Briton on Death Row in US appeals to Brown

[jamesrage]

There's no way you can judge that simply based on the time that has passed.

Texas Moratorium Network - News and Events
The average stay on Texas' death row is 10 years and three months, according to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Since Texas reinstated the death penalty in the early 1980s, the inmate with the shortest stay on death row before execution was Joe Gonzales, who was executed in 1996 after eight months there. Gonzales, a roofer, was convicted in Potter County of the murder and robbery of his boss in Amarillo and waived his appeals.

 

[Morality Games]

Texas Moratorium Network - News and Events
The average stay on Texas' death row is 10 years and three months, according to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Since Texas reinstated the death penalty in the early 1980s, the inmate with the shortest stay on death row before execution was Joe Gonzales, who was executed in 1996 after eight months there. Gonzales, a roofer, was convicted in Potter County of the murder and robbery of his boss in Amarillo and waived his appeals.

. . . but that doesn't provide justification for guilt just because time has passed. There are plenty of reasons why someone might remain on death row.

 

[Coronado]

Texas Moratorium Network - News and Events
The average stay on Texas' death row is 10 years and three months, according to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Since Texas reinstated the death penalty in the early 1980s, the inmate with the shortest stay on death row before execution was Joe Gonzales, who was executed in 1996 after eight months there. Gonzales, a roofer, was convicted in Potter County of the murder and robbery of his boss in Amarillo and waived his appeals.

That basically bolsters my point.

 

[Coronado]

If they were going to lie, then why did they pick her? Obviously they knew her and she knew them. Was it simply a coincidence that they invaded the her neighbor's apartment?

You didn't even read your own link, did you?

 

[jamesrage]

That basically bolsters my point.

How does it bolster your point. If an inmate waives their right to appeals and is executed within 8 months after being sentenced then obviously the Britain on death row did use her appeals and she had plenty of appeals seeing how she is still alive after convicted 8 years ago.

 

[Coronado]

People are convicted on little evidence, bad evidence, or mis-represented evidence all the time. Since such persons have a high probability of actually being innocent ...

There is no way to know that.

 

[Morality Games]

If they were going to lie, then why did they pick her? Obviously they knew her and she knew them. Was it simply a coincidence that they invaded the her neighbor's apartment?

They had a prior acquaintance. The prosecution alleged she used old shady connections to commit the crime. Linda argued that the men incriminated her out of expedience after being caught for robbery, kidnapping, and murder because they held a grudge against her for the years she spent as a drug informant.

In any event, that evidence is circumstantial. It has already been admitted there is no forensic evidence -- nothing of her person -- that can be linked to the crime scenes. That's why the prosecution decided to argue (as part of its already implausible theory), that the scissors she had in her possession were surgical and were going to be the initial instrument for the crime. Speculative and circumstantial, but powerful in the jury's eyes, because after all, why would an ordinary citizen have surgical scissors?

Except they weren't surgical scissors.

There is no way to know that.

Of course there is. Just not outside a case to case basis.

 

[jamesrage]

. . . but that doesn't provide justification for guilt just because time has passed. There are plenty of reasons why someone might remain on death row.

If they are given enough appeals then they can stay on death row for a long time like the scum bag Stan Tookie Williams who used every appeal he could to try to weasel out of his punishment and then had the audacity to try to claim he was too old to be executed. His couldn't have taken so long because the fact California is a scumbag sympathizer state and low rate of executions. Texas however does not feel pity for scum seeing how it probably executes 20-30 people a year, if she is still alive 8 years after being convicted it was because she used some appeals.

 

[apdst]

They had a prior acquaintance. The prosecution alleged she used old shady connections to commit the crime. Linda argued that the men incriminated her out of expedience after being caught for robbery, kidnapping, and murder because they held a grudge against her for the years she spent as a drug informant.

In any event, that evidence is circumstantial. It has already been admitted there is no forensic evidence -- nothing of her person -- that can be linked to the crime scenes. That's why the prosecution decided to argue (as part of its already implausible theory), that the scissors she had in her possession were surgical and were going to be the initial instrument for the crime. Speculative and circumstantial, but powerful in the jury's eyes, because after all, why would an ordinary citizen have surgical scissors?

Except they weren't surgical scissors.



Of course there is. Just not outside a case to case basis.

The evidence is circumstantial...except for those three witnesses that testified that she was in on it. Sucks to be her.

 

[Morality Games]

The evidence is circumstantial...except for those three witnesses that testified that she was in on it. Sucks to be her.

Indeed, it does suck to be her. Three "witnesses" who were the only ones linked to the crime scenes are hardly credible witnesses. Hence my complaints:

1. No forensic evidence -- nothing of her person -- being discovered at the home invasion, the murder site, or alleged meeting grounds. No DNA evidence, no items, no anything.

2. No recordings or witnesses of her alleged participation aside from the testimony of three other guilty persons. Three persons with a possible vendetta, or at least motivation to scapegoat, against the defendant because she was an informant of parties they were involved with during the 80s.

3. A murder weapon that was both never used and was not the item described by the prosecution to the jury. A big no-no on both counts: the murder weapon typically has to be used and it has to be what was described.

So, no evidence on two essential points and very bad/mis-represented evidence on the last point. Apparently anybody can be convicted for murder in Texas.

 

[RightinNYC]

Only in Texas could someone be liable to the highest penalty after being assigned such a bullsh-t defense on the grounds of not just no evidence, but mis-represented evidence. Even if I believed this woman was guilty, I would still pardon her because the case was decided on nothing.

With such a horribly misguided view of the justice system, I pray you never end up on a jury.

If there is reason for retrial, shouldn't she get one? And aren't you supposed to get appeals when you're sentenced to death anyway? Meh, I don't like the death penalty none, too many things go wrong.

She does get plenty of appeals, and is currently in the process of going through them. If the court finds that there were problems, they're free to order a retrial.

She only participated in the crime on the testimony of four men who have been demonstrated to be biased against her and the surgical scissors which were both never used and which turned out not to be surgical scissors. The evidence is not strong. To be convicted of murder on such evidence is tantamount to a nihilistic joke.

What we have here is another classic example of someone reading a few (likely biased) articles about a long and detailed trial and concluding that they know everything there is to know about the case.

If the British government wants to provide her with an attorney for her appeals, they're free to do so.

 

[Wessexman]

If there is reason for retrial, shouldn't she get one? And aren't you supposed to get appeals when you're sentenced to death anyway? Meh, I don't like the death penalty none, too many things go wrong.

Personally I'm inclined to only very rarely have appeals about the facts. To me it is for a jury to decide the facts and not be over ruled by a judge but if the evidence seems grossly deficient that could be different I suppose.

 

[JW Frogen]

Gordon Brown is on political death row.

Wrong venue of appeal.

Try God.

Who Nietchze put on death row, but who still gets an appeal.

 

[Laila]

She is as good as dead.

Most likely.
Sad that she will get the easy way out given to her by Texas rather than life behind bars knowing she would never see freedom.

 

[Laila]

If an American commits murder in the UK I hope that individual is subject to the full penalty of British and punishment. You will not see me on some scumbag sympathizer band wagon making up excuses why that person should not be punished under the full penalty of law in that country that scumbag violated. She was convicted in a court of law and found guilty of murder, so she should pay the price.

We do not agree with death penalty. If we do not perform that ... act on our own citizens on British soil. Why should we accept it happening to them elsewhere?

 

[Agnapostate]

The inhabitants of Texas wouldn't know the meaning of criminal justice if it assumed the form of a gonorrhea-infected python and repeatedly anally violated them.

 

[RightinNYC]

We do not agree with death penalty. If we do not perform that ... act on our own citizens on British soil. Why should we accept it happening to them elsewhere?

You (meaning the UK) can complain about it all you want, but that's where sovereignty comes into play. You can't force us to do anything in our courts, just like we can't force you to do anything in your courts.

(Unless of course we have a trade deal you want to get passed.)

 

[Coronado]

The inhabitants of Texas wouldn't know the meaning of criminal justice if it assumed the form of a gonorrhea-infected python and repeatedly anally violated them.

Thanks for that.

 

[Wessexman]

We do not agree with death penalty. If we do not perform that ... act on our own citizens on British soil. Why should we accept it happening to them elsewhere?

What do you mean we? I'm not a particular fan of the death penalty and obviously our politicians don't want it back but I'd be surprised if at least a significant majority were not for it.

 

[Laila]

What do you mean we? I'm not a particular fan of the death penalty and obviously our politicians don't want it back but I'd be surprised if at least a significant majority were not for it.

We as in the political establishment.
The United Kingdom and Europe.
Our stance on death penalty is pretty clear seeing it must be abolished to be considered in the EU.

 

[Wessexman]

We as in the political establishment.
The United Kingdom and Europe.
Our stance on death penalty is pretty clear seeing it must be abolished to be considered in the EU.

You're tempting me to change my anti-DP position.:2razz:

Apparently the EU technically is not too hot on monarchies. Guess which the British people would choose?

 

[Laila]

You're tempting me to change my anti-DP position.:2razz:

Apparently the EU technically is not too hot on monarchies. Guess which the British people would choose?

Lol

Obviously the Monarchy will be chosen over EU and UK is not the only European country which has one in place still.

 

[jamesrage]

The inhabitants of Texas wouldn't know the meaning of criminal justice if it assumed the form of a gonorrhea-infected python and repeatedly anally violated them.

What you said is nothing but vile nonsense with no trace of fact.

 

[jamesrage]

We do not agree with death penalty. If we do not perform that ... act on our own citizens on British soil. Why should we accept it happening to them elsewhere?

If that woman did not want to face the death penalty they should have murdered someone in Britain or some other country that sympathizes with scumbags. When in Rome do as the Romans do, in other words you do not travel to some other country and commit a crime there and go whining to one of your politicians back home to save your ass just because you do not like the punishment handed to you.

 

[Coolguy]

You will not see me on some scumbag sympathizer band wagon making up excuses why that person should not be punished under the full penalty of law in that country that scumbag violated.

:doh

I guess that all depends, huh?

In the following you sure did do such a thing when their own words convicted them.
Not only that, but in the case at hand, you choose to except the word of three (as you would call them) scumbag criminals, but in the following, you want to dismiss what the so called scumbag criminal said just because he is a criminal.

... and that the two border guards were wrongfully convicted.

No they weren't.
The transcripts are available. Why don't you read them.

Nor does it change what the border guards said.

Like I said: The transcripts are available.
What they said convicted them.

Most people with any common sense will still refuse to take the word of an illegal alien drug smuggling criminal.

You are mistaken.

Can anyone say hypocrisy?

The evidence in the case at hand is very weak, unlike the above.