Hey, Bill, I have read about Rabbi Neulander's case in your Popular Crime and like you, I do believe that evidence against the Rabbi is weak and relies a lot in the Len Janoff's testimony. Not saying that he's innocent, but is my belief that he was declared guilty, more because of the perception that he betrayed the faith of his parishioners than because of the evidence against him. And there are fictional elements here... For example, I read an excerpt of Magida's book, telling the story about a friend of Neulander, which told him that he was a sociopath, in the living room of his friend's house and in front of his friend's wife!!! Is that the way people are supossed to go with an individual they believe is a sociopath? Then the question would be: how many guilty-veredicts do you think rely more in public perception than in evidence? do you think that happens very often? is one of the quirks of your judicial system?
Asked by: jbdominicano
Answered: 2/21/2012
It is very, very difficult to guess how often the Justice system misfires, and then more difficult to guess how often it misfires due to Cause A, Cause B, etc. I wouldn't use the term "public" perception; it is the perception of the jury that counts, not the perception of the public. But if you behave badly in other aspects of your life, this will tend to jump up and bite you in the ankle when you are on trial for murder.