Supreme court decides you have no right to prove your innocence

Watermark said:
Yes, he would totally not be the sort of stupid ignoramous it would require for you to "confess" to the crime in order to secure parole and therefore release. That would be utterly retarded. I would totally stay locked up for the rest of my life and be honest rather than lie and get out of prison.
Click to expand...

If your innocent, then DON'T pled guilty.
 
tinfoil said:
His lawyer avoided the DNA tests like a plauge.
Click to expand...

Tinfoil, pseudo-expert on this trial.

Of course she avoided the tests. 1 out of every 10 black men would test positive, no matter what. Who the hell would ever use such a horrible test? Any rational person would be disgusted at the concept. Now that they've got the probabilities down to one in a million or less, it's much more useful.
 
Beefy said:
DNA should always be used when available. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise it a fucking ideologue who has no sense of justice AND/OR fairness.

If DNA is there, that's your answer, the rest is semantics.
Click to expand...

what other reason besides the convict saying "hey test my DNA" do we have here? What compelling reason is there to believe the jury made a mistake? That's what this is about. He recieved due process. So save your attitude for the tards here who don't understand the issue like you
 
Watermark said:
Yes, he would totally not be the sort of stupid ignoramous it would require for you to "confess" to the crime in order to secure parole and therefore release. That would be utterly retarded. I would totally stay locked up for the rest of my life and be honest rather than lie and get out of prison.
Click to expand...

your trolling is so fucking lame
 
Watermark said:
Yeah, I totally wouldn't plead guilty to secure my release. It's as simple as that. No rational person would ever do that.

^

Universe conservatives live in
Click to expand...


Good for you; because for a short while there, I thought you were going to puss out and be a punk.
 
Socrtease said:
lots of Defendants have succumbed to evidence that late was proved to be wrong. I aam a criminal defense attorney, I have told clients that the evidence against them was enough to convict them. If later DNA evidence was enough to prove me wrong my client should still have the right to that evidence.
Click to expand...

this is not a case of the evidence being later found wrong. He refused to provide the evidence by choice. Not even close to the same thing
Nice try though
 
Beefy said:
DNA should always be used when available. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise it a fucking ideologue who has no sense of justice AND/OR fairness.

If DNA is there, that's your answer, the rest is semantics.
Click to expand...

i agree, it should.

but that's a matter for our legislators.
 
Watermark said:
Yeah, thanks for pointing that out.

He "confessed" in order to secure release under parole. He never plead guilty. Nobody but a fucking idiot would refuse to be released from prison.
Click to expand...

hey watertard, he knew and related to the board information only the perp could have known. Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and look it up
 
tinfoil said:
this is not a case of the evidence being later found wrong. He refused to provide the evidence by choice. Not even close to the same thing
Nice try though
Click to expand...

The old DNA tests were so inaccurate they don't even count as evidence. We're not comparing DNA tests from modern day to DNA tests in the past. We're comparing DNA tests in the past to DNA tests in the modern day. Why you pretend that you don't know about this simple difference and refuse to realize why a rational person wouldn't want to play with Russian roulette "evidence" amazes me. You just hate justice. You despise justice. You love seeing innocent people locked up. It gives you pleasure. You're one sick fuck, and I hope you get hit by a bus.
 
tinfoil said:
hey watertard, he knew and related to the board information only the perp could have known. Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and look it up
Click to expand...

Because you invented the shit. I refuse to waste my time looking for inventions you refuse to link to. If he did know information "the perp only could have known" (or anyone who has ever looked at the court records of the other guy in the case), then the DNA evidence shouldn't matter. So what are you worried about? Let him waste his money.
 
Watermark said:
The old DNA tests were so inaccurate they don't even count as evidence. We're not comparing DNA tests from modern day to DNA tests in the past. We're comparing DNA tests in the past to DNA tests in the modern day. Why you pretend that you don't know about this simple difference and refuse to realize why a rational person wouldn't want to play with Russian roulette "evidence" amazes me. You just hate justice. You despise justice. You love seeing innocent people locked up. It gives you pleasure. You're one sick fuck, and I hope you get hit by a bus.
Click to expand...


There is no reason to believe there was a mistake because the guy didn't take a DNA test THAT HIS LAWYER AVOIDED HAVING HIM TAKE
 
Because you're a retard

Watermark said:
Because you invented the shit. I refuse to waste my time looking for inventions you refuse to link to. If he did know information "the perp only could have known" (or anyone who has ever looked at the court records of the other guy in the case), then the DNA evidence shouldn't matter. So what are you worried about? Let him waste his money.
Click to expand...
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/061809dnwashdna.16c994c.html

The woman in Alaska was raped, beaten with an ax handle, shot in the head and left for dead in a snow bank near Anchorage International Airport. The condom that was found nearby was used in the assault, the woman said.

The woman identified Osborne as one of her attackers. Another man also convicted in the attack has repeatedly incriminated him. Osborne himself described the assault in detail when he admitted his guilt under oath to the parole board in 2004.

Osborne's lawyer passed up advanced DNA testing at the time of his trial, fearing it could conclusively link him to the crime. A less-refined test by the state showed that the semen did not belong to other suspects, but could be from Osborne, as well as about 15 percent of all African-American men.

Osborne is awaiting sentencing on another conviction, a robbery he committed after his parole.
 
newsflash!!

he didn't take the DNA test because it would have helped prove his guilt. WTF would it now exonerate him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top