Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man? Who Cares!

T

Truth-Bringer

Guest
#1
Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man? Who Cares!

Government prosecutor hopes to bury the answer forever

A judge has blocked prosecutors from destroying a hair found at scene of the murder for which Claude Jones was convicted, and executed in 2000. DNA testing will now be done to determine if it matches Jones. It's not just any hair. It's the hair that prosecutors matched to the defendant at trial by way of a hair fiber analyst.

Hair fiber analysis is, to say the least, an imperfect science. It has led to wrongful convictions before, and professional prosecution hair fiber witnesses have a history of exaggerating the certitude of their findings.

I haven't read enough about this particular case to have an opinion on it. I note it mostly because of the following passage, which I find absolutely inexplicable:

"The groups, represented by attorneys at Mayer Brown LLP, filed the court motions Friday after the San Jacinto District Attorney refused to agree to DNA testing – and also refused to agree not to destroy the evidence while courts consider whether DNA testing can be conducted."

Now, I can think of some reasons why a prosecutor would want to destroy a piece of physical evidence that could prove that the state executed an innocent man. But none of them are compatible with...um...being a human being."

Rest of article here
 

tipsycatlover

Registered Member
#2
Since you don't know much about the facts of this case, you might be interested in this.

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/jones682.htm

Ironically Jones had received a life sententence for a previous murder! While serving said life sentence he murdered another inmate. One wonders just how twisted liberals were able to get Jones out because he was paroled to kill again. So much for the permanency of life sentences. Rather than an indictment against the death penalty, this case seems to only show why we need it.

What are you going to say if the DNA evidence shows that Jones was the killer?
 

tipsycatlover

Registered Member
#4
I would say good thing he's dead now. He should have been executed YEARS ago. He should have been executed before he burned a fellow inmate to death.

I notice you didn't consider the question worth answering, which was fully expected.

If the remote possibility reveals that the hair wasn't Jones' it doesn't mean he wasn't there, or didn't commit the crime. It just means that the hair wasn't his. It would not exonerate him. It does not mean he was innocent despite what the selective and slanted article says. If the hair is that if the victim, does that mean the victim is still alive, or that the victim shot himself?

Look at it this way. Suppose the Judge had eliminated the hair from evidence at trial. Would that have tipped the evidence in Jones' favor and caused the case to fall apart? No. This is not a case of circumstantial evidence supported by one strand of hair. This was a case that stood on its own even without the hair.

Glad he's dead and there should be many more.
 
T

Truth-Bringer

Guest
#5
There's a problem in this country. This might not be the right case to pursue, but hundreds of innocent people are being locked up and some are even put on death row. A new award winning documentary is out that details their stories:

http://www.afterinnocence.com
 
J

jtur88

Guest
#6
"As long as the debt to society is paid, it doesn't matter who pays it."---Steven Colbert.
 

tipsycatlover

Registered Member
#7
Hundreds of innocent people are being locked up no doubt about it. And hundreds of very guilty people are let go. Most of the time innocent people are locked up because of their own actions. They didn't do the crime, they just act like they did.

Award winning documentaries don't persuade me. You can have a documentary proving just about any point you want to make. Don't let yourself be fooled either.

There was a case not all that long ago about a death row inmate who protested his innocence right up to the last moment, he was being injected, crying about the state killing an innocent man. After his death the Innocence Project evaluated the DNA evidence and guess what, he did it after all. I can't remember his name, although at the time I thought I'd never forget it. I looked at the Project's website, all reference to this "lost" case was removed.