|
Post by kma367 on Sept 16, 2005 21:14:08 GMT -6
Skyloom, Courts did entertain numerous claims of innocence and/or constitutional flaws in the trial process in every case cited by anti-death penalty groups as examples of "actual innocence." In fact, Death penalty appeals and collateral attacks, in fact, are reviewed more thoroughly and scrutinized more closely than cases in which the defendant has been sentenced to life in prison. It's funny that death penalty opponents have a problem with the possibility that an innocent person has been executed, but they have no problem with the chance of an innocent person being sentenced to life in prison with little or no hope of release. With the exception of the mention of the failed lie detector test, the rest of the claims are untrue. www.vuac.org/capital/rogercoleman.pdfThe NAACP, unfortunately, don't offer anything more than the stories of two witnesses that have changed, perhaps in response to pressure placed upon them by representatives of the NAACP. Generally, courts don't reverse a conviction based on one witness, two witnesses or ten witnesses changing their stories and saying that the convicted is actually innocent. www.missourinet.com/capitalpunishment/Case_notes/Griffin_la.htmIt appears that the deceased victim was able to identify his killer. It's a shame he died and was unable to later change his story in Mr. Griffin's case. To be continued . . .
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Sept 16, 2005 21:15:28 GMT -6
O'Dell's challenge arose from testing done on www.vuac.org/capital/tables3.htmlThis link also provides additional information about the challenges raised by O'Dell. www.vuac.org/capital/josephodell.pdf The detective who investigated the Lake Waco murders was Truman Simons. Ramon Salinas isn't mentioned in any of the appellate briefs covering Spence's case and it sounds as though his role in the case is being either exaggerated or fabricated by anti-death penalty groups. Spence didn't challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against him in his direct appeal and only belatedly attempted to challenge it in his post-conviction and federal habeas cases. The evidence he presented to the courts in those challenges was unpersuasive. Here are the facts of the case from Spence's appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals: Spence v. Scott, 80 F.3d 989 (5th Cir. 1996). Deeb's conviction was reversed on a constitutional technicality. In a nutshell, a witness who testified against Deeb mentioned hearsay statement that had been made by David Spence in his testimony. That deprived Deeb of his right to confront and cross-examine a witness against him and his conviction was reversed. Without Spence's statement on re-trial, the prosecution was unable to convict Deeb a second time. Considering how much time had passed, that's not much of a suprise. To be continued . . .
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Sept 16, 2005 21:15:59 GMT -6
The facts presented at Jones' trial were quite different from the sparse facts relied upon by the anti-death penalty group claiming his innocence: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=fl&vol=alpha9803%5Cwk3%5Cjones_vs_st_92234&invol=2When witnesses come forward just prior to a killer's execution, the first question I always ask is why they didn't come forward years earlier, you know, like at the trial. If the police and prosecutor don't want to talk to a witness, the defense will be more than happy to. Especially when that witness says their client wasn't the killer they saw. This site has a wonderful article which busts every myth that arose in the media frenzy surrounding Graham's execution. Antis should read it. Ms. Skillern said it all: These experts, apparently, weren't available to testify on Willingham's behalf during his appeals. The facts of the case, also, don't appear to match the representations presented to give the appearance of innocence for Mr. Willingham. www.txexecutions.org/reports/320.aspwww.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/willingham899.htmThis site also has an article about Willingham: www.prodeathpenalty.com/Pending/04/feb04.htmkma367
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Sept 16, 2005 22:07:25 GMT -6
Executed But Possibly Innocent As blakely already stated (in Frances Newton's case). Just listen to the victims. They say: "There was not a single innocent person executed!" Good argument! Good enough for the likes of you and skyloom. I and others have made so many factual arguments and linked so many documents that disprove this nonsense yet, the same old crap keeps getting falsely asserted.
|
|
|
Post by maxine on Sept 17, 2005 10:15:51 GMT -6
[Qoute] If you can provide examples with links to court records of innocence, I would be interested to investigate further. Anyone can say that the executed were possibly innocent - that is why I was specific. [EndQuote] Ok. I heard your scream. The exact reason why i believe she was INNOCENT is stated in this PDF document : Link (URL) : www.amnesty.nl/downloads/vs230805.pdfThe executors should be ashamed of themselves... because they didn't want to read that document... or the court denied the appeal while knowing. Maybe one of them had the avenged insurance policy i mentioned, whilst getting that booty of money to let her be killed "legally" yuck.. just think about that possability !!! Friendly greetings Wim Hamhuis The Netherlands Europe greetings Wim I read your linked article, thanks for posting it. Unfortunately the article is an opinion of amnesty international who obviously have a vested interest in proclaiming innocence. I have read various transcripst from the case but arrived at a significantly different opinion. The majority of the transcripts are available online, for an independant view I would point you to them. Having said all this, the murderer has been executed. In this case, justice has been served. best wishes, maxine
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Sept 17, 2005 13:36:41 GMT -6
Hi, Maxine,
Could you post a link to Newton's trial transcripts, etc. here? I'd love to read them and the "Free Frances" website doesn't seem to have any of those things available.
Thanks,
kma367
|
|
|
Post by kma367 on Sept 17, 2005 14:37:47 GMT -6
RED, I recognize Bush won once, his second election. The first election was won by Mr. Gore, but Bush got the votes he actually needed from the Supreme Court with his chief Justice, the late Mr. Renquist. And okay, if the expression “thrown out” bothers you in any way, ignore it. I don’t feel hatred against anyone, I just like to use some sarcasm sometimes. Michael, here's a bit of information about the late Chief Justice: Now, I may be a little rusty on my civics, but it's my understanding that the President apoints the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. How could Rehnquist have been appointed to Chief Justice by GWB who hadn't been elected to the presidency at the time Rehnquist sat on the court as its Chief Justice? Or did "his Chief Justice" refer to something other than Mr. Rehnquist's appointment to the post of Chief Justice, which as you can see occured 16 years before the 2000 election? kma367
|
|
|
Post by maxine on Sept 17, 2005 15:37:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by texasnative on Sept 19, 2005 7:32:10 GMT -6
It's interesting that people are making references to all of these Death Row cases where the convicted has a case, or rather an arguement, that says they are innocent.
OF COURSE there is an arguement that says they are innocent.
And there is an arguement that says they are Guilty.
And both arguements have been examined in a court of law to the best of their abilities and the truth wins out.
Now think about this.
A peson commits a PRE MEDITATED MURDER.
The person gets caught.
And then there are people on this site that find it INCONCIEVABLE that a person who committed a PRE MEDITATED MURDER would actually LIE about it.
Good grief.
Wake up and smell the tortillias.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2005 12:53:58 GMT -6
How did that line from, Breakheart Pass? Go? (Something like, Bronson says, 'ya have in front of you a (suspected) murderer.? Arsonist? Rapist? And now ya wanna call (me) a, Liar!?' :-) (Paraphrased, ...my best.) Think about it. "WHAT I NEVER UNDERSTAND" is, ...since the condemned on Death Row, have in fact been found: "Guilty!" Convicted on the specific capital charge. ...How can anyone put to death have been innocent?
|
|