Posted on 12/07/2004 6:15:31 AM PST by crushelits
I don't give a damn what you think about what I think.
You sound like a punk college kid who's never had a day's hard work and you live in your little academia world where you and your liberal professors "puzzle" and strategize things out.
They make mistakes like we all do, if not, there would never be appeals or mistrials.
You sound like you're in training for to be an appeals lawyer.
????? How could an appeal start BEFORE a verdict?
Admit it, you're Wendy Murphy, aren't you?
You know what I meant there. After the sentencing Appeals will start coming.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That was good...
'night FRiends
Im certainly not liberal, maybe the Professors are, but not me. I am anti-abortion, anti-gay, gun loving, gun toting conservative. I just believe all should receive a fair trial with all of the evidence heard from both sides.
I know you misspeak a lot.
Don't pin your hopes on an appeal; your boy is going down and he's not going to get back up.
Explain, please.
It could be Chris Pixley; certainly smarmy enough. :-)
My hopes arent up and he certainly isnt my boy. He deserves death if he did it. I hope he doesnt get off, but Its my hope that eventually the Jury will be allowed to hear all evidence.
Since you aren't familiar with all the "evidence" in this case, you better be careful what you wish for.
There's a lot of stuff out there about Scott Peterson that's going to make people vomit when the jury comes back and that gag order is lifted.
Here is a sampling of people found guilt from circumstantial evidence and then later exonerated.
THE WRONGLY CONVICTED
The following brief synopses are intended to provide a general flavor of the nature of each of the 75 cases since 1972 in which people have been exonerated after having once been sentenced to death. Each of these cases deserves book-length treatment, and we apologize in advance for any material omission or errors in the facts as set forth here.
Some notes of interest:
* Of those on the list, James Richardson's case in Florida spanned the longest period of time - 21 years.
* Sabrina Butler and Sonia Jacobs are the only women on the list.
* At 19, Florida had the largest number of wrongfully convicted capital cases followed by Illinois with 9, and Texas with 8 cases.
Randall Dale Adams
Texas
Convicted 1977; Released 1989
Mr. Adams was sentenced to death after having been convicted of murdering a police officer. The prosecution's key evidence against Mr. Adams was the testimony of a 16-year old named David Harris, who claimed to have been sitting in the passenger seat when Mr. Adams shot the officer from the driver's seat. In return for Harris's testimony, the prosecutors did not charge Harris at all. At sentencing, Dr. Henry Grigson (a psychiatrist known as "Dr. Death) compared Mr. Adams to Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson. While Mr. Adams was on death row, a film maker took an interest in his case and began an investigation that led to compelling evidence that Harris had committed the crime. This evidence included the fact that Harris had stolen the car that day, had stolen the gun from his father, and had bragged to several friends that he had "offed that pig in Dallas." The evidence showed that Harris had decided to frame Mr. Adams because he was upset at Mr. Harris for not having given a place to stay that evening. After the release of the film, "A Thin Blue Line," a new trial was ordered. Prosecutors ultimately dropped all charges against Mr. Adams.
Jerry Banks
Georgia
Convicted 1975; Released 1980
Mr. Banks was convicted of murdering two people in the woods and was sentenced to death. The prosecution's case rested on the fact that Mr. Banks was seen near the crime scene that day and owned a shotgun that was consistent with some shells found near the scene. A new trial was ordered when a witness came forward to confirm much of Mr. Banks' account of having happened upon the bodies. This witness had spoken to the police at the time of the crime, a fact that was kept hidden from the defense. At his second trial, Mr. Banks was represented by an attorney who would later be disbarred, and Mr. Banks was again convicted and sentenced to death. In the aftermath of this trial, a new team of lawyers and investigators took over the case and found several witnesses who had heard the shotgun blasts. These witnesses agreed that the shots came in rapid succession, a fact that ruled out the weapon Mr. Banks owned. Moreover, the witnesses had seen another man arguing with one of the victims shortly before the shooting. Based on this new evidence, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the conviction. Georgia officials then announced that all charges would be dropped against Mr. Banks.
Gary Beeman
Ohio
Convicted 1976; Released 1979
Mr. Beeman was sentenced to death after being convicted of murder in the course of a fight. The prosecution's case was built on the testimony of a convicted felon named Clair Liuzzo, who had escaped from prison at the time of the murder. Liuzzo claimed that he saw Mr. Beeman with the victim and later heard from Mr. Beeman confess to having had committed the murder. The trial court refused to allow the defense to put on witnesses who had head from Liuzzo that he had himself committed the murder and was framing Mr. Beeman. On appeal, the conviction was reversed because of the unfair restrictions on the defense at trial. Upon retrial, several witnesses testified about admissions they had heard from Liuzzo, and Mr. Beeman was acquitted of all charges.
Jerry Bigelow
Arizona
Convicted 1981; Release 1989
Mr. Bigelow was sentenced to death for the murder of a man with whom he another man had hitched a ride. The evidence against him came from the testimony of the man who admitted to having had actually committed the murder, but claimed that Mr. Bigelow was in on the plan. In return for this testimony, the admitted murderer was spared the death penalty. Complicating matters for Mr. Bigelow was the fact that he confessed to the crime as soon as he was told that he would receive a lesser punishment if he confessed. After Mr. Bigelow's conviction was reversed due to trial error, his new trial counsel presented to the second jury testimony from a large group of witnesses who had heard from the other man that he had killed the victim without Mr. Bigelow knowing anything about it, indeed while Mr. Bigelow was sleeping. The jury initially returned a not-guilty verdict but due to some confusion about the forms, a mistrial was declared. The California Court of Appeals later ruled that the not-guilty verdict was valid and cleared Mr. Bigelow of all charges.
Kirk Bloodsworth
Maryland
Convicted 1984; Released 1993
Mr. Bloodsworth was sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a nine-year old girl. Police came to suspect Mr. Bloodsworth because he resembled a composite sketches that a police artist had made from some witness accounts. A ten-year old girl also identified a picture of Mr. Bloodsworth, although she said that his hair was too red. When police interrogated Mr. Bloodsworth, they placed the rock with which the victim was killed on the table. When Mr. Bloodsworth later referred to it as the "bloody rock," police took this as a sign that he had guilty knowledge. The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the conviction because the prosecution had not turned over exculpatory evidence, and the parties geared up for a second trial. Just one week before that trial, prosecutors divulged that a psychologist had reported that another man, who resembled Mr. Bloodsworth, had come to a clinic on the day of the girl's murder and asked to speak about his relationship with a young girl. Nonetheless, the jury again convicted Mr. Bloodsworth. After this trial, the defense was able to show that the man who went to the clinic had fresh scratches on his face, but Mr. Bloodsworth still obtained no relief. Years later, at the behest of new counsel, the victim's underpants were sent for DNA analysis, which conclusively established that Mr. Bloodsworth was not the person who had raped the girl. The trial court granted Mr. Bloodsworth's motion for a new trial, whereupon the prosecution dismissed all charges against him.
Clarence Brandley
Texas
Convicted 1980; Released 1990
Mr. Brandley was sentenced to death after having been convicted of raping and murdering a 16-year old girl in the high school where Mr. Brandley was employed as a janitor. The prosecution's case was built on the premise that there were five janitors who had opportunity to commit the crime, and the other four (who, unlike Mr. Brandley, were all white) provided alibis for each other. The defense would only later learn that Caucasian hairs that did not match the victim were found upon her body--a fact that was extremely exculpatory of Mr. Brandley. The case against him, it turned out, was built on pure racism. One of the arresting officers had told him, "We need someone for this. Since you're the nigger, you're elected." After an evidentiary hearing at which a judge determined that two of the white janitors had most likely committed the crimes, Mr. Brandley's conviction was reversed and the prosecution dropped all charges against him.
Anthony Silah Brown
Florida
Convicted 1983; Released 1986
Mr. Brown was sentenced to death after having been convicted of murdering a deliveryman. The prosecution's key evidence was the claim of another man who had been arrested for the crime and implicated Mr. Brown as an accomplice. This man was given a deal in return for his testimony against Mr. Brown. After returning a guilty verdict, the jury recommended a life sentence for Mr. Brown, but the trial judge overrode this recommendation and imposed a sentence of death. On appeal, the court reversed Mr. Brown's conviction because his fundamental rights to a fair trial had been violated. During the ensuing retrial the prosecution's key witness admitted that he had lied during the first trial. The jury acquitted Mr. Brown of all charges.
Jesse Keith Brown
South Carolina
Convicted 1983; Released 1989
Mr. Brown was convicted of murder during the course of a robbery and was sentenced to death. The key evidence against him was the testimony of his brother, which was plagued with serious questions. Mr. Brown represented himself at his first trial, which was ultimately overturned by the South Carolina Supreme Court. He was convicted again at a second trial, which was also reversed by the South Carolina Supreme Court. The third trial, by contrast, ended in Mr. Brown being acquitted of the murder charges.
I agree with that Howlin.
How would you like them to hear this:
Tracking dogs found Laci Peterson's scent in areas that suggested she left her home by car, not foot, and had been in her husband's boat.
Peterson told another former mistress from early in his marriage that he had no intention of having children "because they would get in the way of his lifestyle."
Peterson refused to take a lie-detector test.
If Scott had removed Laci's head, arms and legs before putting her into the bay there would have been a tremendous amount of blood. NO ONE can clean up that amount of blood. No blood evidence except for small smudge in one of the cars, I believe. And I think it was SP's.
Her head and limbs most likey were not present because they were anchored.
Refusing to take a lie detector test doesnt prove guilt. I posted an article earlier about a guy from Illinois that was convicted after tracking dogs picked up the scent, but was later exonerated when DNA tests proved him innocent.
When I was 20 I said the same things about me and kids. That was during my wild days ofcourse, now Im 32 and ready for kids.
I still wonder(if he did it) where he cut her up at. It would be hard to do that in the open without someone seeing it.
If he did indeed cut her up, he deserves more than a needle.
I certainly hope he didnt cut her while she was still alive.
No, but it sounds really bad, doesn't it.
Just like his mother telling him to "deny, deny, deny" sounds bad.
Or his own mother saying even Scott wasn't stupid enough to dump their bodies in the bay.
Or that he had Viagra in his car when he was arrested.
You keep harping on not convicting somebody on circumstantial evidence; how can you be in college and not know that MOST cases are prosecuted on circumstantial evidence?
YOu act like there's something wrong with circumstantial evidence -- it's like you don't even realize that circumstantial evidence is treated just like direct evidence.
Hey, thanks as always for the ping...but mostly thanks for hanging with that guy! You have toasted him on every issue. He is a dog with a bone, no? (o:
Guess, you've never heard of Luminol.
You keep harping on not convicting somebody on circumstantial evidence; how can you be in college and not know that MOST cases are prosecuted on circumstantial evidence?
By his own admission, he is 32 years old
and still a student. A trite slow perhaps?
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.