Originally Posted By barboy2 I eagerly 'hit' too soon (I also hit the post too early for there was something I was about to say but forgot)
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Yes because My Cousin Vinny was a hard hitting expose of our legal system.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <"I said it because the police coerced me" and then this judge saying "I don't believe that..,next!">> <Perhaps because most of them went to the police with their information?> That doesn't follow. They went to the police because they saw the shooting. Davis has long claimed mistaken identity. In other words, "they saw someone shoot the officer, but it wasn't me." There have certainly been plenty of cases in which the police have a suspect and pressure the witnesses to ID the guy they have as THE guy. That's what some of the witnesses have now said. <Perhaps because out of the 5 that were direct eyewitnesses to the murder: 3 never recanted> It also happens that people either convince themselves that the guy in custody is in fact THE guy, and then cannot be shaken of their certainty (even if later proven wrong), or are quite sincere in their belief but are still wrong. That's why eyewitness testimony is almost never considered "open and shut." It is far less reliable than many people believe. It's entirely possible that those who did not recant sincerely believe that Davis was the shooter, but are still incorrect. <1 picked Davis out of a photo line up hours after the shooting, at trial said he was 60% sure... and then said he wasn't sure.> Exactly. "60% sure" sure as hell shouldn't send someone to his death. And then this witness even dropped the "60%" part. <1 recanted that he saw Davis shoot but maintained the shooter wore a white shirt which still meant Davis was the shooter.> No. It meant that a black guy in a white shirt was the shooter. It doesn't necessarily follow that it was Davis. <Coles also was an eyewitness that didn't recant but since he was later accused I didn't include him.> Rightly so. <There were 3-4 that claimed Davis confessed to them. Their testimony was suspect at the time and their recants are just as suspect.> And you shouldn't execute someone based on testimony that is that suspect. I have no idea if Davis is innocent or not; many have concluded he is, but I've only concluded that there is too much doubt to execute him.
Originally Posted By andyll Sorry but there was overwhelming evidence that he was guilty. This wasn't a case where you had one eyewitness saying 'the black guy' did it and then given a line up of all white guys and Davis and then convicted by an all white jury. There were 5-6 eyewitnesses to the cops shooting, there where 3-5 witnesses to the other events which lead up to the and 3-4 witnesses to multiple confessions by Davis. Many of this eyewitnesses were fingering Davis before he was a suspect. That is why he became a suspect. The idea they were coerched into testifing against Davis when they were the initial ones pointing a finger at Davis before the police knew about Davis is absurb. There was 38 prosecution witnesses. There was physical evidence against Davis presented at trial. There was more physical evidence pointing to Davis that was not allowed at trial. The so called 'recants' are worthless which anyone that bothers to go read the link which describes the actual recants would see. That is why countless judges and courts have not only said there was no basis for a new trial... they have said there is no real new evidence to cast doubt on the initial conviction. It is all media hype and not facts that is driving this.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I read your link and I'm not convinced of what you want me to be convinced of. All it takes for all those witnesses to be hooey is for the actual shooter to look a lot like Davis. It's not like that has never happened before. When you have guys like Bob Barr saying "too much doubt - don't execute," to me that says "too much doubt - don't execute."
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///Yes because My Cousin Vinny was a hard hitting expose of our legal system/// ....not sure if you know that I was being silly with the 'My Cousin Vinny' thing. But on a serious note, eye witnesses to a crime committed by someone the winess does not know do not have a great track record on these kinds of things. They
Originally Posted By DyGDisney Mele, I read your link. Wow, your friend's story is so horrible and sad. It's so amazing how she is working through it and able to articulate herself at all, not to mention as beautifully as she has. Such a touching article.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I wish I could be firmly for or against the death penalty. On the same day, two different executions. The Troy Davis execution, which has become a cautionary tale about doubt and the permanence of the death penalty. And in Texas, the white supremacist killer of James Byrd was executed. Byrd's killer was unrepentant in any way, in fact, took vicious glee in the killing. The MacPhail family wanted the death penalty, while Byrd's family did not. Just strange how different the two cases are, as well as the polar opposite attitude of the victim's families. When cases of innocent people being jailed come to light, it has chopped away at my support of the death penalty. If mistakes can be made and people spend years in prison, it's horrible, but at least they can eventually be freed. The death penalty obviously cannot be undone. And then a character like Byrd's killer comes along. Someone as foul as can be imagined, of no use to anyone, someone who delights in the misery he's caused, the life he took. I just can't feel bad that he is gone.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<I just can't feel bad that he is gone.>> I can totally understand that feeling, but at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves whether we want a country that follows violence with more violence, or one that can move away from the practice of the state executing people? As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather live in a country where the death penalty isn't an option, and we don't have to worry about possibly innocent people being killed by the state. Yeah, it might suck that some demented people like Byrd's killer get to keep living, but that's just something I'm willing to live with if it means we can move away from the barbaric practice of state executions.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Was James Byrd the individual who was tied to a truck and then dragged to his death?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 And they just executed his killer. I can sleep pretty well with that knowledge.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Yeah, while I will always be against the death penalty, just the same this is not a case I'd use to support my position.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 And think about this Byrd's killer likely had a more diginified death than Byrd did. He got to say good bye to his family. He enjoyed a last meal. A religious official may have even visited him.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I can totally understand that feeling, but at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves whether we want a country that follows violence with more violence, or one that can move away from the practice of the state executing people? > James Byrd's son: "You can't fight murder with murder," Ross Byrd, 32, told Reuters late Tuesday, the night before Wednesday's scheduled execution of Lawrence Russell Brewer for one of the most notorious hate crimes in modern times. "Life in prison would have been fine. I know he can't hurt my daddy anymore. I wish the state would take in mind that this isn't what we want."
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "You can't fight murder with murder" Just thought that should be repeated.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >> I can totally understand that feeling, but at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves whether we want a country that follows violence with more violence, or one that can move away from the practice of the state executing people? << It's a good question. Public opinion has shifted, though a majority of people are still in favor of it. I think more people like me would feel better about life in prison if it meant no more jailhouse interviews with someone like Brewer. Those sorts of things are just away to inflict more pain on the public, and the victim's family. Instead, we get regular interviews with crazies like Brewer, Manson and so forth where they get to spout away.
