Still think Texas has never executed anyone who was innocent?

Someone who has lived a decent life that is wrongfully convicted of a crime and executed.

Or maybe better yet, just someone who hasn't been in and out of court rooms and jails, someone who wasn't in trouble for trying to sexually assault a 50+ year old woman.....

 

I love this. You guys act like I actually insulted the man's family, when an actual reading will reveal . . . meh, whatever. I don't really care what your interpretation is.

Message Boards 101:

You put your personal stuff out there while also earning a reputation for regularly posting howlers, don't be surprised if someone pokes fun at you.

Anyway, I'm sure 93Devil received a PM or two about what a jerkyface I am, so there's that.

And if he didn't, then some of you are asleep at the switch.

 

Why bother with a PM? I think you were out of line, so why not say it here?

To be fair, I've done it, too, or at least something very similar. Doesn't make it right.

 

So anybody who has done bad things deserves to be put to death or a crime they did not commit? Got it.

 

So where do I order my last meal then?

 

It's no biggie.

This place has made my skin pretty thick.

When I am pissed, I'll throw out the mother fucker. I'm sure Moddy knows that.

 

I'd already mentioned Richard Kimble a few posts earlier.

Basically, you need a white guy, who has never been convicted of a crime. The more professional, and religious, he is, the better.

Then, people will give a shit.

 

I'm not going to reargue the case but if you really believe that, you might want to do a little more reading. I'd start with Vincent Bugliosi's book "The Five Reasons OJ Simpson got Away with Murder." As for the death penalty, once you live in a no death penalty state, you see how well the system works. People get prosecuted faster, convicted faster and put into prison for life, no parole. It does work.

 

There is no doubt OJ Simpson killed Nicole Brown Simpson. Nobody, at least not me, is arguing this.

But Bugliosi's book only strengthens my point - that the jury based on the facts presented and all of the mistakes, missteps and general incompetence of the prosecution and police.

You can't have it both ways - you can't write a book about how incompetent the prosecution and judge was, how many mistakes were made and then claim that somehow the jury was supposed to overlook that.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high standard to meet and in the case of OJ, they didn't meet it. They fucked up, period.

 

No, not at all what I am saying and I'd say you are smart enough to know this, but you aren't so I'll spell it out --

When some fuckhead who has sexually assaulted people and been in and out of prisons and is a criminal and a thug gets executed for a crime he didn't commit, well, ain't nobody going to shed a tear and he probably isn't the best person to serve as the poster child for your cause.

 

This is a pretty good summary of the evidence. The jury was presented with blood, DNA, fiber and clothing evidence as well as a flight from the law by the defendant. There are many, many, many people convicted for a lot less.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/evidence.html

 

I agree with you - there was plenty of evidence and I have no doubt he did it.

But when you put a corrupt, racist cop on the stand, there is proof he planted evidence and he lied on the stand ("I've never used the "N" word) - that is enough reasonable doubt to produce a not guilty verdict.

I mean, yes, people have been convicted on less evidence - but how many of those trials also included the incompetence of the OJ prosecutors as well as a corrupt cop lying on the stand?