I'll bet the MacPhail family is still cheering and rejoicing in the death "of a lying, heartless monster who is now frying in hell for killing Mark MacPhail so that justice is finally served and we can all have closure and move on with out lives!" These comments truly disgust me to no end! They truly made Troy's family suffer punishment in losing their loved one to state-sponsored murder, and I pray that God may comfort and forgive both families for what they've done. I hope the state of Georgia and the U.S. Supreme Court will one day have to answer to God for the atrocious act of ultimate injustice done to poor Troy Davis. May he and Officer MacPhail both rest in peace. :cry:angeldeb82
I posted this in the other thread, but is relevant here too:
Recanted testimony is always suspect. It can also lead to perjury charges against those who recant their testimony. Here is an example of a witness recanting testimony several times in a murder case in Wisconsin.
II. DISCUSSION
7
Olson now claims that he is entitled to a new trial (or in the alternative, a hearing to determine if he is entitled to a new trial) based on the sworn affidavits of Brenda LaRock and Ella Peters in which they recant their prior testimony inculpating Olson. This is the second time LaRock has recanted her testimony. She previously recanted in an affidavit dated August 18, 1986, roughly eleven months after Olson's trial. The district court denied Olson's motion for a new trial based upon the initial LaRock recantation. We affirmed the conviction and likewise denied the motion for a new trial through application of the test set forth in Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir.1928). See Olson, 846 F.2d at 1112. In Olson's present Rule 33 motion for a new trial, he offers not only LaRock's second recantation but also the recantation of Peters. Olson argues that considered together, the testimony of LaRock and Peters constituted a substantial portion of the government's case against him, therefore, he is entitled to a new trial. The district court considered the LaRock and Peters recantations separately because it could not reevaluate the LaRock recantation since this court had already specifically denied a retrial based on the first LaRock recantation. Specifically the court stated:
8
"When an appellate court considers and rejects a claim on direct appeal, that decision is binding on the district court in ruling upon a subsequent motion for a new trial under Rule 33 or upon a motion to vacate a sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Page v. United States, 884 F.2d 300, 302 (7th Cir.1989). Therefore, this court must be bound by the holding of the court of appeals regarding the recantation of Brenda LaRock Webster."Clifford J OLSON Sr Petitioner Appellant v UNITED STATES of America Respondent Appellee
Source There are similarities between this case and the Davis case.
We know that there were shell casings from a weapon found at the murder scene that matched a weapon Davis used in an earlier shooting elsewhere and convicted in.
The state produced 34 witnesses against Davis including 3 men in the Air Force who didn't know who Davis was. One of those who recanted previous testimony was a friend of Davis' that was 5 feet away from the crime when it happened. That is suspect in and of itself.
As far as Ann Coulter, she may appear conservative, but really isn't from what I gather and there is the fact that she went to law school and even worked as a lawyer in the past. She should be able to better explain what is going on with the Davis case better than what the liberal media like CBS, CNN, ABC etc. can and do and they only tell half the story. The rest of the world jumped on the Davis bandwagon without knowing the facts as many here has. At least Coulter has more of the facts to discuss the case and tell you what is happening instead of only giving out a snippet of it to try and raise a rebellious lot that gets arrested for protesting the Davis execution (several were at the White House and in Jackson at the state prison where Georgia's death row is).
I find it hard to believe that 7 black jurors are so prejudiced against another black man that they chose to convict him based on race. Get real. Stop playing the race card when race wasn't a factor in the conviction.
Log in to comment