Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2014 2:24:25 GMT -6
Darlie got her DNA testing approved. See 8/19/14 Court Orders More DNA Testing Now maybe they can get on with the execution, because it shouldn't take that long to demonstrate why this testing was unnecessary and served only to delay justice.
|
|
|
Post by john - uk on Aug 24, 2014 6:05:44 GMT -6
I wouldn't bet on anything happenning quickly, just look at Hank Skinner and Robert Pruett to name just two.
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Sept 25, 2014 23:13:12 GMT -6
Darlie got her DNA testing approved. See 8/19/14 Court Orders More DNA Testing Now maybe they can get on with the execution, because it shouldn't take that long to demonstrate why this testing was unnecessary and served only to delay justice. According to her website today: "Current Status of Darlie's DNA Testing/Case: As we all know, the first batch of DNA testing was already completed and we have those results, which show unidentified DNA, NOT belonging to Darlie or Darin, from the crime scene." Apparently there is still more testing to go, but they have run out of money and the DNA testing company wants to be paid up front. They are now running an appeal for donations.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Sept 28, 2014 11:57:17 GMT -6
DNA testing has advanced since 1996, like skin oils in fingerprints which were unidentified.
I am pro DP but" too much on this case was iffy. There is no solid proof she is guilty or innocent.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 4, 2014 10:33:05 GMT -6
DNA testing has advanced since 1996, like skin oils in fingerprints which were unidentified. I am pro DP but" too much on this case was iffy. There is no solid proof she is guilty or innocent. She was determined to be guilty, so she was, and is, guilty.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 4, 2014 11:20:47 GMT -6
DNA testing has advanced since 1996, like skin oils in fingerprints which were unidentified. I am pro DP but" too much on this case was iffy. There is no solid proof she is guilty or innocent. She was determined to be guilty, so she was, and is, guilty. Well, there should be no problem with a more advanced DNA test to lock that guilty verdict in tight then. A good thing all the way around.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 5, 2014 14:07:38 GMT -6
Well, there should be no problem with a more advanced DNA test to lock that guilty verdict in tight then. A good thing all the way around. I have a problem with it, on moral grounds. Jury verdicts are either dispositive or not. If they're not, there's no point in having juries.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 5, 2014 14:52:09 GMT -6
Well, there should be no problem with a more advanced DNA test to lock that guilty verdict in tight then. A good thing all the way around. I have a problem with it, on moral grounds. I hope justice is based on ethics , not morality. Morality is more of a subjective issue.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Oct 6, 2014 2:03:40 GMT -6
I have a problem with it, on moral grounds. Jury verdicts are either dispositive or not. If they're not, there's no point in having juries. She was determined to be guilty, so she was, and is, guilty. “I have spent all my life under a Communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale than the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man's noblest impulses. And it will be simply impossible to stand through the trials of this threatening century with only the support of a legalistic structure.” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 7, 2014 7:01:59 GMT -6
A stupid argument, if there ever was one. Solzhenitsyn was persecuted by men, not by the courts.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 7, 2014 7:05:10 GMT -6
I hope justice is based on ethics , not morality. Morality is more of a subjective issue. It's only subjective if applied inconsistently. There is no good reason to spare one murderer the death penalty and not the other.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 7, 2014 11:09:15 GMT -6
I hope justice is based on ethics , not morality. Morality is more of a subjective issue. It's only subjective if applied inconsistently. There is no good reason to spare one murderer the death penalty and not the other. You know I have no answer for your reasoning, it is so complex. Race, gender, state by state, plea bargains etc the list is long. So, yes it is inconsistently applied. Guess the only thing I can say is" No process completely controled by like minded individuals is going to end up unbiased either.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 7, 2014 14:06:06 GMT -6
it is so complex. Race, gender, state by state, plea bargains etc the list is long. So, yes it is inconsistently applied. Guess the only thing I can say is" No process completely controled by like minded individuals is going to end up unbiased either. One particular crime, and one ascribed punishment for that crime. There's no bias in that. The only bias accrues from the weak-willed in their baffling deference to murderers.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 8, 2014 11:44:01 GMT -6
it is so complex. Race, gender, state by state, plea bargains etc the list is long. So, yes it is inconsistently applied. Guess the only thing I can say is" No process completely controled by like minded individuals is going to end up unbiased either. One particular crime, and one ascribed punishment for that crime. There's no bias in that. The only bias accrues from the weak-willed in their baffling deference to murderers. That is "your" bias opinion I see a connection between the DP & abortion. If life is " really sacred "only then will I believe life is sacred when it works both ways.. DP involves medical doctors when they use their stethoscopes to determine the job is done they are dead, they are assisting in execution. Even more so with abortions. Fact !!!
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Oct 12, 2014 10:55:02 GMT -6
A stupid argument, if there ever was one. Solzhenitsyn was persecuted by men, not by the courts. That’s got to be the stupidest attempt at a rebuttal that I’ve ever read on these forums due to the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with anything Solzhenitsyn said. You’re running scared, Phillips!
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 13, 2014 11:02:33 GMT -6
I hope justice is based on ethics , not morality. Morality is more of a subjective issue. It's only subjective if applied inconsistently. There is no good reason to spare one murderer the death penalty and not the other. Who is the guy that said "Perfect justice is neither possible or desirable?"
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 13, 2014 20:24:24 GMT -6
DNA testing has advanced since 1996, like skin oils in fingerprints which were unidentified. I am pro DP but" too much on this case was iffy. There is no solid proof she is guilty or innocent. Haven't you ever wondered if someone was going to murder her and the kids wouldn't they go for her first and get her out of the way. To attack the kids first doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 13, 2014 21:49:34 GMT -6
DNA testing has advanced since 1996, like skin oils in fingerprints which were unidentified. I am pro DP but" too much on this case was iffy. There is no solid proof she is guilty or innocent. Haven't you ever wondered if someone was going to murder her and the kids wouldn't they go for her first and get her out of the way. To attack the kids first doesn't make sense. Sure I have wondered about that. She sure appears guilty to me & I guess you but.......... The transcript that was reviewed had 33,000 errors & omissions also. Not good if that is true. You cannot keep someone on DR without a new trial" if true". Or why fear a new updated DNA test with technology so improved? Over cost of?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 14, 2014 7:34:07 GMT -6
Haven't you ever wondered if someone was going to murder her and the kids wouldn't they go for her first and get her out of the way. To attack the kids first doesn't make sense. Sure I have wondered about that. She sure appears guilty to me & I guess you but.......... The transcript that was reviewed had 33,000 errors & omissions also. Not good if that is true. You cannot keep someone on DR without a new trial" if true". Or why fear a new updated DNA test with technology so improved? Over cost of? I haven't read the whole transcript. I'm sure every case has omissions and errors because we humans are imperfect. To me that is different than deliberately leaving something out. Just reading about the case once someone brought up that one point which to me is a "valid" point. I am curious on how 33,000 omissions and errors can be left out. I mean 33,000 what?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 14, 2014 7:56:05 GMT -6
I don't know if anyone knows this but the youngest son Drake has Leukemia.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 14, 2014 9:24:27 GMT -6
I don't know if anyone knows this but the youngest son Drake has Leukemia. Yes, I know I have been keeping up on their facebook page for Drake.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 14, 2014 10:10:59 GMT -6
Sure I have wondered about that. She sure appears guilty to me & I guess you but.......... The transcript that was reviewed had 33,000 errors & omissions also. Not good if that is true. You cannot keep someone on DR without a new trial" if true". Or why fear a new updated DNA test with technology so improved? Over cost of? I haven't read the whole transcript. I'm sure every case has omissions and errors because we humans are imperfect. To me that is different than deliberately leaving something out. Just reading about the case once someone brought up that one point which to me is a "valid" point. I am curious on how 33,000 omissions and errors can be left out. I mean 33,000 what? Easy, how could 33,000 omissions & errors be left out. The biggest blunder is in the orginal transcript, a serious one. Which the court reporter lost her license over. This should have resulted in a new trial. She lied to the judge about the existence of the audiotape of the trial. One juror came forward & stated, he could not have voted guilty if he had seen the photo's of Darlies injuries " Not shown at the trial" To add: the jury saw snipets of the silly string which drew so much media attention too, leaving out if watching the rest showing the family praying & crying together. Friends brought the balloons & trinkets , Darlie's sister brought the silly string. They "illegally" wired tapped the events of June 14th which would have been Devon's 7th Birthday. Greg Davis, declared Darlie was a psychopath with no factual basis, no shrink testified to such in the trial, nor to this day as factual.. lack of ethics for sure. Though I am pro, ethics has gone out the door on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 14, 2014 13:09:53 GMT -6
I haven't read the whole transcript. I'm sure every case has omissions and errors because we humans are imperfect. To me that is different than deliberately leaving something out. Just reading about the case once someone brought up that one point which to me is a "valid" point. I am curious on how 33,000 omissions and errors can be left out. I mean 33,000 what? Easy, how could 33,000 omissions & errors be left out. The biggest blunder is in the orginal transcript, a serious one. Which the court reporter lost her license over. This should have resulted in a new trial. She lied to the judge about the existence of the audiotape of the trial. One juror came forward & stated, he could not have voted guilty if he had seen the photo's of Darlies injuries " Not shown at the trial" To add: the jury saw snipets of the silly string which drew so much media attention too, leaving out if watching the rest showing the family praying & crying together. Friends brought the balloons & trinkets , Darlie's sister brought the silly string. They "illegally" wired tapped the events of June 14th which would have been Devon's 7th Birthday. Greg Davis, declared Darlie was a psychopath with no factual basis, no shrink testified to such in the trial, nor to this day as factual.. lack of ethics for sure. Though I am pro, ethics has gone out the door on this one. Well I'm all for the courts doing the ethical right thing regardless. I never knew how she celebrated Devon's had to do with anything.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 14, 2014 14:59:52 GMT -6
ho is the guy that said "Perfect justice is neither possible or desirable?" That would be me, and it's as true now as when I said it. There's no point having a death penalty if one is going to split hairs between legal guilt and actual guilt. If a jury verdict isn't dispositive, there's no point in having juries, and no point in letting juries recommend sentencing (to which I am also opposed, on moral grounds).
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 14, 2014 15:03:42 GMT -6
That’s got to be the stupidest attempt at a rebuttal that I’ve ever read on these forums due to the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with anything Solzhenitsyn said. You’re running scared, Phillips! Not at all. I am simply saying his quotation has nothing to do with the topic.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 15, 2014 13:58:35 GMT -6
ho is the guy that said "Perfect justice is neither possible or desirable?" That would be me, and it's as true now as when I said it. There's no point having a death penalty if one is going to split hairs between legal guilt and actual guilt. If a jury verdict isn't dispositive, there's no point in having juries, and no point in letting juries recommend sentencing (to which I am also opposed, on moral grounds). That's a silly statement. Shall we not have prison because not everyone is caught? In any particular crime not everyone is punished the same but I would hardly do away with punishment because of that. It's seems to you that "Perfect justice is neither possible nor desirable" if by chance an innocent is executed. If you think that doing away with the dp is going to make all murderers be punished the same then dream on. Even if they aren't all put to death neither will the all get LWOP. So shall we not have LWOP because we know that all murderers won't get that sentence. Sure all murderers should be punished the same but I live in the real world and realize it isn't going to happen and to me that is hardly reason enough to do away with the dp.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Oct 16, 2014 2:18:01 GMT -6
Not at all. I am simply saying his quotation has nothing to do with the topic. On the contrary, it has everything to do with your position that, “there is no good reason to spare one murderer the death penalty and not the other.” After all, we’re not a nation of mindless automatons who are incapable of distinguishing the difference between a coldblooded serial killer and a mother who loses control and walks into a courtroom and blows the child molester away who just sodomized her ten year old son. Seriously, Phillips, one size doesn't fit all.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 16, 2014 7:37:13 GMT -6
Not at all. I am simply saying his quotation has nothing to do with the topic. On the contrary, it has everything to do with your position that, “there is no good reason to spare one murderer the death penalty and not the other.” After all, we’re not a nation of mindless automatons who are incapable of distinguishing the difference between a coldblooded serial killer and a mother who loses control and walks into a courtroom and blows the child molester away who just sodomized her ten year old son. Seriously, Phillips, one size doesn't fit all. I will say oslooskar that I think a whole lot more murderers should qualify for the dp and the legal system step up and not be afraid to punish a vile murder. There are some murders that seem to not qualify for the dp not because they aren't vicious enough but well I guess not premeditated enough. I can't believe it sometimes when I hear a murderer only being charged with 2nd degree murder like a parent stabbing their child to death.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 16, 2014 9:20:19 GMT -6
On the contrary, it has everything to do with your position that, “there is no good reason to spare one murderer the death penalty and not the other.” After all, we’re not a nation of mindless automatons who are incapable of distinguishing the difference between a coldblooded serial killer and a mother who loses control and walks into a courtroom and blows the child molester away who just sodomized her ten year old son. Seriously, Phillips, one size doesn't fit all. One size does fit all when it comes to murder. From the point of view of the murder VICTIM, all murderers are the same. Your view of murder is decidedly irrational. We should be punishing the crime, not the criminal.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 16, 2014 9:24:18 GMT -6
Shall we not have prison because not everyone is caught? In any particular crime not everyone is punished the same but I would hardly do away with punishment because of that. I'm for keeping the punishment, regardless. That's my point. With any punishment, there are those that will be punished by mistake. If death is a punishment, there will be people executed by mistake. I'm saying: so what.
|
|