On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Ed Leafe <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 22, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Stephen Russell wrote: > > > I thought that it was a move to STOP every blasted incarcerated > > person from > > filing a motion that demands a retrial. > > No, not at all. DNA evidence that was not available at his trial is > now available, and he has offered to pick up the tab for the test. If > it matches, things stay the same. If not, there is proof that he was > incorrectly incarcerated, and the state has a vital interest in > maintaining the liberty of its innocent citizens. > ------------------------------------------
This was days ago that I heard this on the radio but the test is more precise then what was used back in the day for this case. Yes skillet will pick up the tab for his test first. This could only set a precedent if any skillet was demand a retest. This could tie up every lab in USA, CA, GB, just to go through all of our old cases let alone all the current testing we need today becasue we are all as good as CSI on a local level. ;0 > > > The cost to taxpayers for repeat performances would cripple just > > about any > > county, or city court system. > > That's a silly red herring. The cost to society for refusing to > free > innocent people is much higher. > > > Second part is there enough evidence remaining that both sides can > > make > > their own tests? Or is there just enough for one side? > > ??? ------------------------------------------------------------- Evidence collected from the 80s and the 90s in not only fragile, it may also be in short supply. So if there was enough for only 1 test, would it be fair in today's court system to not let the other side have a crack with their team doing the test. > > Are you reaching for straws here? He has offered to pay for the > *state* to do the test. > ---------------------------------------------- No, he was going to do the test on his nickle to see if he had the change to clear his name. At that time he would mount a new motion. > > > Do I think it is wrong? Possibly. Why? Because for every 100 > > imprisoned > > persons who yells that they are innocent, is there one or maybe five > > of them > > that are correct. So we have to go through everyone to find the one? > > > Again, it would really help if you read the actual article before > making ridiculous statements such as this. There are very few cases > where conclusive evidence that was not available at trial is later > made available. Performing the test will cost the state *nothing*. > ------------------- > I heard a long story on this subject either in the car driving or at home via TV. -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer SQL Server DBA Web and Winform Development Independent Contractor Memphis TN 901.246-0159 --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
