On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:30:45 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> On 26/09/2011 2:44 PM, Michel Boucher wrote:
>> Dave > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>> the fact is troy davis was almost certainly innocent of the
>>>> crime he was executed for.
>>>
>>> Not from what I read about it.
>>
>> The weapon was never recovered. Right there, that is a definite
>> lack of information in what is specifically a shooting case.
>>
>> No gun, no prints, no "open and shut case" as Hamilton Burger used
>> to say. Obviously, habeas corpus only applies to white folk.
>>
>
> There is no single set of rules about what pieces of evidence constitute
> proof, and there was lots of other evidence. There were seven witnesses
> who testified that they saw Davis shoot McPhail, ad two others who
> testified that Davis had confessed to them that he had done it.

seven of nine witnesses recanted their testimony, some alleging police
coercion.

blake

blake murphy > wrote in
:

>> There is no single set of rules about what pieces of evidence
>> constitute proof, and there was lots of other evidence. There
>> were seven witnesses who testified that they saw Davis shoot
>> McPhail, ad two others who testified that Davis had confessed
>> to them that he had done it.
>
> seven of nine witnesses recanted their testimony, some
> alleging police coercion.

And given that the event occurred at 01h15, it was dark and from
what I can tell the eye witnesses were not near the incident and
what the eyewitnesses said was that a man in a white shirt had
fired the gun. They did not specifically name Troy Davis. It was
only the next day that someone said that Troy Davis had confessed
to him, which is, if memory serves, hearsay evidence and not
considered reliable.

--

"War is the terrorism of the rich and powerful and
terrorism is the war of the poor and powerless."

Peter Ustinov

blake murphy wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> There is no single set of rules about what pieces of evidence constitute
>> proof, and there was lots of other evidence. There were seven witnesses
>> who testified that they saw Davis shoot McPhail, ad two others who
>> testified that Davis had confessed to them that he had done it.
>
> seven of nine witnesses recanted their testimony, some alleging police
> coercion.

The seven witnesses who recanted to me is reason to drop him off of
death row. The two who did not recant to me is reason to not release
him. The conundrum is folks on death row get almost endless and almost
guaranteed appeals while folks in the rest of the prison population do
not. It's too late for anything but lessons learned at this point.

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:37:15 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> > OJ was innocent too, eh.
>
> very droll.

OJ was not found innocent. There's no such verdict in US criminal law.
It's guilty or not guilty. The jury found him not guilty of murder.

However, it wasn't over:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oj_simp...th_civil_trial

"On February 5, 1997 a civil jury in Santa Monica, California
unanimously found Simpson liable for the wrongful death of and battery
against Goldman, and battery against Brown. Daniel Petrocelli
represented plaintiff Fred Goldman, Ronald Goldman's father. Simpson was
ordered to pay $33,500,000 in damages."

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 27/09/2011 6:18 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> In > ,
> blake > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:37:15 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>> OJ was innocent too, eh.
>>
>> very droll.
>
> OJ was not found innocent. There's no such verdict in US criminal law.
> It's guilty or not guilty. The jury found him not guilty of murder.
>
> However, it wasn't over:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oj_simp...th_civil_trial
>
> "On February 5, 1997 a civil jury in Santa Monica, California
> unanimously found Simpson liable for the wrongful death of and battery
> against Goldman, and battery against Brown. Daniel Petrocelli
> represented plaintiff Fred Goldman, Ronald Goldman's father. Simpson was
> ordered to pay $33,500,000 in damages."
>

Has he paid any of that?

In article > ,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> On 27/09/2011 6:18 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> > In > ,
> > blake > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:37:15 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> >>> OJ was innocent too, eh.
> >>
> >> very droll.
> >
> > OJ was not found innocent. There's no such verdict in US criminal law.
> > It's guilty or not guilty. The jury found him not guilty of murder.
> >
> > However, it wasn't over:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oj_simp...th_civil_trial
> >
> > "On February 5, 1997 a civil jury in Santa Monica, California
> > unanimously found Simpson liable for the wrongful death of and battery
> > against Goldman, and battery against Brown. Daniel Petrocelli
> > represented plaintiff Fred Goldman, Ronald Goldman's father. Simpson was
> > ordered to pay $33,500,000 in damages."
> >
>
> Has he paid any of that?

If you read the cite above, yes. There are many examples, although they
involve going to court to get the money.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Doug Freyburger > wrote in
:

> The conundrum is folks on death row get almost endless and
> almost guaranteed appeals while folks in the rest of the
> prison population do not. It's too late for anything but
> lessons learned at this point.

It's not a conundrum. People who are not on death row have a
chance of release.

What I find particularly heinous about US capital punishment is
that proof of innocence is not sufficient cause to grant habeas
relief: a claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered
evidence did not state a ground for federal habeas relief ("[f]ew
rulings would be more disruptive of our federal system than to
provide for federal habeas review of freestanding claims of actual
innocence" - Rehnquist majority opinion in Herrera v. Collins,
1993).

Talk about a serious disconnect with reality there.

--

"War is the terrorism of the rich and powerful and
terrorism is the war of the poor and powerless."

Peter Ustinov

"Michel Boucher" > wrote in message
...
> Doug Freyburger > wrote in
> :
>
>> The conundrum is folks on death row get almost endless and
>> almost guaranteed appeals while folks in the rest of the
>> prison population do not. It's too late for anything but
>> lessons learned at this point.
>
> It's not a conundrum. People who are not on death row have a
> chance of release.
>
> What I find particularly heinous about US capital punishment is
> that proof of innocence is not sufficient cause to grant habeas
> relief: a claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered
> evidence did not state a ground for federal habeas relief ("[f]ew
> rulings would be more disruptive of our federal system than to
> provide for federal habeas review of freestanding claims of actual
> innocence" - Rehnquist majority opinion in Herrera v. Collins,
> 1993).
>
> Talk about a serious disconnect with reality there.

it is not "actual proof" of innocence that the court considered. It
considered "a claim" of innocence.

Anybody can claim anything. Proof is another matter.

On 28/09/2011 3:42 AM, blake murphy wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:23:31 +1000, Sock wrote:
>
>> We have the means to
>> tell whether someone is lying, but as it involves potentially dangerous
>> drugs, they are not used in the western world.
>
> sorry, but this is bullshit.

You can be as sorry as you like but it is not bullshit. Your Wiki
reference notes sodium amytal, and that is not what I was referring to.
They have drugs, some were in development stages in Soviet countries
when I took my Psych degree in the eighties, but were considered dangerous.

> there are drugs that remove inhibitions, but
> you're just as like to babble gibberish as tell the truth:

Not so with drugs more recent than sodium amytal.

There is a high risk, but the risk is to motor control, not intellect.
As a final step before executing someone I think that they would be
prepared to accept that risk - if they were innocent.

sf wrote:
>
> The DNA evidence against OJ was overwhelming, but the jury rejected
> it.
> http://www.bxscience.edu/publication...na/r-dna02.htm

In the long run this has been good for convictions. The members of the
jury were widely hailed as morons and everyone who remembers that time
now knows the value of DNA evidence. AS there have been cases of DNA
tampering maybe even too much so. That's a pendulum that will settle
down over time.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Dan Abel wrote:
>
>> OJ was not found innocent. There's no such verdict in US criminal law.
>> It's guilty or not guilty. The jury found him not guilty of murder.
>
>> However, it wasn't over:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oj_simp...th_civil_trial
>
>> "On February 5, 1997 a civil jury in Santa Monica, California
>> unanimously found Simpson liable for the wrongful death of and battery
>> against Goldman, and battery against Brown. Daniel Petrocelli
>> represented plaintiff Fred Goldman, Ronald Goldman's father. Simpson was
>> ordered to pay $33,500,000 in damages."
>
> Has he paid any of that?

This is a pretty good lesson in planning for retirement and lawsuits.
He is now living off of annuity income from investments that are immune
to attachment while he is alive. Any of his income from business is
subject to attachment. So he has paid from royalties from his movies
and such but not from his retirement accounts.

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:52:31 +1000, Sock wrote:

> On 28/09/2011 3:42 AM, blake murphy wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:23:31 +1000, Sock wrote:
>>
>>> We have the means to
>>> tell whether someone is lying, but as it involves potentially dangerous
>>> drugs, they are not used in the western world.
>>
>> sorry, but this is bullshit.
>
> You can be as sorry as you like but it is not bullshit. Your Wiki
> reference notes sodium amytal, and that is not what I was referring to.
> They have drugs, some were in development stages in Soviet countries
> when I took my Psych degree in the eighties, but were considered dangerous.
>
>> there are drugs that remove inhibitions, but
>> you're just as like to babble gibberish as tell the truth:
>
> Not so with drugs more recent than sodium amytal.
>
> There is a high risk, but the risk is to motor control, not intellect.
> As a final step before executing someone I think that they would be
> prepared to accept that risk - if they were innocent.

sorry, it's still bullshit. if such drugs exist, name them and provide a
cite. i'm guessing you can't.

apart from that, there's a little thing called the fifth amendment which
would preclude administering such a drug without consent. offering the
drug instead of execution is not consent.

blake

In article >,
Doug Freyburger > wrote:

> Dave Smith wrote:
> > Dan Abel wrote:
> >
> >> OJ was not found innocent. There's no such verdict in US criminal law.
> >> It's guilty or not guilty. The jury found him not guilty of murder.
> >
> >> However, it wasn't over:
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oj_simp...th_civil_trial
> >
> >> "On February 5, 1997 a civil jury in Santa Monica, California
> >> unanimously found Simpson liable for the wrongful death of and battery
> >> against Goldman, and battery against Brown. Daniel Petrocelli
> >> represented plaintiff Fred Goldman, Ronald Goldman's father. Simpson was
> >> ordered to pay $33,500,000 in damages."
> >
> > Has he paid any of that?
>
> This is a pretty good lesson in planning for retirement and lawsuits.
> He is now living off of annuity income from investments that are immune
> to attachment while he is alive. Any of his income from business is
> subject to attachment. So he has paid from royalties from his movies
> and such but not from his retirement accounts.

According to the cite above, OJ's NFL pension is not subject to
confiscation to satisfy the judgement. It's US$28,000 per year!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
Doug Freyburger > wrote:

> sf wrote:
> >
> > The DNA evidence against OJ was overwhelming, but the jury rejected
> > it.
> > http://www.bxscience.edu/publication...na/r-dna02.htm
>
> In the long run this has been good for convictions. The members of the
> jury were widely hailed as morons and everyone who remembers that time
> now knows the value of DNA evidence. AS there have been cases of DNA
> tampering maybe even too much so. That's a pendulum that will settle
> down over time.

Did either of you read the whole cite quoted above?

My wife used to work with a woman who only read the first sentence of
anything. It used to frustrate my wife to no end.

The first half of the cite above, discusses what the DNA results were.
The second half brings up questions about whether the samples were
tampered with or contaminated.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Peter wrote:

> They're going to die, why bother feeding them?

Isn't that what you've always said about your pets?

--