinting at which suspect to pick was wrong. And everyone did it. Now, with media spotlight on corrupt practices, they've been forced to clean up their practices. That's not because they learned that they were doing something wrong by mistake. It's just that they can't get away with sloppy and deliberately corrupting practices any more.
Are you one of the everyone?
Are you one of the everyone? If not, then how do you know?
Followup question to an intelligent and thoughtful response
This complete overhaul of which you speak, what is the current status of that effort?
It's been in effect for
It's been in effect for several years -- if you have the time and interest, you can check out the specifics at http://www.suffolkdistrictattorney.com/press-offic.... Good reading if you're into this kind of thing.
@notwhitey, I would like to
@notwhitey, I would like to hear that too, how do you take 12 precious years from a man who was innocent.
Meanwhile
One year of probation for a rich white kid who also raped a woman.
Accent on the 'rich', not the 'white'
The most important color when it comes to the law is green, doncha know - cf Kobe Bryant et al.
Is this one of those "Racism
Is this one of those "Racism isn't the real problem, classism is" things?
Allegedly
According to the Herald report you just linked, he was convicted of assault & battery, not rape.
He might have been getting off with a lesser charge than he deserved, or he might actually not have been guilty of rape. I don't have enough information to guess either way, and I suspect that you don't either.
You think the victim had trouble identifying Blume-Pickle?
This Powell guy did 12 years on one person's testimony. I wonder what the problem was with this Judy Blume case? Did the girl make it all up? If so, shouldn't that be a crime?
How the hell do you get to Assault and Battery from aggravated forcible rape (and kidnapping?) of a minor? Is it in fact corruption of some kind? We have DNA now- was there no physical evidence? This stuff drives me nuts- I just can't stand the not knowing.
See, there's one of the problems
Speculating about it has you asking "Did the girl make it all up?"
If someone says they're a rape victim, try to have two standards at once:
* assume that the victim is telling the truth, for purposes of providing the victim with support and not discouraging victims from coming forward; and
* be hesitant to condemn any accused perpetrator, since mistakes and false accusations do happen, and even an accusation alone can wrongly ruin someone's life.
The judicial process decided to convict only of A&B. Sounds like everyone involved agreed to this. But a victims' rights advocate, for whatever motivation, is making a name for themself in the Herald by complaining about what everyone else agreed to. Now, because of that advocate, you're asking whether the alleged victim made it all up, when the people actually involved probably just want to try to rebuild their lives. Nice going, victims' rights advocate.
The outcome is intellectually unacceptable
I don't know if it's Occam's Razor or whatever, but it seems either the kid should have been completely exonerated or done 8-10 years. This outcome, with its "consolation prize" charge, no jury trial, and slap on the wrist penalty, makes it seem like we're all being f---ed with. Certainly a considerable amount of damage has been done to Blume-Pickle's reputation, but the punishment is nowhere near what it should be if this was a sexual assault or an aggravated rape of a minor. And we've got Wendy Murphy adopting a diametrically opposed attitude to this case than she had to the Casey Anthony situation, in terms of accepting the "verdict" and giving the accused all the benefits of any doubt.
All I can say is, I hope this was a just resolution of whatever occurred, but it doesn't look like it.
I see your point
From the information given, I could see the truth being either direction.
Or perhaps in truth there really was an A&B, but only an A&B.
I can tell you that shortly after an accusation is made, there are people motivated to nail the accused, and they're not always entirely objective. If a man is ever falsely accused of rape by a woman, their best bet may be to take a deal, rather than risk that misguided people will unjustly get the conviction they seek anyway.
I can also tell you that a lot of guilty people go free. That's not right either. It also risks fueling angry people who then take it out on someone who happens to be innocent. Or angry people treating the process like a game with the defense counsel, deciding that, if they can persuade a jury to convict despite the tricks that defense will pull, then that's close enough to proof of guilt for their conscience.
In this case, I'm just going to call it an A&B, which is what the court determined for legal purposes, and move on.