Jump to content

Innocent After All?


Lucky
This topic is 6020 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

The US Supreme Court today allowed defendants convicted long ago to use modern DNA testing to contest their convictions in cases where the evidence in all likelihood would not cause the same result today. Seems pretty fair to me given that DNA evidence wasn't available then and is pretty conclusive on many issues that might have led to guilt in the past.

 

The conservatives didn't see it that way, though. They would rather the innocent man suffer in prison or even be executed rather than allow him to present the new evidence to a court. Thankfully Alito couldn't vote on this one, but no one should mistake this court for having a semblance of justice once he does.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061200469.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, this "innocent" man was on parole at the time, having recently been released on parole following a sentence of five years to life for aggravated sexual assault in Utah.

 

When questioned about the murder the previous evening, "House claimed - falsely, as it turned out - that he spent the entire evening with his girlfriend, Donna Turner, at her trailer. Asked whether he was wearing the same pants he had worn the night before, House replied - again, falsely - that he was."

 

As it turns out, those pants (you know, the pants he lied about) were found in the dirty clothes and guess what was found on them - yep, the dead woman's blood.

 

oops

 

Oh yeah, AND he was seen coming up from the area (which was in the bushes) where the body ultimately was found.

 

So, this is not a case about "conservatives" wanting to fry an "innocent" man but rather a decision dealing with arcane state vs federal habeas corpus laws and how they should be interpreted in light of precedent.

 

Granted, that discussion is not nearly as fun as trashing "conservatives" but it's more legitimate.

 

The point of this case is not about saving an innocent man but rather his attorneys doing what they're suppose to do - defend their client.

 

What will end up happening, and you'll never read about it in the papers, is that they'll do all the DNA testing and it will affirm the verdict. And maybe, fifteen years later and countless more appeals he'll finally fry.

 

No great loss.

 

Sympathetically yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FOOM DIDN"T READ THE OPINION

 

The defense here has shown that the blood found on the victim's pants was most likely caused by spillage at the lab, not the defendant. DNA testing has conclusively proven that the semen found on the victim was her husband's, not the defendant's as the jury was led to believe. Since the inference that it was the defendant's semen led to the rape aspect of the conviction, surely it must be returned for consideration as to how a jury might have ruled had they known the truth of the evidence.

 

Foom, follow your own advice. Read the actual opinion, available at the Supreme Court website. It's only 58 pages long!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zipperzone

RE: FOOM DIDN"T READ THE OPINION

 

>Foom, follow your own advice. Read the actual opinion,

>available at the Supreme Court website. It's only 58 pages

>long!

 

Well - you know how FFF is. He has his own spin on things and if you don't see it his way, you're toast.

 

Exasperatedly yours,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE:Foom Is Not So Innocent After All

 

Just like his friend Ann Coulter, Fin Fang Foom lies and runs. Now that his lies have been exposed, he doesn't return to the scene.

He says above:

"What will end up happening, and you'll never read about it in the papers, is that they'll do all the DNA testing and it will affirm the verdict"

Foom ignores the fact that the DNA testing HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE! The semen was the woman's husband, not the defendant's! New evidence implicates the husband in the murder. Since the semen was used to support a charge of rape in the commission of the murder, and there was no rape, at least by this defendant, he deserves to have the matter reconsidered.

 

But Coulter, Foom, and the Bush/Reagn appointees would have the man die instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: FOOM DIDN"T READ THE OPINION

 

>The defense here has shown that the blood found on the

>victim's pants was most likely caused by spillage at the lab,

>not the defendant.

 

 

Didn't you read the opinion? If you did, you wouldn't have said that. The pants were tested BEFORE the spillage so that contention doesn't matter one way or the other. They could have been soaked in her blood after the fact and thrown in House's face and it STILL wouldn't have made a difference.

 

Clarifyingly yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: FOOM DIDN"T READ THE OPINION

 

Still avoiding the truth, eh? You don't seem to remember your comments about the semen and DNA? You are wrong on both counts and you still haven't read the opinion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: FOOM DIDN'T READ THE OPINION

 

Well, Foom, at least I am having fun reading this opinion and seeing the slimy swelter of your Ann Coulterish lies.

 

The Court states that the semen "was the only forensic evidence at the scene that would link (defendant) House to the murder."

As for the blood on the jeans, even the medical examiner testified that it probably got there DURING THE AUTOPSY. There were numerous errors in the handling of the blood that could have caused leakage and spills. The court concluded that there are: "substantial questions about the blood's origin." The blood evidence is worthless.

 

Additionally, TWO witnessed testified that the victim's husband, who had a history of spousal abuse, CONFESSED to committing the murder, not the defendant!!!

 

So, go ahead, pull the switch yourself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: FOOM DIDN'T READ THE OPINION

 

>Additionally, TWO witnessed testified that the victim's

>husband, who had a history of spousal abuse, CONFESSED to

>committing the murder, not the defendant!!!

 

Yes they did - and as I've said before, those two witnesses were HIS SISTERS who shared those confessions with the court FIFTEEN YEARS AFTER HE WAS CONVICTED. I guess the confession slipped their minds while their brother was ON TRIAL FOR MURDER.

 

A court reviewed all the new "evidence" and found it unreliable.

 

Repeatedly yours,

 

FFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: FOOM UNAMERICAN?

 

You only (futiley) refute the evidence piece by piece, ignoring the totality that screams for justice. What's the matter, Foom, you don't really believe in our system of justice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...