Post by lucchesicourt on Oct 26, 2011 0:04:06 GMT -5
No, here's my standard for every EXECUTION. It MUST BE PROVEN. Texas executed a man they knew was innocent (it was proven days before his execution) , and they went through with the execution anyway. Why? The state investigator had to call Willimgham's parents and tell them that their son was going to be executed even though he was innocent. Now, there are some who say he was guilty. But the states reason was that he killed the children to cover up child abuse. His wife said he would and had never hurt the children. Where the prosecutor got this info was he needed to have motive. So, he made it up, because he had no evidence of child abuse to corroberate his assumption.
My position has always been when it comes to executing someone you NEED to be 99.99% sure. And, you need to have the physical evidence (the type that is NOT open to interpretation) to prove guilt. This is for an execution- NOT for a conviction. I believe you can get a conviction for a crime when there is reasonable evidence of guilt, as in the Darlie case- though I am not sure she is guilty nor do I believe she is surely innocent. There is just not enough evidence for an execution.
ok 1) you brought up willinghams case and i believe that every means of appeal was used and proved he was guilty......... darlie routier is NOTHING to do with the willingham case and if she is not guilty she is her own worst enemy............ silence speaks volumes love and she has not given one shred of evidence that holds up and consistently changed her stories.......... stick to one bleeding heart case at a time u might get on better
live life to the max and never ever regret anything that made u smile :-)
Post by lucchesicourt on Oct 29, 2011 12:50:29 GMT -5
Todd Willing ham was NEVER PROVEN guilty. He was convicted on the words of a so called expert's opinion, and that opinion has been investigated before and now after his death as to whether his opinion was correct. The arson investigator in this case made assumptions and used them as fact. That is WRONG!! Others seem to think his interpretations are wrong. I too believe they are wrong, not that I have any expertise in arson science, but am able to interpret the evidence based on presentation of other experts' (more than one) opinions.
My point is the prosecution in Texas will do whatever they can to convict someone of a crime. It does not matter if they are innocent or guilty. They want a conviction. And, there a ARE things in Darlie's case that are very much under question. That is MY POINT!!! Everyone who thinks Darlie is guilty without a doubt does NOT question ANY of the prosecutions witnesses, but question every one of Darlie's witnesses. I question some of each. Now, that is why I think she may be guilty, but I also see things that were done and said by the prosecution that DEFINITELY tells me that (that the verdict could be incorrect) BUT,execution is NOT a correct option in her case. I guess if you believe in the witch trials, it is the only option.
Willingham is dead, and Nothing can be done about this. So, I am not trying to get him released or anything. I am just trying to point out how the state of Texas moves too fast without investigating the verdict. I find police to be pretty much like anyone else in this world. Some will do anything to make an extra buck, and the honest ones will tell the truth regardless. The honest ones will never make it as far as the dishonest ones. Why? the honest ones will try to find the truth, and the dishonest ones will take the quick easy way out to make a buck.
Yes, I know this is New York, but I think it puts a little perspective on police departments throughout the country:
Post by lucchesicourt on Oct 29, 2011 13:03:40 GMT -5
In the Willingham case the st STATE's lead investigator (who thought the arson investigator was telling the truth) said the worst thing she EVER had to do was call Willingham's parents and tell them that even though Todd was innocent he was going to be executed. So, obviously she had serious doubts as to her guilt. Here is a police officer saying Todd was innocent. So, let me get this straight, you seem to think all verdicts of guilty are right and proved that the person was guilty. Then let me ask you ONE question do you think there has NEVER been an innocent person convicted of a crime? If you do, then your saying someone that was proven beyond reasonable doubt is ALWAYS guilty!!! And, I hate to tell you that is NOT the case.
And, to say the Willingham case has nothing to do with the Darlie case is also not true. The law, ALWAYS uses past cases to substantiate how it affects the current case. If this investigator testified in other cases, wouldn't you question the verdict in those cases? My point is the police are not as honest as many of you think. I bet you think that 99% of police are honest, when I would put that number at around 75%.
Oh, and one other thing I forgot to mention in the NY police scandal. Wouldn't you find it odd that an honest cop would show up to support a dishonest group of cops. I sure would. They all work together right or wrong. It does not matter to many cops. If I was a cop. I sure woul;d not show up to support these bad cops.
no let me put this right for you............ if someone was found guilty and then has lenthy appeals to prove his innocence and they fail then i stand by the original verdict, a certain judge may have been upstaged by a higher judge but the fact remains, he was found guilty
live life to the max and never ever regret anything that made u smile :-)
Post by lucchesicourt on Oct 31, 2011 17:16:54 GMT -5
So, you're saying once you run out of appeals you ARE guilty, even if later you can PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT that you didn't commit the crime. So, if the real perpetrator is later caught, you would HAVE to find him innocent, because someone else was already convicted for the crime. So, if I was defending this perpetrator I would claim that he is innocent of the crime, because someone else was already convicted and proven guilty of the crime. So, my client could not possibly be guilty. Therefore, the real guilty party gets to go free to commit more crimes. Somehow, this type of thinking bothers me. I question why people want to just go by the law, rather than the truth. It seems the truth has no place in the legal system. It's about getting someone convicted or getting a guilty person off through lies. This makes the legal system a game with NO intent of finding the actual truth. The truth is NO longer part of the legal system if you believe that someone is always guilty once their appeals run out. And, I know that innocent people are still in jail, and their appeals have run out. But, they still are only guilty because the legal system said so. But, at least GOD knows the truth. And, I hope HE passes the same type of judgement on those who work in the legal system as those who work in the legal system used to pass judgement on the innocent victims who were wrongfully convicted. At least God fearing people seek the truth. Those who do not seek the truth cannot be followers of God.
Post by lucchesicourt on Aug 5, 2015 23:05:03 GMT -5
Angelic, just because a jury says your guilty does not mean you committed the crime. Though it seems you think so. That would make you a very close minded and vindictive person who just wants someone to be sentenced for a crime. Even if they are innocent. The truth is not important to you. Only the fact that someone was convicted. That is sad!!! I'll pray for you.
There is now evidence that Darlie did not kill her children as none of their blood was found on her nightshirt. And, you think she should still be put to death? What type of person wants an innocent person executed?
JimSneak: Ronnie James Dio what it be like dude? I used to be a member here with more posts then even you, lol...
Apr 29, 2019 20:38:20 GMT -5
festus: You responders seem to be a little bit low on the evolution tree of brains....
May 4, 2019 9:39:03 GMT -5
puppylover54: im ted bundys daughter
May 11, 2019 19:46:15 GMT -5
May 11, 2019 19:46:24 GMT -5
bundyobsessed: What is Bundy's daughter's new name?
May 22, 2019 19:36:21 GMT -5
beanybags: no way to know since both sites are gone
Jun 16, 2019 17:16:23 GMT -5
seriously: Regarding your comment that Charles Ng comes from a "wealthy family", a "GOOD FAMILY"; since when does being wealthy equate to good? They are two entirely different things; and, frankly, some of the worst criminals are in fact wealthy. Con't in next post.
Sept 1, 2019 20:16:46 GMT -5
seriously: Consider the Clinton's: Bill has oral "isn't sex" in the White House, now virtually every kinder. knows what oral sex is. Then there's Hillary first deriding the women who came forward about her husband; then she deleting files to hide her activities.
Sept 1, 2019 20:19:48 GMT -5
seriously: Oh, and let's not forget Bill Clinton "didn't inhale" when he smoked pot...yeah, right! At a time when America's young men are being drafted for the Vietnam war, Bill & Hillary choose to take a trip to Russia and conveniently miss the draft all together.
Sept 1, 2019 20:22:46 GMT -5
seriously: Remember Hillary is for women & children; yet she only had one child and she doesn't even bake cookies...oh my! She defames her opponents with accusations of womanizing hoping we forget about her husband IN THE OVAL OFFICE! Not happening honey!
Sept 1, 2019 20:26:48 GMT -5
seriously: Then there's the BIG BANK BAIL-OUT; the banker's show up in Washington D.C. to get WELFARE (OUR tax dollars) by flying there in a LEAR JET...really! Even Obama was shocked at that move! But they're GOOD because they're WEALTHY? I think not!
Sept 1, 2019 20:33:22 GMT -5
seriously: I think Obama should have made them liquidate all their assets both business AND PERSONAL so they could climb over their own pile of s***; instead of expecting the American tax payers to do it.
Sept 1, 2019 20:35:38 GMT -5
seriously: Wake up people! Don't you realize that WE THE PEOPLE don't need the rich, THEY NEED US...to do the work that makes them richer so they don't have to clean their own toilets; and all we get is industrialized meats and crops, GMO's, antibiotic resistance.
Sept 1, 2019 20:38:53 GMT -5
seriously: Patented seed crops, running small farmer's out of business, toxic waste, poisoned water, dirty air, deforestation, global warming. By the way, who even wants to live in a GLOBAL GOVERNMENT world with a GLOBAL ECONOMY?
Sept 1, 2019 20:41:57 GMT -5
seriously: America should be more like Switzerland, fix our own 'broken wagon' and let the rest of the world fix theirs...it's not an U.S.A. problem. Screw oil, it pollutes the earth...GO SOLAR, WIND, WATER POWER! Screw the utility companies!
Sept 1, 2019 20:48:33 GMT -5
seriously: That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Best way to topple the rich...eliminate money and go back to the barter system; let the rich wipe their own bums and clean their own toilets...for a change! No more "Groom of the stool" for them.
Sept 1, 2019 20:51:50 GMT -5
seriously: Then banks and wall street can crash all they want; why should we be dragged down with them.
Sept 1, 2019 20:53:16 GMT -5