252 replies to this topic

[imladolen]

Troy Davis's murder at the hands of the Georgia Department of Corrections has been delayed!

[Commodore]

All those state and federal judges repeatedly refusing to grant the cop killer a new trial must be racists out to get him.

Where are the posts and protest to save this guy?

Quote

HUNTSVILLE, Texas (AP) -- White supremacist gang member Lawrence Russell Brewer was executed Wednesday evening for the infamous dragging death slaying of James Byrd Jr., a black man from East Texas.

Surely he's as worthy of your efforts as some cop killer.

EDIT:

as expected:

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has rejected an eleventh-hour appeal from Troy Davis to prevent Georgia authorities from executing him for the murder of an off-duty police officer.

BTW if you want to see raw racism, just read the trending twitter topic on Clarence Thomas.

Edited by Commodore, 21 September 2011 - 10:13 PM.

[Relic]

Commodore, on 21 September 2011 - 09:24 PM, said:

Where are the posts and protest to save this guy?

What is it with people like you? Are you really that dense?

[Crazydog7]

I never am entirely sure Commodore if you're entire on board persona is a parody of itself or if you're just trying to live up to your title.  And yes reverse racism is the only type of racism that actually exists.  And will please explain to me again why Cop Killing is so much worse then regular murder?

Now I find the entire incident heartbreaking but not surprising everyone must have figured that he did enough bad things that he didn't get caught for that the scales would be balanced.  17 of 19 key witnesses say there were coerced into signing statements/making false testimony and three of the jurors said that if they had that information now things would have worked out differently for Davis.

[Underfoot]

Commodore, on 21 September 2011 - 09:24 PM, said:

All those state and federal judges repeatedly refusing to grant the cop killer a new trial must be racists out to get him.

Where are the posts and protest to save this guy?



Surely he's as worthy of your efforts as some cop killer.

It wasn't (for the most part) about Troy Davis being innocent--we don't know if he is or isn't. It's about the fact that there was just too much doubt regarding Davis' guilt. Seven out of the nine key witnesses recanted, three jury members said that if they knew then what they now now, he wouldn't be on death row, and the ballistics report was discredited.

As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, but there is very, very little to no doubt about Brewer's guilt. Also, for what it's worth, the son and grandson of James Byrd (the man dragged to death) have come out against the death penalty and didn't want Brewer to be executed. I have also seen many people on Twitter share their views.

[Stego]

Relic, on 21 September 2011 - 11:02 PM, said:

What is it with people like you? Are you really that dense?

I'm disgusted, but I did not know what to say that would not get me banned.




I don't care about race and I don't care about racism in this case. Seven of nine witnesses recanted. They said the cops coerced them into testifying.

There can be NO QUESTION that there is a reasonable doubt.

And we murdered him.

[Commodore]

http://www.cjlf.org/...visExcerpt.html

Quote

The Court begins with the evidence that proved Mr. Davis's guilt. As was explained above, the State provided three types of evidence: (1) eyewitness testimony regarding who was wearing the white and yellow shirts, and what actions the individual in each shirt took; (2) personal identifications of Mr. Davis as the shooter; and (3) secondhand confessions by Mr. Davis. (See Trial Transcript 1496-1502.) The State offered significant testimony on these points. The following witnesses identified Mr. Davis as the person in the white shirt: Harriett Murray (id. at 846, 850, 862-65) , Antoine Williams (id. at 959-64) , Steven Sanders (Id. at 979-83), Dorothy Ferrell (id. at 1020-21), Darrell Collins (id. at 1128) , and Eric Ellison (id. at 1216- 17) . Mr. Coles was placed in the yellow shirt by Larry Young (Id. at 805-06) and Valerie Coles Gordon (id. at 1162-63) . Four witnesses stated that the person in the white shirt murdered Officer MacPhail (Id. at 850, 959-60, 979, 1015) , and four directly identified Mr. Davis as Officer MacPhail's murderer (Id. at 862-65, 963-64, 982-83, 1021) . In addition, Harriett Murray (Id. at 847-50), Antoine Williams (Id. at 960-64), and Steven Sanders (Id. at 979-82) indicated that the individual in the white shirt both assaulted Larry Young and murdered Officer MacPhail. Finally, Kevin McQueen (Id. at 1231-32) and Jeffery Sapp (Id. at 1251-52) related secondhand confessions from Mr. Davis.

Mr. Davis's proof to the contrary at trial included the testimony of Joseph Washington, who identified Mr. Coles as the individual who shot Officer MacPhail. (Id. at 1342-43.) Tayna Johnson testified that she observed Mr. Coles at the Cloverdale party on August 18, 1989 wearing a white shirt. (Id. at 1362- 63.) She also testified that she observed Mr. Coles acting nervous after the MacPhail shooting. (Id. at 1361.) Jeffery Sams testified that he saw Mr. Coles, not Mr. Davis, with a firearm the night of the MacPhail shooting. (Id. at 1377-81.) Mr. Davis's mother, Virginia Davis, testified that Mr. Davis left the house for the Cloverdale party wearing a multi-color shirt and the Mr. Davis could not have spoken to Mr. Sapp the afternoon of August 19, 1989. (Id. at 1389, 1411-12.) Finally, Mr. Davis took the stand in his own defense. He denied shooting at Mr. Ellison's car during the Cloverdale party (Id. at 1417- 18), assaulting Mr. Young (Id. at 1423), and shooting Officer MacPhail (id. at 1424) . Mr. Davis testified that he did not see who shot Officer MacPhail (id. at 1424), but stated that it was Mr. Coles who slapped Mr. Young (id. at 1423). Also, Mr. Davis denied speaking to Mr. Sapp on August 19, 1989. (Id. at 1431.)

Mr. Davis's new evidence does not change the balance of proof from trial. Of his seven "recantations," only one is a meaningful, credible recantation. Supra Analysis Part III.B. The value of that recantation is diminished because it only confirms that which was obvious at trial—that its author was testifying falsely. Id. Part III.B.ii (Kevin McQueen). Four of the remaining six recantations are either not credible or not true recantations and would be disregarded. Id. Parts III.B.i (Antoine Williams), III..iii (Jeffrey Sapp), III.B.iv (Darrell Collins), III.B.v (Harriet Murray). The remaining two recantations were presented under the most suspicious of circumstances, with Mr. Davis intentionally preventing the validity of the recantation from being challenged in open court through cross-examination. Id. Parts III.B.vi (Dorothy Ferrell), III.B.vii (Larry Young) . Worse, these witnesses were readily available—one was actually waiting in the courthouse—and Mr. Davis chose not to present their recantations as live testimony.

[Crazydog7]

I'm with Stego on this one.  All points of view on a given issue are not in fact valid.  
So not a word on your own feelings in the matter?  All you've got is one blirb from a pro-death penalty website?  Sweet suffering Christ.

[NRWayne]

Commodore, on 21 September 2011 - 09:24 PM, said:

Where are the posts and protest to save this guy?

Not that you made a point worth rebutting, but I'll answer your question: right here, for one.  Would've saved that guy, too, if I could've.  But that doesn't have much to do with anything, now that it's been answered, as far as I can tell.  Now that we've (tried to) play the tu quoque game, I think that makes it your turn.  As others have already posted, 7 out of 9 of the prosecutor's witnesses signed affidavits stating that they testified falsely at Davis' trial.  5 of them said they had been pressured by the police, either by threat of charges against them or as continuations of earlier proceedings against them.  3 of them said another person had confessed the murder to them.  One said he was literally incapable of comprehending the statement he had signed, as he had not written it and could not read.  Two of the jurors who sentenced him to death - the jury being the fundamental underpinning of the whole friggin' system, after all - signed affidavits saying that based on the new evidence they would not have rendered the sentence.

The judge, as you posted, found those recantations not credible, so he didn't have to worry about what the jury would've done.  You tell me - why were the recantations made, then?  The guy's on death row.  He's already been convicted.  You were a cooperating witness for the police, and gave (according to the judge) credible eyewitness testimony about seeing Davis murder a police officer.  Why in the sweet god-damn, after all that has happened, would you then falsely say your initial testimony was a lie?  Under what circumstances would you be willing to perjure yourself after the fact, despite having put a guilty man on the road to the death chamber?

Reasonable doubt, is all it takes.  I mean, not even that, really.  You could decide he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and still say, well, but what if?  and just keep him in prison for life.  Like Stego said, you don't have to get worked up about a racist court system (you should, but you don't need to, and incidentally you're the one who brought it up in a flurry of protesting too much).  You don't have to even partially stifle your righteous indignation at the easy "cop-killer" target.  You don't even have to wonder, for even a second, whether the fact that the consensus of the jury, which heard all of the evidence and sat and deliberated, no longer holds ought to suggest something about the ultimate weight of the evidence.  All you have to do is say, given the bucketloads of obviously reasonable grounds to have a little bit of doubt, and given the fact that this is supposed to be a court of law, and there's supposed to be such a thing as a standard of proof, that hey, let's just not kill the guy, maybe?

Honestly - if this was a story about an imaginary country, with imaginary characters, where you weren't dragging in what you think you know about what the various parties involved must be like, now that he's dead and it's over: is that a story about justice?  Are there, like, good guys in this story?

Edited by NRWayne, 22 September 2011 - 01:09 AM.

[The hairy bear]

This story makes me really sad. I'm opposed to death penalty as a rule, but murdering a man after the court that sentenced him has been completely discredited is completely sick.

[Roose Bolton's Pet Leech]

If this were a New Zealand case, I think a "section 347" discharge would be very likely. And New Zealand doesn't even have the death penalty.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Commodore,

Where there is a serious possibility of the man's innocence he should not be put to death even if the evidence of innocence arises in a procedurally problematic way.  When witnesses recant and admit to lieing about hearing a confession from the person to be executed the evidence that was used to convict the man is problematic at best.  Procedure should be set aside when we are going to take someone's life.  Procedure should not supercede the State's duty to protect the lives of its citizens.  At a minimum the sentence should be commuted to life in prison.

This was unjust.  It does not mean I do not believe the Death Penalty is sometimes appropriate but it was most certainly not in this circumstance.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison, 22 September 2011 - 05:48 AM.

[Seventh Pup]

I believe in the Death Penalty as well. But I don't believe that he should have been put to death. There was to much that was questionable in this case. I think if your going to implement the death penalty the case has to be immaculate.

I also feel it was unfair what they put the victims family through. If they'd commuted it to life in prison when some the questionable police tack ticks came to light, these case would have disappeared. But that they pressed on with the death penalty made this into a circus.  To be constantly yanked around, to watch the world cast the man I believed murdered my husband as a kind of tragic hero... That is unfair, for all involved at the very least he would have had his sentence commuted to life in prison.

Edited by Seventh Pup, 22 September 2011 - 06:21 AM.

[Tempra]

Ser Scot A Ellison, on 22 September 2011 - 05:32 AM, said:

Commodore,

Where there is a serious possibility of the man's innocence he should not be put to death even if the evidence of innocence arises in a procedurally problematic way.  When witnesses recant and admit to lieing about hearing a confession from the person to be executed the evidence that was used to convict the man is problematic at best.  Procedure should be set aside when we are going to take someone's life.  Procedure should not supercede the State's duty to protect the lives of its citizens.  At a minimum the sentence should be commuted to life in prison.

This was unjust.  It does not mean I do not believe the Death Penalty is sometimes appropriate but it was most certainly not in this circumstance.

Is it meaningless to you that judges, parole board officers, etc, from both state and federal authorities all denied this guys appeal?  Not a single Supreme Court Justice dissented in the Davis decision, unlike prior executions where some Justices have dissented.  It sounds bad that seven different witnesses recanted their testimony, but when so many different men and women, both black and white, all reject this guy's appeal, I will refrain from passing judgment based on the skewed set of facts that we are told.  The people entrusted with overseeing the death penalty know all the facts, not simply the one-sided set of facts that have been pushed upon us by a decidedly anti-death penalty media.

Edited by Tempra, 22 September 2011 - 06:38 AM.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tempra,

They denied the appeal on procedureal basises.  Where a man's life is in the balance I tbink procedure should be set aside.

[Tempra]

Ser Scot A Ellison, on 22 September 2011 - 06:41 AM, said:

Tempra,

They denied the appeal on procedureal basises.  Where a man's life is in the balance I tbink procedure should be set aside.

You are referring to the last ditch appeal.  There have been appeals for 20 some odd years.  Remember, SCOTUS denied prior appeals based on substantive issues.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tempra,

And the record has changed since that time.  Hence, mu disagreement.

[Frog Eater]

Ser Scot A Ellison, on 22 September 2011 - 06:41 AM, said:

Tempra,

They denied the appeal on procedureal basises.  Where a man's life is in the balance I think procedure should be set aside.

Scot,

last year Mr. Davis was granted an innocence hearing.

innocence hearing

not just procedureal, but a judge sifting through all the evidence to determine if there was enough evidence that he might be innocent. Still guilty, still put to death.

I listened to an interview yesterday and heard that 28 different courts have had their hands on this case. That is a lot of legal system reviewing this case.

I dont feel like they executed an innocent man at all.

[Tempra]

Frog Eater, on 22 September 2011 - 07:13 AM, said:

Scot,

last year Mr. Davis was granted an innocence hearing.

innocence hearing

not just procedureal, but a judge sifting through all the evidence to determine if there was enough evidence that he might be innocent. Still guilty, still put to death.

I listened to an interview yesterday and heard that 28 different courts have had their hands on this case. That is a lot of legal system reviewing this case.

I dont feel like they executed an innocent man at all.

Yep.

From wiki:

"In August 17, 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States, over the dissenting votes of two justices, ordered a federal district court in Georgia to consider whether new evidence "that could not have been obtained at the time of trial clearly establishes [Davis'] innocence". The evidentiary hearing was held in June 2010, during which affidavits from several prosecution witnesses from the trial changing or recanting their previous testimony were presented; some affiants asserted they had been coerced by police. The State presented witnesses, including the police investigators and original prosecutors, denying any coercion. Other witnesses who had not testified at trial asserted that Coles had confessed to the killing, but this evidence was excluded as hearsay as Coles was not subpoenaed by the defense to rebut it. In an August 2010 decision, the conviction was upheld by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, which described defense efforts to upset the conviction as "largely smoke and mirrors". Subsequent appeals, including to the Supreme Court, were rejected, and a fourth execution date was set for September 21, 2011. Nearly one million people signed petitions urging the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles to grant clemency.^[7] Following a hearing, the Board denied him clemency.^[8] On September 21, 2011, the Board refused to reconsider its decision,^[9] and Davis was executed."

[ljkeane]

Frog Eater, on 22 September 2011 - 07:13 AM, said:

Scot,

last year Mr. Davis was granted an innocence hearing.

innocence hearing

not just procedureal, but a judge sifting through all the evidence to determine if there was enough evidence that he might be innocent. Still guilty, still put to death.

It seems at that hearing they had to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he was innocent which would basically have required getting someone else to admit to the murder and potentially face the death penalty. I don't know about you but even if it can't be clearly demonstrated that someone is innocent I find executing someone when there is some debate about whether it's been clearly demonstrated they are guilty rather dubious.

Edited by ljkeane, 22 September 2011 - 07:26 AM.