No, I'd say that's significant, if true. But I'd also say a lot of information is left out or possibly misrepresented. 1- lack of a gun or DNA means nothing, this isn't the fantasy world of CSI. Remember that the shell casings were linked to a shooting earlier that Davis was at.That's significant in my opinion, cuz it really narrows down the number of possible suspects to a small group. 2- if the witnesses were threatened with having charges fabricated against them then that would be significant, and yes, a new trial should be given. But if they were given a deal to reduce other nonrelated charges against them (remember the guy he bragged to in his jail cell and his friend that testified against him ) in return for testifying against Davis, and this is being twisted into intimidation.... well then that means nothing either. And what is this alarming number? 1? One notices that the number is never given, only referred to as an "alarming number", an obvious ploy to appeal to the emotions rather than to the logic. 3- the guilty always profess their innocence, so this means nothing. 4- why did many of the witnesses recant 'years later'? When I hear that, I assume that these were the same people that say they were intimidated back then, but were really given a deal to testify, and now wish to recant now that the statute of limitations on their prior charges has expired. This is never examined in the anti DP crowd, because if I'm right, would hurt their cause. However, I admit to have no knowledge of this, but it proves my belief that your quote leaves a lot of information out. If they really wanted to raise serious doubts about his conviction, they should try to anticipate these questions and answer them beforehand. 5- "some of the witnesses didn't get the chance to recant......" But the question is - WOULD they have recanted back then, or are these the same guys that now have had their statute of limitations run out on them now, if I am indeed correct in my theory? And how many is "some"? Again, this Q should have been answered beforehand by the anti DP crowd waaaaay before this point. Facts and specifics are glossed over to appeal to the emotional folks again, rather than presenting evidence that could be used in court. 6- ".... procedural bind...." Again a red herring with the goal of appealing to the overly emotional. It really takes an unreasonably cynical person to actually believe that there is absolutely no way to get this case looked at if there is new evidence. Here's a circumstance where new DNA evidence would absolutely prove his innocence - so it's a lie to say that this is an impossibly high standard. Another appeal to the overly emotional. But what exactly is the beef here? There's NOT any new evidence, but some witnesses that would recant their testimony, which means that if they didn't testify back then, then this wouldn't have happened in court, which doesn't necessarily mean that he would have been found innocent. There could have been other another way to pursue the prosecution of Davis under these circumstances. Too many variables to list.... In the end, you need to realize that the stories one reads in the newspapers, etc are all about selling product. And sensationalism sells. Also you need to realize that the anti DP crowd feel passionate about their beliefs - which I can respect - and will lie if they feel they need to in order to get what they want. I don't know how old you are, but I remember a case back in the late 80's of some kids going 'wilding' in NY Central Park. They beat a 110 lb woman jogger nearly to death - crushed her skull, she lost 2/3 of her blood, and was pronounced doa at the hospital, even though she survived - and raped her. The kids bragged about it in the jail, confessed about it on videotape to the cops with their parents sitting there. There was semen found on the woman, but it wasn't from any of the 6 defendants. But newspapers at the time claimed that since the semen didn't come from any of the 6, they were all innocent - which is bullshit because they weren't convicted on the semen evidence, but rather on their confession. And here's the kicker - 10 yrs later news stories come out with the breathtaking story that new DNA evidence proves that the 6 were innocent - a total lie. It only proved that there was a sixth, unidentified kid there - a point that the 6 admitted to when they said that there 'some dude they didn't know taking his turn'. Always remember who's giving you the facts before you make a judgement...
"3- the guilty always profess their innocence, so this means nothing." What do the innocent and wrongly accused profess?
You're right, so I'll amend to: All accused profess their innocence, so this means nothing. Thx for the oppurtunity to correct myself.
No, not all accused profess their innocence, some plead guilty for a reduced sentence. Wrong again, twice in a row now...a regular habit.
mate, i appreciate your effort in replying, agree its no light matter and there's been abuses etc but this is not necessarily about DP is it? i mean unless the reporters are totally faking it, in which case they shld be barred from the profession for life if not jailed, there does seem to be a reasonable doubt this guy might have been framed, and if thats a reasonable possibility, why the rush in dispatching him? that people could have recanted way before etc doesn't prove anything... would you recant if you totally believed the guy had coldly killed a cop, unthreatened? i'd say no. therefore if so many guys truly are recanting now, perhaps its worth a 2nd look, no?
Good points, particularly about the Central Park jogger case. Those punks were guilty as sin, and they got off because of racial intimidation of prosecutors. They had grass stains and dirt on their underwear. How did that get there? New DNA evidence is routinely misrepresented by the media. As in the Central Park case, it rarely establishes innocence, only that someone else was there. Of course, it is a lot harder to prove a negative, eg that they didn't do it. This is not to say that new DNA evidence should be ignored, only that there is a world of difference in overturning a conviction and saying someone was exonerated or wrongly convicted. This Georgia case seems troubling because the major evidence was eyewitnesses, and many of them have apparently recanted. We don;t know why they recanted. They could have been pressured or promised something. They could have been coerced into wrongly testifying in the original trial. We know from the Duke "rape" case and other horrible examples of prosecutorial misconduct that prosecutors and police are not above fabricating a case, and a cop killing would no doubt have put extra pressure on them. On the other hand, the original prosecution seemed to be plausible; this was not some guy picked up at random off the street. I'm glad I don;t have to make the determination.
Agreed, it's not just about the DP, but they're definitely the tip of the spear, and I have reservations about their motivations, based on their past history. I would disagree somewhat about the reporters - jail or barring doesn't fit with the ideals here. Better to let them bury themselves. And I don't know how one could say that there definitely IS a reasonable doubt here, when one bases their opinion on a news article or blog that doesn't examine some of the points I brought up. I think it's also a misrepresentation to say that there's a rush to dispatch the guy. I also think it's absurd for these guys to say that the court/justice system WANTS to execute him. Again, one would have to be unbelievably cynical to think that. As far as recanting - again, we need to know what were the circumstances surrounding their testimony in the first place - questions I raised in my above post. Whether or not I would recant has nothing to do with what others would do, so it's pointless for me to answer. But also, the fact that they want to recant NOW doesn't disprove their prior testimony either. And besides, their testimony may only be identifying him at the scene. They may not have known if he did or didn't even back then. And that's the point on the '96 law - it has to be believable AND able to change the jury's decision. Otherwise, it would never end. Anyways, I'm done . Cheerio mate !!!
One thing to remember is that guilt comes over all humans ...we deal with remorse and regret...and jurrors and witnesses are no different...its very easy to see self doubt creep in knowing a man has been sentenced to death based on their words and or actions...so they start to have second thoughts years later....amazing though all this irrefutable 'proof' that should set this guy free.....Yet im sure ZZZZzzzz thinks Barry Bonds should be banned from the Hall of Fame because he has been linked to steroids....hmm
Should Bonds be banned from the Hall of Fame? No, but I do think the entire steroids era should have its own wing. Barry is an ass, and even if he didn't juice up (which I believe he did) his numbers before the chemical enhancements were going to be enough for him to get in. Great baseball player, great athlete, enhanced by chemicals to be even greater, and one of the truly great asses in sports like T.O. and Kobe. Bonds, Kobe, and T.O. all cut from the same rags of asshole... Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame, so should Shoeless Joe. Here's hoping Alex Rodriguez can stay healthy for the next 10 years and stay on track.
no probs - i guess where i'm coming from is you want to hold journalists / medias to the highest standards of professional integrity if they can't manage by themselves... and you don't want to apply any irreversible measure to someone who's perhaps been convicted a bit hastily and might just have been framed... if its true that a majority of witnesses are now recanting, that would def be a problem anywhere outside the US... thats all i'm saying... cheerio and hope your right on this one