Posted on 02/09/2006 5:31:44 AM PST by freepatriot32
RE: brainwashed child; certainly a posiblity.
Is the 'other' daughter in agreement, or are they at odds?
IMHO, if his life was ruined by her, HER
Synopsis: Other daughter was complaining specifically about a letter from someone that was posted on the site and a photograph of her with her father that was posted on the site. Although she did say she understands why people support her father.
Both daughters also appear to be in contact with their father.
In my experience, whenever I've seen websites that are on a minor crusade to exonerate a convicted felon, they wildly misstate the facts. In prison ministry, surely you have heard the old joke that everyone in prison is "innocent." There's some truth to that.
This story is just too incredible - and it just sounds like the kind of stories that guilty people tell. Now, this could be the wanna-be prosecutor's bias, but I just do not believe this story one bit.
With these allegations, the fact that no attorney has taken the case, even if only to fill out his pro bono requirements, should tell you something - no lawyer believes his story. If the allegations were credible, surely some lawyer somewhere would jump at the chance to defend one of the real innocent men in prison.
Which is why I wrote: "I THINK...."
Brilliant deduction.
the USSC case Crawford v. Washington would be applicable in this case
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-9410
Do you think there are not dishonest doctors and dentists simply because they take a different oath??????
Do you think all plumbers and masons are honest???
LOL...
I can't believe you're belaboring this point. OK, so there are a few honest ones out there. My experiences, and I realize I'm far from alone, are that lawyers aren't exactly the pillars of integrity, honesty, and decency in our society. Call me nuts. LOL
Doctors, dentists, plumbers, and masons don't screw the world up for the rest of us. Most of them, if they're bad or dishonest, won't be in business for long. Can the same be said about lawyers? Yeah right!
Nice try! Pardon me if I don't reply to you in the future. Go spend some time cleaning up your profession. I'm sure you're great, but most aren't. I'd be happy to provide you with a list of names. Most are senators or congressmen.
I know not all like the caricutaure you would like to think is the "truth" as you say, but it's even more foolish and disingenuous to try to insist that most are unlike what I've painted with a broadbrush.
I didn't say all lawyers belong in hell. You shouldn't take it so personally if you are not guilty of abusing your profession. I feel sympathy for those who are victims of the "justice" system and believe that lawyers and judges should face an equally horrid punishment for their ego driven pronouncements and amoral maneuvers when it results in the imprisonment of an innocent man. Why is it we afford judges and lawyers protections from recourse that no other profession receives when a life is destoryed?
I will be honest in that I don't think highly of lawyers or judges and the phony perches they create for themselves to look down on all the common folk maintaining a legal system where a person can not reasonably represent themselves in a credible way because of the increasingly complex puzzle of laws that manage to be enforced in a way that is more like divination than the application of justice.
Hahahahaha. I'm glad someone feels that way. I really don't mean to knock all the good conservative lawyers out there but if they are honest they have to know much of the legal system is a crock setup more to inflate the position of lawyers in society than to serve the justice of man. I think we would benefit from a much simpler and basic system because the law is like an elephant is to ant crawling on its ass. There is no way the ant is ever going to be able to fully do justice to the description of an elephant no more than any man can do justice to the tangle of knots we call the law.
It's a good ole boy network at its finest. Even judges now rule based on their own unqualified "feelings" essentially as we've all seen in many cases, the Cashman case included.
Yeah reinforcements! lol My perspective on hell has never been the same since I read "The ScrewTape Letters" and though my house is made of glass I think Lewis's description of it as a bureaucratic structure hit its mark better than any I've run onto since. I personally can not understand what can possess someone to defend the imprisonment of an innocent man for the sake of a corrupt judge with a big ego or a DA with a mission to convict no matter what. I remember watching a show where a "judge" made excuses about not giving a man a chance for a new trial because even if the "physical evidence" which he was convicted with turned out to not match his DNA that he could've used a condom so it wouldn't matter anyway. That attitude is a problem by any evaluation and though I'm sure most judges and lawyers try to do the best job they can when I hear such a defense coming out of a person's mouth who is supposed to be well educated and honorable it really makes me wonder if this is just an exception or a symptom of a real malaise in our justice system.
I don't see how this is different from any other convict claiming innocence beyond the fact that we all assume the system is biased against him as a male.
Even if it is, the man was still convicted. Nobody seemed all that eager to help him on appeal, for all his claims of not having a history of abuse and even with the failure to provide relevant discovery.
I think there is probably more to this story than the article indicates. And I have a bias against those already convicted. Everyone in prison is innocent, and there is a sucker born every minute willing to buy it.
Reading the denial of his habeas petition (http://www.geocities.com/tiluser/habeasrep.pdf), you see that the facts are not those that the convict puts forth but that he actually DID have at trial the photographs that were 'recently discovered,' and did make numerous appeals through the system in Michigan which were denied--though the article above says he did not. This seems a case of crying wolf, freepatriot32. I don't love John Engler, but if he denied clemency, I've got one more reason to be suspicious of the above description of the facts.
He-said-she-said sucks, but if you're convicted on that basis, you're STILL convicted.
"Per his appeals petition, there WAS evidence (his petition argues that he did not get adequate access to the evidence, including photographs and "toy items".) The most damning appears to be tape marks on the victims face."
But per the judge's ruling on that same petition, all that is bunk. He had access to those photographs at the time of trial and did not use them, and had access to appellate relief and did not use that properly, either. Should we let all the convicts out who had shitty lawyers? That'd be about, um, let me think, ALL of them! Just ask them!
Oops, missed this later post clarifying what you meant in the prior post. Please disregard MY previous post. 8)
Strange that nowhere a picture to be found.
"You ought to write for Lifetime."
ROFLMAO! C'mon, that's only one of the formulas they use.
1) Evil Guy subjugates wife/girlfriend/daughter, wife/girlfriend/daughter strikes back!
2) Woman becomes famous/rich/self-actualized and dumps imperfect nearly-Evil Guy for Perfect Guy!
3) Woman overcomes awful disease which strikes her/her child/her family/Bill Clinton and dumps imperfect nearly-Evil Guy for Perfect Guy!
HG: You can be convicted of most crimes upon the the testimony of one person, even if you deny it. Juries weigh the credibility of testimony and decide who's being truthful. Happens every day.
For example, would a police officer's testimony outweigh a ten-time crook's, that is, that if you were on a jury would you tend to believe the cop over the crook? I would, and I think I'm more biased against cops than the general population. Cops are just as willing to perjure themselves as crooks. But cops rarely lie about the actual crime being committed, and usually apprehend the right guy. And no matter what the claim here is, 99% of the time, if a case goes to court, the defendant did commit the crime and is just gambling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.