--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > Look, if you want to depend on Red State and Ann Coulter-- > who lies like a rug, including in the column you linked to-- > far be it from me to try to talk you out of it. But I don't > respect that choice. >
Other than the link you provided, I didn't find details about Davis' case in the media, so I looked rightward. I don't depend on the right for information. I expect them to lie. I've watched Glenn Beck and listened to raging Rush, occasionally. I know what these guys and Coulter are about. They're disgusting, hateful people. IMO it's good to know the enemy. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Supremes took *four hours* to decide to reject the > > > > > request for a stay. Why didn't that in and of itself > > > > > suggest to them that "beyond a reasonable doubt" > > > > > didn't apply in this case? > > > > > > > > The death penalty is barbaric. There was so much media hoopla > > > > in support of Troy Davis, mostly emphasizing recanted testimony, > > > > I began to wonder what evidence got him convicted "beyond a > > > > reasonable doubt" in the first place. I don't know exactly what > > > > the Supremes talked about for four hours, but if they limited > > > > their review to the evidence in the original case, it's doubtful > > > > that people changing their minds about what they saw 20 years > > > > ago figured into their decision. > > > > > > I don't know what the request for a stay was based on; > > > I doubt it was the evidence in the original case. The > > > court would have considered whatever the request put > > > forward. I suspect it was more likely they considered > > > what had gone on with the various appeals, whether those > > > courts and the pardon board had properly conducted their > > > examinations. > > > > > > > I had a feeling I could get another slant on the story if I > > > > went to www.memeorandum.com Sure enough conservative wingnut, > > > > Red State had some details about the case not reported by the > > > > media. Red State wingnuts cheer Rick Perry for executions in > > > > Texas. It's no surprise their article is biased against Davis. > > > > > > Yeah, I wouldn't take Red State's version as gospel. > > > > > > > According to Red State there were 34 witnesses, not 9. > > > > > > The 9 they keep referring to were the eyewitnesses who > > > identified Davis as the shooter. Of course there were > > > lots of other witnesses. This is irrelevant. > > > > > > > Only two of the 9 changed their testimony materially. > > > > > > What's Red State's definition of "materially"? Does it > > > include the witness saying they were uncertain of their > > > identification but were coerced by police into stating > > > it as a fact? > > > > > > The thing is that the ways the identifications were > > > obtained in the first place were incredibly sloppy. > > > I read a long article about this at one point, which > > > I can't now find, but the police behavior was really > > > scandalous. > > > > > > > Police obtained obtained clothing from Davis' home > > > > with MacPhail's blood without a warrant. It was > > > > never brought into evidence. > > > > > > There's an editorial note saying the blood was never > > > tested for DNA, so I'm not sure how they know it was > > > MacPhail's. > > > > > > > There were gun casings matching Davis' gun in a > > > > previous shooting. > > > > > > That testimony has also been called in question. And > > > it was "*could* have come from the same gun," not "*did* > > > come from the same gun." They never found the gun. > > > > > > > Given the botched collection of evidence, IMO Davis might have > > > > been found not guilty if he had had good legal representation. > > > > > > Or at least not given the death penalty. > > > > > > > The police screwed up, they were certain Davis shot MacPhail > > > > and didn't want him to get away with murder, so they fixed the > > > > case against him. I don't know, just sayn'. It's just sad they > > > > had to kill him. > > > > > > Here's a thorough summary of the eyewitness testimony > > > and recantations, and how the appeals courts ruled when > > > the recantations were cited as reason for a retrial: > > > > > > http://legalcases.info/troydavis/ > > > > > > > Thanks for the link, Judy. From what I read, it's not surprising Davis was > > unable to establish his innocence in his appeal to the courts. Changes in > > eyewitness testimony against Davis didn't convince me of his innocence, but > > I'm not convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, either. > > Eyewitness accounts of a crime often change. Judges consider that when > > making a decision. In Davis' case, the judges didn't find anything > > exculpatory in any of the eyewitness testimony. IMO they reviewed the > > witnesses testimony fairly. > > > > Although she doesn't cite any supporting links, the Queen of Heartless, Ann > > Coulter, weaves a convincing story that Davis was the shooter. > > > > http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-09-21.html > > > > > So much of the appeals process is procedural rather than > > > evidentiary. For example (from Wikipedia's Davis article): > > > > > > "Legal experts argued that a major obstacle to granting Davis a > > > new trial was the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act > > > of 1996, passed after the Oklahoma City bombing, which bars > > > death row inmates from later presenting evidence they could have > > > presented at trial. Members of the legal community have > > > criticized the restricting effect of the 1996 Act on the ability > > > of wrongfully convicted persons to prove their innocence." > > > > > > From the Wikipedia article and the testimony summaries > > > above, it really does look as though while the prosecution > > > was gunning for Davis, they had help from ineffective > > > defense attorneys, as you suggest. > > > > > > On the other hand, one of the defense attorneys in the > > > appeals process pointed out that the organization that > > > funded the attorneys had its budget cut by 75 percent, > > > which made it impossible for the attorneys to interview > > > some important witnesses who might have had significant > > > new evidence. > > > > > >
