If there was little evidence to convict and a great deal of doubt ( as in the Davis case), I wouldn't want a conviction. That smacks of vengeance not justice.

That is not what I asked......If the person(s) are caught when it happened and people witnessed it, not hear say or detectives hunting

We are discussing the Troy Davis case.

The jury thought that there was sufficient evidence to convict him. Were they all racists? Do you believe that, not having heard any evidence, you able to state what you have with any credibility at all?

Did OJ do it? Did Jackson?

I hear ya.....but apparently "if the gloves don't fit, you must acquit"

I hardly think that which has been thoroughly researched and reported upon by investigative journalists (proper ones) is easily dismissed as "something posted online."

The jury did find him guilty . The jury believed 9 eye-witnesses at the time, 7 of which have since revoked their evidence saying that they were pushed by police at the time into giving witness statements. One other has refused to speak about the case in the last 20 years, and the 9th has been accused as being the real killer by some of those other 7 witnesses. Several of the witnesses were bullied into signing their statements ( by bullying I mean physical threats made by police) several of the witnesses signed statements even though they were illiterate and some were threatened that if they didn't sign the statements they would be charged with the murder. If you are happy with that kind of justice then you are a fool. There was no physical evidence.

badab1ng...You don't have to result to name calling

Sincere apologies, no offence meant. Just find it a very heated topic.

Exactly the same stance.

They don't really let you handle loaded guns do they?

Again, without being at the trial, how do you know this? Have you read the transcripts, did he give evidence? How do you know they came across as credible, he didn't and they have since recanted due to not wanting to feel responsible for his death?

It makes no difference to me one way or the other. I have to admit to being amazed by the extent to which people are prepared to believe what they read online.

Let's assume you are correct and everything you have stated above is true. Do you not think his lawyers would have argued this at every stage? Do you honestly believe that all the judges that have reviewed the evidence have got it completely wrong?

Do you believe man actually landed on the moon?

Are you actually a lawyer? I'm not but it's clear to me that the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Perhaps at the time it was felt that this had been achieved, but what's emerged in the intervening years is hugely troubling (ref: witness bullying etc) and alone casts enormous doubt on the case. This was so strongly felt - across Europe too - that it makes the SC today look like a sham. Of course, there must've been other motivations going on so don't call me arrogant and naive mister!

If Hitler had been caught he would've been tried and executed and I would've disagreed with that also. The episode regarding Saddam Hussein's execution was disgraceful - another circus sideshow. For both Hitler and Saddam Hussein
I think better punishment would've been to force them to rebuild the lives and homes of those they perpetrated - financially and otherwise. That would've been more humiliating for them.

As you appear to admit, the prosecution met the burden required. You wish to completely ignore the fact that there is an appeal process and the appellant is required to meet a certain threshold before the appeal succeeds. If you are telling me that he didn't appeal, what you are saying may have some validity but, it would appear, he did appeal and, one assumes, went through the appropriate process.

One also assumes that, when doing so, arguments were made and evidence was adduced, the fact that the superior court did not grant the decision you approve of does not alter this.

Why can't you see this? It would be better to suggest that the death penalty is wrong, rather than to imply that the whole US judicial system is racist. I don't know what their race is but, what would you say if any of the judges that decided against your position were black? Would they be racist too, or would you have to argue that they are weathist?


Would the State be justified in sending its citizens to kill Hitler in battle? If so, then why is this justified if all killing is wrong?

I believe that you are imposing your own morals on those that commit crime. Those of us that have worked with offenders close up know that the vast majority of them would refused to work. How would you force them to "rebuild the lives and home of those they perpetrated."?

How do they rebuild the lives and homes of those they killed?

No we are all lying. Thousands of us who have read about the case are all part of one big conspiracy theory. You might have heard of us before.. grassy knoll.. Mossad and Princess Di... 9/11.. the7/7 bombings.The Davis case is just another of our causes.

Man moon ?? You are a fool !

Perhaps it's not credible to reverse what you said in evidence. Seven of nine say something different. Worth a second look surely?

I think they have recanted over a long period. It's not like they've reacted to the execution is it.

I'm not sure why you continue to dismiss investigations by (proper) journalists as just something online. The reports in The Telegraph are saying the same as The Guardian for heaven's sake.

Well, apparently they ruled he had failed to prove his innocence. That was part of their last ruling. That's wrong isn't it?

Then there's not wanting to have people lose faith in the system - which overturning the verdict would likely do.