DNA Test Casts Doubt On Guilt Of Texan Executed In 2000

[tucsonlib]

http://ww2.cox.com/myconnection/arizona/today/news/national/article.cox?articleId=D9JEABA80&moduleType=apNews


"..then-Gov. Bush wasn't told everything"


Not that it would have mattered.....

:evilgrin:

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lil Missy]

2. There was other evidence against him - like his accomplice testified against him.

[COLGATE4]

3. If I'm not mistaken, accomplice testimony by itself is not sufficient

to convict in a capital case. The only physical 'evidence' they had was the hair, which their expert swore up and down belonged to the convicted man. (In fact, there is no way short of DNA where anyone can testify that two hair samples are identical - they can only be determined to be 'similar'). Without that phony assertion I don't believe they could have covicted him.

[Lil Missy]

5. That's true, but the DNA evidence is not proof of his innocence like the story suggests.

It's likely he had "something" to do with it, and he was a career criminal. I'd rather save the fight for someone who is demonstrably innocent.

[rpannier]

7. I'm glad you weren't on the US Supreme Court for the Gideon Case

1.That he was a career criminal has NOTHING to do with his guilt or innocence
2. And with all due respect to your omniscence, you know he had 'something' to do with it how exactly?
3. It's irrelevant that DNA is not proof of innocence. Since, in our system of justice it's proof of guilt that is required. People use the phrase "It's not proof of innocence..." when they are on shaky ground.
4.As to fighting only for the demonstrably innocent -- I guess I will never see you taking on a difficult challenge. It's often the people who look the most guilty that give us the protections we are entitled to. If the law applies to them it applies to us.

[bergie321]

9. "It's likely he had "something" to do with it"

Oh...in that case we should dig him up and kill him again...
:sarcasm:

[rpannier]

4. Not good enough

From the article:

The other primary evidence against Jones came from one of two alleged accomplices: Timothy Jordan, who did not enter the liquor store but was believed to have planned the robbery and provided the gun. Jordan testified that Jones told him he was the triggerman. However, under Texas law, accomplice testimony isn't enough to convict someone and must be supported by other evidence. That other evidence was the hair.

[Skittles]

6. truly dismaying

to see someone on a progressive board say, yeah, well, he MIGHT have done it and BESIDES, he had a CRIMINAL BACKGROUND. OMG.

[bergie321]

8. And this accomplice

Testified out of his sense of civic responsibility?