Wrong man was executed in Texas, probe says

[peter skelton]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/wrong-man-executed-texas-probe-says-051125159.html
and lots of other places

Just for you Fred

Peter

[Dean]

On May 15, 7:37 pm, "peter skelton" <skelto...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/wrong-man-executed-texas-probe-says-05112515...

> and lots of other places
>
> Just for you Fred
>
> Peter

Kind of off topic isn't it?

[peter skelton]

"Dean" wrote in message
news:e1e00245-1a35-4455...@h41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

Follow up to a lengthy recent thread.

(What was your first clue?)

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:c8p6r752c8h087fcb...@4ax.com...

>And let's examine that just a bit, Peter.

<snipped where Fred holds his legal judgement superior to that of several
law school journals>

Please do examine it Fred. Next time do the research and leave your bias at
home

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:pfe7r7lqhdf3614gd...@4ax.com...

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
>news:c8p6r752c8h087fcb...@4ax.com...
>
>"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>http://ca.news.yahoo.com/wrong-man-executed-texas-probe-says-051125159.html
>>and lots of other places
>>
>>Just for you Fred
>>
>
>>And let's examine that just a bit, Peter.
>
><snipped where Fred holds his legal judgement superior to that of several
>law school journals>
>

No 'legal judgement' involved, Peter. Just noting the very same facts
that ONE study by ONE guy and some STUDENTS noted.

>
>Please do examine it Fred. Next time do the research and leave your bias at
>home
>

>The FACTS that Peter doesn't want you to think about?

1) Somebody else confessed.

2) A thorough legal review came to the conclusion he was innocent.

Your blather is unconvincing.

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:kum8r79j7taup6h2s...@4ax.com...

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
>news:pfe7r7lqhdf3614gd...@4ax.com...
>
>"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
>>news:c8p6r752c8h087fcb...@4ax.com...
>>
>>"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>http://ca.news.yahoo.com/wrong-man-executed-texas-probe-says-051125159.html
>>>and lots of other places
>>>
>>>Just for you Fred
>>>
>>
>>>And let's examine that just a bit, Peter.
>>
>><snipped where Fred holds his legal judgement superior to that of several
>>law school journals>
>>
>
>No 'legal judgement' involved, Peter. Just noting the very same facts
>that ONE study by ONE guy and some STUDENTS noted.
>
>>
>>Please do examine it Fred. Next time do the research and leave your bias
>>at
>>home
>>
>
>>The FACTS that Peter doesn't want you to think about?
>
>1) Somebody else confessed.
>

>Somebody who was suffering liver failure and thus non compos mentis.

That depends on which of his several confessions you go with

>
>2) A thorough legal review came to the conclusion he was innocent.
>

>Wrong. The word they use is "likely", based apparently on little or
no evidence. HIS OWN ATTORNEY is convinced he was guilty.

Allow me to quote: "numerous missteps, missed clues and missed opportunities
that let authorities prosecute Carlos DeLuna for the crime of murder,
despite evidence not only that he did not commit the crime but that another
individual, Carlos Hernandez, did,"



>
>Your blather is unconvincing.
>

>So why do you keep removing it to keep people from seeing it in your
responses?

Up to now I've been deleting replies that contain flat untruths. This time I
I called you on them.

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:vc5ar7pfgiuj87se6...@4ax.com...

>But the evidence that way was 'inconclusive', too. You want to ignore
that bit.

OFCS, you've been caught in a flat lie. The review's statement was flat and
direct, not "likely". No amount of waffling or misdirection trumps a direct
quote.

[Alex Potter]

On 16/05/12 09:41, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> And let's examine that just a bit, Peter.

I'm not going to argue the toss about that one, but this guy is yet
another who would have been long since dead had we still had capital
punishment in the UK:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18102336

--
Alex

[Bill]

In article <jp3tme$3vr$1...@dont-email.me>, spa...@ap-consulting.co.uk
says...

The truly terrifying thing about that one is the absolute refusal of the
police to admit that they'd made a complete and utter mess of the case
and just made their suspect fit the evidence and quietly forgot about
anything else, including the evidence that has freed him.

The police weren't corrupt or malevolent, just incompetent.

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

[La N.]

"Alex Potter" <spa...@ap-consulting.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jp3tme$3vr$1...@dont-email.me...

We've had similar situations in Canada:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/08/06/f-wrongfully-convicted.html

... and I refuse to believe that Texas has an infallible system.

- nilita

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 17, 3:38 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18102336
>
> The truly terrifying thing about that one is the absolute refusal of the
> police to admit that they'd made a complete and utter mess of the case
> and just made their suspect fit the evidence and quietly forgot about
> anything else,  including the evidence that has freed him.
>
> The police weren't corrupt or malevolent, just incompetent.

Eh. As for the entire issue- if you want proof that Texas ever
executed an innocent man, this is not the best case. There is another
one, involving a man who was convicted of torching his own house,
killing his kids. He was convicted, sent to prison, /mistreated/
there, and eventually executed.

Pretty much everyone now agrees he was entirely innocent. The
evidence that convicted him, or rather the interpretation of the
evidence was entirely wrong.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

peter skelton wrote:

> "Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
>
>

> OFCS, you've been caught in a flat lie.

killfile the lying little prick.
;-)

[peter skelton]

"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." wrote in message
news:NNidnRHW4fm3QyjS...@supernews.com...

Consider it done, bye Vince

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:9fgbr7l46ht7t8roo...@4ax.com...

>Nobody said it did. However, you (among others) still have to point
to a single proven mistaken execution in the US in modern times.

Liar

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:0vfbr75gvhsdj60l8...@4ax.com...

>Which part of "done" was it that confused you? You lying now doesn't
change that. Let me repeat the bit you snipped off.

Pray live up to your word and repeat the non-existent bit I snipped off.

<s>

[Dean]

On May 18, 7:21 am, "peter skelton" <skelto...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."  wrote in messagenews:NNidnRHW4fm3QyjS...@supernews.com...

>
> peter skelton wrote:
> > "Fred J. McCall"  wrote in message
>
> > OFCS, you've been caught in a flat lie.
> >killfile the lying little prick.
>
> ;-)
>
> Consider it done, bye Vince

LOL, good one, Peter.

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Bill wrote:
> In article <jp3tme$3vr$1...@dont-email.me>, spa...@ap-consulting.co.uk
> says...
>>
>> On 16/05/12 09:41, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> "peter skelton"<skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/wrong-man-executed-texas-probe-says-051125159.html
>>>>> and lots of other places
>>>>>
>>>>> Just for you Fred
>>>>>
>>> And let's examine that just a bit, Peter.
>>
>> I'm not going to argue the toss about that one, but this guy is yet
>> another who would have been long since dead had we still had capital
>> punishment in the UK:
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18102336
>
> The truly terrifying thing about that one is the absolute refusal of
> the police to admit that they'd made a complete and utter mess of the
> case and just made their suspect fit the evidence and quietly forgot
> about anything else, including the evidence that has freed him.
>
> The police weren't corrupt or malevolent, just incompetent.

There are cases in Canada where they (police) have been are both corrupt
_and_ malevolent and _that_ is scary ! The only thing that saved a few
innocent fellows is the lack of the *death penalty*.

cheers....Jeff

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Eh. As for the entire issue- if you want proof that Texas ever
>> executed an innocent man, this is not the best case. There is
>> another one, involving a man who was convicted of torching his own
>> house, killing his kids. He was convicted, sent to prison,
>> /mistreated/ there, and eventually executed.
>>
>> Pretty much everyone now agrees he was entirely innocent. The
>> evidence that convicted him, or rather the interpretation of the
>> evidence was entirely wrong.
>>
>

> Cite the case, please?

This case has been cited to you, Fredfreaka ! _I_ cited it to you in scs
some time ago and it was again raised just recently here on smn.

cheers....Jeff

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> The UK actually *did* execute an innocent man back in the 1950's.
>
> It generally takes a lot longer than 7 years to execute someone in the
> US these days.

There's a big difference between the UK in the 50's and the US *these days*
isn't there, Fredfreaka ?

cheers....Jeff

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Don't feel bad Peter, the murderer could be caught with the proverbial
'smoking gun', 'his fingerprints on the trigger' and 'residue on his hands'
and Fredfreaka would still say it was planted. That's just the way the
*tosser* thinks, for a small value of *think* that is !

We had a discussion on scs some time ago that raised a number of cases of
innocent people being executed and the Freak Fred adopted the exact same
attitude then, as he does now.

cheers....Jeff

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 17, 8:30 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nobody said it did.  However, you (among others) still have to point
> to a single proven mistaken execution in the US in modern times.

What do you mean 'proven'? Whose 'say' do you want? Courts won't
take the case, it's moot, the guy is dead and can't be brought back.
Courts don't take pointless hypothetical cases. Even if they did take
the case, innocence is never 'proven' in a court of law. Guilt is
proven, if not then it's 'not guilty'. There is no 'proven innocence'
verdict.

[Shawn Wilson]

> Wriggle, wriggle, little worm.
>
> I'm still waiting....



Because you don't know how to use Google? (texas execution innocence
arson)

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

There you go.

Now YOU get to answer my questions...

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> Yes, there is, which is why I make the point of 'last half century in
> the US'.

Yes, there is, which is why I make the point that 'half a century later' in
the *_US_*, you're *still* executing innocent men.

cheers...Jeff

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>

> Yes, that 'attitude' being that EVIDENCE trumps innuendo and
> speculation.

Yes 'that being' a *Fredfreaka attitude *<Yawn>* trumps EVIDENCE, therefore
innuendo and speculation will reign supreme in Fredfreaka world and thusly,
the innocent will die.

>Pointing out that a prosecution had flaws

Ignoring of course, the fact that the prosecution had <deadly> flaws.

>is not the same as proving that the person
>convicted is innocent.

Killing the (innocent) person, is not the same as proving the person is
guilty, Frefreaka.

Is
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/wrong-man-executed-texas-probe-says-051125159.html

cheers...Jeff

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:ai2hr7drll4760tcr...@4ax.com...

>We've just been through that. He was found hiding under a truck with
a was of cash in his pocket. One of his own lawyers says he's guilty.
His alibi collapsed when the woman he claims was with him said she was
elsewhere that night.

>'Probe' sounds official, but it wasn't. It was a professor and five
students spending five years trying to PROVE the wrong man was
convicted from the outset. Even that 'probe' doesn't claim the
certainty the headline leads one to believe. Attempts to connect up
real evidence to the alternative perpetrator were "inconclusive",
according to the report's author.

That disagrees with the direct quote I provided. Your single word quotes
with no context lack conviction.

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 19, 5:26 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> I'm still waiting....
>
> >Because you don't know how to use Google?  (texas execution innocence
> >arson)
>

> Because it's not my job to look for evidence to support YOUR claims.
> That's YOUR task.


Oh, well that that simplifies things enormously.

YOU claimed no innocent person has ever been executed.

OK, it is YOUR job to prove it.

> >http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann
>
> >There you go.
>

> "Death penalty case: Ex-wife says convicted killer confessed". Chicago
> Tribune. October 26, 2009.
>
> Smith, Matt (October 6, 2010). "Convict in disputed execution was
> guilty, ex-wife says". CNN.


She wasn't there. She has no knowledge of the events. And learn to
provide links, rather than what could be made up quotes or actual
quotes referring to an unrelated case.

> >Now YOU get to answer my questions...
>

> A disagreement among experts between those who examined the evidence
> fresh and those with an agenda examining it years after the fact is
> NOT proof.


Well, it does invalidate a claim of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt",
and that makes a man *innocent* in the US legal system.





> 'Proof' is evidence PROVING that the accused could not have done it or
> evidence PROVING that someone else DID do it (or even PROOF that there
> was no crime to start with).


So a person has to prove himself innocent??? Where is your proof
beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty?

[Alex Potter]

On 20/05/12 22:07, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> Oh, well that that simplifies things enormously.
>
> YOU claimed no innocent person has ever been executed.
>
> OK, it is YOUR job to prove it.
>

There really out to be some kind of Godwin applied when a poster is
asked to prove a negative...

Remember , absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

--
Alex

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Jeffrey Hamilton" <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>

> Then it didn't stand up on scrutiny. I find it interesting that given
> a total lack of details, you think you know which case is being
> referred to.

The *details* are listed above, _fool_.
This case is pretty widely reported as an example of 'voodoo science'
convicting and then executing an innocent man.
The exact same details that were discussed *and* presented on *scs* to you.
The fact that _you_ refuse to acknowledge the facts is your problem and not
mine. I'm merely pointing out your demand for a cite is two-faced. It (this
case) has been discussd (most recently here) and a cite previously, was
given to YOU by ME on scs. What you call scrutiny, others would refer to as
'mere dismissive hand waving on your part'.

cheers...Jeff

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

> And yet you cannot seem to find even one.

Oh, I've found and posted more than _ONE_ example for you Fredfreaka, but
_YOU_ have yet to accept the fact that the execution of an innocent man has
in fact happened.

cheers...Jeff

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

> Perhaps you should find better and more accurate quotes?
>
> Looking at pictures of the two men, the only way they 'look alike' is
> that both are Hispanic males.
>
> When the Professor and his students tried to have a retired Scotland
> Yard guy look at the physical evidence to prove the wrong guy was
> executed, the result was "inconclusive".

Most civalized societies, unlike some American States, don't execute people
based on "inconclusive" evidence, which is what is being discussde here,
Fredfreaka.

cheers...Jeff

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

> I see you're sniffing your own dried feces again....

I see you've changed the subject to your favourite obsession, again....

cheers....Jeff

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 20, 4:29 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Because it's not my job to look for evidence to support YOUR claims.
> >> That's YOUR task.
>
> >Oh, well that that simplifies things enormously.
>
> >YOU claimed no innocent person has ever been executed.
>
> >OK, it is YOUR job to prove it.
>

> I claim you've been unable to show one.  And you haven't.


I have shown you one. That you choose to close you eyes, stick your
fingers in your ears and say 'la la la I can't hear you" is YOUR
problem.




> Take a course in logic, Shawn.  Pay particular attention to how stupid
> one must be to demand that someone prove a negative.


Prove that every person executed in the US did in fact do it then.
It's the same question, but with no negatives.

I have shown you an executed man that the vast majority say was in
fact innocent. At a bare minimum he cannot be said to have been
proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The makes him innocent in US
law.

> >> "Death penalty case: Ex-wife says convicted killer confessed". Chicago
> >> Tribune. October 26, 2009.
>
> >> Smith, Matt (October 6, 2010). "Convict in disputed execution was
> >> guilty, ex-wife says". CNN.
>
> >She wasn't there.  She has no knowledge of the events.  And learn to
> >provide links, rather than what could be made up quotes or actual
> >quotes referring to an unrelated case.
>

> He confessed to her.  I gave the source.  Feel free to look it up.


Did he? Prove it. All you really have is that his *ex-wife*
*claimed* he confessed. That is not proof. That is in fact hearsay.
The prsecution had a prison snitch who claimed he confessed too.
Doesn't eman anything.



> Unlike you, some of us won't lie to prove a point.


Ex wives are notorious for lying...

> >> >Now YOU get to answer my questions...
>
> >> A disagreement among experts between those who examined the evidence
> >> fresh and those with an agenda examining it years after the fact is
> >> NOT proof.
>
> >Well, it does invalidate a claim of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt",
> >and that makes a man *innocent* in the US legal system.
>

> No, it doesn't, since the only expert under oath is the one at the
> trial.


He was not actually an expert. Read the article. His specific lack
of expertise was a major problem. He believed things true about fire
investigation that are *known* to be false.



>  If you want to play legal system games, then they are guilty
> BY DEFINITION, having been found so in court.


Fine. Then prove he did it. Let us reduce an intractible problem to
a simple one- I want YOU to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this
specific individual commited that specific crime.



> I prefer to discuss sane meaning of 'proof', thank you very much.


Prove he was guilty then. You alternative was to demand that I prove
he was NOT guilty, and you yourself claimed that proving a negative
was impossible.

> >So a person has to prove himself innocent???  Where is your proof
> >beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty?
>

> He was convicted and that conviction was upheld through all appeals.


So what? That isn't proof. Not here. Courts are not infallible and
never have been.




> To reverse that, you have to do more than just wank.


*I* don't have to do anything. You claim he was guilty. Prove it.

[tutall]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

HtH