PDA

View Full Version : 'Cincinnati Strangler' dies


TheNoNamedOne
06-13-2007, 07:21 PM
Posteal Laskey Jr. never admitted he was the “Cincinnati Strangler (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070612/NEWS01/306120033),” one of the city’s most notorious serial killers.

His accusers were frustrated for years by Laskey’s denials because they believed he raped and killed as many as seven women between 1965 and 1966. They wanted him to admit what he’d done. ...

Prison officials confirmed Tuesday that Laskey died of natural causes May 29 at the Pickaway Correctional Institution in Orient, Ohio. They did not disclose the cause of death but said Laskey, who was 69, had been sick for some time. ...

Laskey’s family believes police and prosecutors got it wrong. They say Laskey was the victim of mistaken identity and racism.

“Back in them days, the city was scared,” said Laskey’s brother, Russell. “They needed an arrest. They got a scapegoat.” ...

Deters tried to reopen the old cases in the 1990s, but the victims’ clothing was too old and degraded to extract DNA that might have led to the killer. ...

Deters said the most compelling evidence that Laskey is the strangler came after he went to prison.

“Once he was incarcerated,” he said, “the strangulations stopped.”


First, I think the real reason they didn't go ahead with the DNA testing was because it would have exonerated him. But that is just speculation on my part.

Second, the majority of serial killers do not fit the profile of Afrincan American.

Third, what kind of evidence is it that absence of something points to guilt? That is merely circumstantial and far from the label of "most compelling" -- so much that it justifies in taking a possible innocent man's whole life from him.

I am not sure if he was innocent or not, but this whole story of this man's 'crime' and life behind bars smells of injustice. I have to wonder about this man's lawyer and the racial make-up of the very conservative citizens of Cincinnati that served on this jury.

dk
06-13-2007, 07:35 PM
But still, once he was incarcerated, the strangulations stopped. How many serial killers just stop for the heck ot if?

I don't think one news article is adequate material to say whether this smells of injustice or not. I wouldn't even pretend to know until after I spent weeks, months, or even years researching this, and then, I still wouldn't know for sure. Just as nobody seems to know right now for sure one way or the other.

I do believe that people have become scapegoats in the past. But I also know that a lot of criminals will deny their criminal activity until the day they die if they have any chance whatsoever of being set free.

Third, what kind of evidence is it that absence of something points to guilt? That is merely circumstantial and far from the label of "most compelling" -- so much that it justifies in taking a possible innocent man's whole life from him.

But still. Once he was incarcerated, the strangulations stopped. For good. Years ago. And I don't recall them using this as evidence to prosecute him. They couldn't have. It was just a statement made after the fact.

You also have to keep in mind that few bonds are stronger than that of family. It is highly unlikely that his family knew one way or the other if he was innocent or guilty. To him, he was their brother and son. Without evidence one way or the other, their words are just that. Words.

Boost
06-13-2007, 10:09 PM
But still, once he was incarcerated, the strangulations stopped.

That was my first question. I do not know much about the case, but kind of had the same thought process going on.