Mr Bojangles Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 What more dreadful thing could you do to an innocent man than take his life?What more dreadful thing could you do to a murder victim's family than let the killer off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 What more dreadful thing could you do to a murder victim's family than let the killer off? Who said anything about letting killers off? Of course killers should be brought to account. This isn't about that, it's about a man who may well be innocent being killed by the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bojangles Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Who said anything about letting killers off? Of course killers should be brought to account. This isn't about that, it's about a man who may well be innocent being killed by the state.The Supreme Court is happy that he's guilty. Legally, that means he's guilty, and however much you think you might know from the comfort of your armchair thousands of miles away, you're in no position to offer wisdom on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 The Supreme Court is happy that he's guilty. Legally, that means he's guilty, and however much you think you might know from the comfort of your armchair thousands of miles away, you're in no position to offer wisdom on the subject. Read this. It'll take you about an hour, so I don't suppose you'll bother. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann That's a guy they killed a few years ago who was utterly innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bojangles Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Read this. It'll take you about an hour, so I don't suppose you'll bother. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann That's a guy they killed a few years ago who was utterly innocent. And I don't suppose it might occur to you that I've already worked through that article? And others, but they're just articles, and no more legal fact than anything we might stumble across in a red top. The simple truth is that appeal courts don't refuse appeals on serious charges unless they're pretty damned sure the charges are sound, and that's good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 And I don't suppose it might occur to you that I've already worked through that article? And others, but they're just articles, and no more legal fact than anything we might stumble across in a red top. The simple truth is that appeal courts don't refuse appeals on serious charges unless they're pretty damned sure the charges are sound, and that's good enough for me. Is it good enough for you if witnesses give forensic opinion based on nothing more than supposition and old wive's tales? You clearly haven't read that piece or you'd be aware that the review board in effect ignored a report from an arson investigator which proved that there was no arson and therefore no murder. Wrong in your assesment about the article. Entirely factual and draws heavily on the evidence that was presented in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bojangles Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Is it good enough for you if witnesses give forensic opinion based on nothing more than supposition and old wive's tales? You clearly haven't read that piece or you'd be aware that the review board in effect ignored a report from an arson investigator which proved that there was no arson and therefore no murder. Wrong in your assesment about the article. Entirely factual and draws heavily on the evidence that was presented in court. I have read it - as I said I had. You chose to believe all the details of an unofficial internet article - that's fine for you. I would only take for gospel whatever I heard in a court, and accept that the information available to the public is likely to be distorted and manipulated. I guess we're different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 What more dreadful thing could you do to an innocent man than take his life? Some things happening since thr trial could be used to say he was innocent but there seems to be conclusive evidence that he was guilty. I cannot condemn the state of Georgia for "wilfully executing an innocent man" unless I had access to every fact concerning the case which I dont have but others may have. The media in many cases only publish with incomplete facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 How many of Sheffield Forum's armchair jurors were at the trial then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 22, 2011 Author Share Posted September 22, 2011 Some evidence could be used to say he was innocent but there seems to be conclusive evidence that he was guilty. I cannot condemn the stete of Georgia for "wilfully executing an innocent man" unless I had access to every fact concerning the case which I dont have but others may have. Does the fact that seven of the nine witnesses for the prosecution recanted their testimony bother you? Or the lack of any forensic evidence? Or that two witnesses state that another man fired the fatal shots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.