Texas Trying to Execute Another Innocent Person

@edgarblythe,

our legal system mirrors our political system, ed.

It's all about the dollars...

@BillRM,

DNA evidence is cut and dried, yes or no. It cannot be called a gaming ploy. What Bundy did was what Bundy did. Has no bearing on this case. To use it as a distraction is feckless.

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

our legal system mirrors our political system, ed.

It's all about the dollars...

True. Lawyers and judges welcome the circus (and money too). The truth becomes silly putty.

0 Replies

It would not be the first time someone said they were innocent and vowed that the DNA evidence would prove them innocent and, in fact, the evidence proved them guilty. Tim Hennis is a good example of that.

If there is evidence that has not been tested I say it's only right and just to test it before this man is put to death.

1 Reply

@Arella Mae,

That's all I am saying. How long could it take?

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

A judge could put a rush on it I am sure. Maybe it's like the West Memphis Three and other cases? The prosecution doesn't want to be proven wrong? Whatever the reason they don't do it, it's just plain wrong and I wouldn't want to have to live with wondering if maybe, just maybe, doing those tests would make a big difference.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

DNA evidence is cut and dried, yes or no. It cannot be called a gaming ploy

DNA evidence is not necessary cut and dry in showing guilt or innocence as I remember reading for example how a DNA profile of a woman keep showing up in one crime scene after another that seems not to be connected otherwise.

It cause problems with prosecutions and took a lot of research to find that a woman worker in the faculty that manufacture the sampling kits use to collect the DNA had somehow contaminate a few lots of the kits with her DNA.

DNA evidence needs to be look at in the total content of the crime.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

We are discussing as DNA pertains to this one case. What it proved or failed to prove in Julias C Dobbs' trial is not even remotely of interest here and you know it. It is obvious you are out of arguments, so I will quit posting here.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Well I will lay some money that the DNA evidence will be check before his death and it will not get him off.

Of course the other way is far more emotionally appealing.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

It would be so how should I put it? Civilized - to make sure instead of relying on your hunch for evidence.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

think how much time we could save ed, if we just gassed the whole wing.

most of them are probably guilty anyway.

certainly of something bad...

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

I am relying on a jury and a very long appeal process not hunches.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Sure you are.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
No. They plan to try to block testing even after killing him.

Will not work the test will sooner or later will be done.

Not necessarily. The same people who fight tooth and nail to block such testing before the execution, fight just as hard to block such testing after the execution.

BillRM wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
And Texas feels no shame at executing innocent people. In fact it makes them happy.

BULLSHIT

Their delight at the execution of innocents says otherwise.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
That's hardly a good reason to execute an innocent person.

Not proven........

The efforts to block the testing of the evidence renders your complaint over lack of proof invalid.

BillRM wrote:

that need to be proven not the other way around once a jury had voted him guilty.

No, when all attempts to test the evidence are blocked, I can presume the defendant is innocent even without proof.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
He has ALREADY done just that. Why would he balk at doing it a second time?

BULLSHIT

Nope. That Rick Perry went ahead with an execution even when there was clear evidence that the person was innocent, is very well documented.

Watch this episode of PBS Frontline for details:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-fire/

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
By the way, even though the test finally proved him guilty, so long as the state was blocking the test, it was correct to presume that he was really innocent.

BULLSHIT. He is presume guilty not innocent once a jury had found him guilty.

Nope. When the government is blocking examination of the evidence, the correct presumption is that the defendant is innocent.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

the correct presumption is that the defendant is innocent

.

That surely is your feelings however your feelings could not be more wrong.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Poor guy how many decades and how many appeals did he already had?

The fact that the government has repeatedly blocked an examination of the evidence in the past, is now justification to continue blocking an examination of the evidence?

BillRM wrote:

Claiming but for one more test of one more bit of evidence is a never ending game and everyone will then die on death row of old age.

This guy is still asking for the same test of the evidence that he was asking for during his original trial.

But in any case, there are only so many tests of evidence that are possible. And the only reason such tests take such a long time is because you and your compatriots spend years blocking and delaying each test.

Were you guys to stop fighting to block any test of the evidence, the testing would not take anywhere near as long.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

I assume that he is guilty period as he was found guilty beyond a reason doubt by a jury of his peers and the verdict was upheld in appeals after appeals over many years at both the state and the Federal level.

The fact that the government repeatedly finds someone guilty is no reason to ignore the evidence and presume that the person really is guilty.

0 Replies

Texas Trying to Execute Another Innocent Person

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know