The Associated Press/Yahoo recently published an article on Cornelius Dupree, freed from prison after 30 years.
DALLAS – A Texas man had his conviction overturned Tuesday for a rape and robbery he didn’t commit after serving 30 years in prison, more time than any other inmate subsequently exonerated by DNA evidence in his state.
Cornelius Dupree Jr., 51, was formally cleared of the aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon conviction that had kept him behind bars from December 1979 until July of 2010. He served 30 years of his 75-year sentence before making parole in July. About a week later, DNA test results came back proving his innocence.
The media loves it when a black man is proven innocent through DNA. It is their feeble answer to “hate facts” such as black men rape white women at alarming rates, while white men rarely rape black women. When such stories make the headlines, it is as if to say that black men do not actually commit that much crime; rather, they are imprisoned for crimes they did not commit due to our “racist justice system”.
It is a good thing when a falsely imprisoned person is finally set free – and if Dupree, being a good man who got railroaded, threw a party at his release, I would be there celebrating with everybody else. But it is not enough for the MSM to simply report good new. No, they must embellish it with deceptions.
The initial paragraph tells us he was convicted of “rape and robbery”. The reader must continue reading through paragraph 8 to learn that:
Dupree was charged in 1979 with raping and robbing a 26-year-old woman. He was sentenced a year later to 75 years in prison for aggravated robbery. He was never tried on the rape charge.
It would seem to me that if he was never tried for rape, then there could never have been a conviction for rape. Or am I missing something? But of course I am! He was convicted for rape in the first paragraph, which everybody reads, but he was not tried for rape in the eighth paragraph, which few people read. Now it all makes sense. Silly me.
The other deception is far more subtle. By bombarding readers with photos of the innocent black man, the message being sent is “the guilty party was not a black man”. Instead, this is yet one more example of discrimination against black men. But, if we read on to paragraph 12, we learn that…
Dupree and Massingill were arrested in December because they looked similar to two suspects being sought in another sexual assault and robbery. The 26-year-old woman picked both men out of a photo array, but her male companion did not identify either defendant in the same photo array.
So the woman, being white, confused one black man with another. It is a fact that people of one race have difficulties distinguishing between people of another race unless they spend a lot of time with the other race. So what actually happened was that the guilty black man remained on the lose, while an innocent black man was locked up. But this scenario does not advance the cause of “black victimhood” – so it is only mentioned in paragraph 12, which most people never read.
Another factor to consider is that police, and prosecutors, find it much easier to pin the blame on people who already have criminal records. Though I cannot prove it, I am fairly certain that most of those cleared by DNA evidence were “criminal types” before their false convictions. Even if they were not guilty of the specific crime in question, the odds are they were guilty of other crimes. Some of those other crimes were known to the powers that be, and so the new crimes (which they did not actually commit) were also attributed to them. I am not saying that they deserved being locked up for crimes they did not commit, only that many of them were probably not upstanding citizens to begin with. The public would have less sympathy for career criminals who get away with various crimes, but get falsely convicted for something else. This would not make a good news story, so it would be omitted.
The media cannot honestly use DNA as a weapon in their war against supposed white racism. The best they can do is take tidbits of unrelated good news, such as the above, and dress it up as if it’s a case against white racism. By spicing it up, and presenting it a certain way, they are able to transform the story (in a subliminal way) into something it is not.