|
Post by bernard on Jan 1, 2015 17:33:33 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. That's a reasoning error. The verdict is neither dispositive on its own, nor pointless. It's an essential part of a process that, as a whole, is dispositive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 17:43:19 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. That's a reasoning error. The verdict is neither dispositive on its own, nor pointless. It's an essential part of a process that, as a whole, is dispositive. However, holding a new DNA test just because new technology is available is also a reasoning error. Unless the petitioner can show how new test results could overturn a conviction, the only thing a new test would accomplish is to further delay an execution that is already decades overdue.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 1, 2015 17:59:18 GMT -6
No new trial needed--she convicted herself with the 911 call. She's got 2 kids dying in front of her and she's talking to 911 about the fact that it's too bad she wiped the knife off and maybe they could have caught the killer if they had prints? Please. Case closed then huh? In 2001, my wife and I were driving through Pennsylvania in a rain storm when the car hydroplaned, did a 180 and slid into the next lane. A semi-trailer truck was unable to stop. It hit us in the front, crushed the engine and bounced us off the highway. We slid down an embankment and the car rolled over several times before hitting some rocks, destroying the trunk and back seat area, and then stopping on its side. I climbed out with a scrape to the shin, my wife with a shoulder sprain. No-one else was in the car, thank god. The only part of the car that wasn't totaled was the part we had been sitting in. The semi pulled over and we got into the driver's cab out of the rain while he called an ambulance. He made us a cup of tea or coffee or something. After a few minutes, I felt I was imposing on his hospitality. I said "Well, we'll be on our way." I really imagined, at that moment, that we were going to lift the ruined car back onto its wheels, get in, drive up the embankment and continue on our journey. The driver insisted that we stay until the cops and ambulance arrived. The point is that it's amazing what you'll say when you are in shock. I'm not going to judge someone on a 911 call.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 1, 2015 18:03:09 GMT -6
That's a reasoning error. The verdict is neither dispositive on its own, nor pointless. It's an essential part of a process that, as a whole, is dispositive. However, holding a new DNA test just because new technology is available is also a reasoning error. Unless the petitioner can show how new test results could overturn a conviction, the only thing a new test would accomplish is to further delay an execution that is already decades overdue. Well the Texas legal system has granted the request for another DNA test. So I guess you're saying that the Texas legal system is prone to reasoning errors.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 1, 2015 18:43:56 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 19:41:35 GMT -6
However, holding a new DNA test just because new technology is available is also a reasoning error. Unless the petitioner can show how new test results could overturn a conviction, the only thing a new test would accomplish is to further delay an execution that is already decades overdue. Well the Texas legal system has granted the request for another DNA test. So I guess you're saying that the Texas legal system is prone to reasoning errors. Bingo. And certain judges are to blame. They allow their hatred of the death penalty to cloud their judgement. This problem is more prevalent on the federal bench, but Texas has its share of liberals on the bench who think they know better than The People, just like any other state.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 1, 2015 19:53:56 GMT -6
Well the Texas legal system has granted the request for another DNA test. So I guess you're saying that the Texas legal system is prone to reasoning errors. Bingo. And certain judges are to blame. I would worry that a system prone to reasoning errors would end up executing innocents. Or let me guess---the mistakes all go in one direction only?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 19:55:57 GMT -6
Yep, read that one before. But no matter how many "discrepancies" one finds in a case, one can always add more and more. None of these add up to a level that explains why anyone would break into that house, butcher two kids, leave valuables in view, and exit without leaving a trail. And those who believe the verdict was correct can also go out and get factoids. She cleaned the sink of blood before the police showed up. Excuse me? Even someone in shock wouldn't do that. Here's one the jury didn't hear: Darlie agreed to a polygraph, apparently showed up for it, and then balked. Never took it. And Darlie couldn't have inflicted those wounds herself because she had no history of mental illness? Uhm, that one doesn't even make sense. Her point would have been to mislead the jury by making those shallow cuts, not demonstrate mental illness. Both sides can go on and on with this. But there was a trial held in accordance with the law. Evidence was examined. A jury spoke. Appeals were denied. It's over. Only activist judges will keep this going.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 1, 2015 20:03:31 GMT -6
Greg Davis was indicted in Collins County by a grand jury in 2010, tampering with Govermentmental records, though & a judge let him off. Not connected to the Routier case, sure gives a good insight though. Well, there was a lot of dirty politics around this whole case, that should mean something for this trial. Those are actual photo's of Darlie, do not look self inflicted to me, not shown to the jury as this article states.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 2, 2015 0:30:23 GMT -6
Both sides can go on and on with this. But there was a trial held in accordance with the law. Evidence was examined. A jury spoke. Appeals were denied. It's over. Only activist judges will keep this going. When appeals are denied, that's the law folks, and people just need to accept it. When appeals are granted that's also the law folks it's activist judges keeping the whole thing going.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 12, 2015 14:09:21 GMT -6
When appeals are granted no they do not go on & on. Your released or your totally exonerated.
It's over either way. Now if they commit a crime it stands on it's own.
|
|