We should listen to the “experts”

[JoeB131]

So the cops just made it all up? There was no tour? You are a lib, therefore between the good guys and the criminal, you always stick up for your own kind.

The bad guys are corrupt cops who framed an innocent man and sent him to death row.

The fact that the cops, prosecutors and victims' families all belong to an exclusive club for white folks should be a bit suspicious as well.

I find it hysterical that you and Mormon Bob are here WHINING AND BITCHING you can't go to Applebees, but you are perfectly okay with the cops framing an innocent man and sending him to death row.

Silly Darkie. Rights are for White People.

Sure it's possible. It may not be very comfortable, but possible. Of course you're not going to wear them for hours, just enough to enter the home. If it does not fit, you must acquit?

You'd be wearing them for hours doing strenuous activity. Um, no, they still wouldn't fit.

I mean, I realize you sit on your ass all day, but...

We will never know because the story is not on the internet. It's too old apparently. Plus this happened many years ago, and DNA loses it's value as the years progress. You are trying to tell me this serial rapist/ murderer was identified by a woman, and it's just dumb luck she happened to pick this guy? I mean.....come on now.

The woman who identified him had someone else's jizz in her bloomers... that's the problem. The point is, this isn't "Too old". you stated that DNA evidence would exonerate the wrongfully convicted. Here you have a case where the DNA said, "It is some other guy", and they executed him ANYWAY.

The police never denied this guy access to an attorney, nor forbid an attorney to be present during questioning. Yes, it's more valuable to the police when one isn't being coached on how to make the job of authorities much harder, but that's how they get the truth instead of bogus answers by the accused.

And if that fails, just lie about him confessing, and go with that. The sixth Amendment is there for a reason.

AGAIN- REASONABLE DOUBT- there was plenty of it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The bad guys are corrupt cops who framed an innocent man and sent him to death row.

The fact that the cops, prosecutors and victims' families all belong to an exclusive club for white folks should be a bit suspicious as well.

I find it hysterical that you and Mormon Bob are here WHINING AND BITCHING you can't go to Applebees, but you are perfectly okay with the cops framing an innocent man and sending him to death row.

Silly Darkie. Rights are for White People.

That's right, when losing a debate, run to your race card. It's the default position of the left.

The police don't need to frame a lifelong criminal. They frame themselves. This lowlife had been a lifelong criminal or prisoner since the mid 70's. If he's not guilty, nobody is.

You'd be wearing them for hours doing strenuous activity. Um, no, they still wouldn't fit.

I mean, I realize you sit on your ass all day, but...

No, you only need to wear them from your vehicle until you get into the house. After that, you can take them off and commit crimes in your socks. Given the fact many of his crimes occurred in his own neighborhood, it's likely he didn't even do that. He walked to the scene, and changed his shoes right before he broke into these homes.

I do more physical work than you every day of the week. Talk about sitting on your ass, your claim is you write resumes. So what is your physical activity, changing the black ink cartridge on your printer? Waking to the shredder across the room to deposit your fuckups?

You have no ability to criticize anybody. You just do a job others are too lazy to do.

The woman who identified him had someone else's jizz in her bloomers... that's the problem. The point is, this isn't "Too old". you stated that DNA evidence would exonerate the wrongfully convicted. Here you have a case where the DNA said, "It is some other guy", and they executed him ANYWAY.

The DNA is from the 70's. It doesn't retain absolute evidence. New technology is used in trying to get as close as they can. In fact, here in Cleveland, they just arrested a 67 year old guy for a rape and murder he committed in the early 80's. The prosecutors couldn't get enough accurate evidence to prove his guilt enough to charge him with. Yesterday, new advancements in DNA gave them that ability to finally arrest him.

'Now, all of the sudden there’s a face to the monster’: Family of murdered Garfield Heights teen reacts to the arrest of alleged killer 33 years later

Sister of murdered Garfield Heights teen reacts to the arrest of her sisters killer 32 years later

www.cleveland19.com

And if that fails, just lie about him confessing, and go with that. The sixth Amendment is there for a reason.

AGAIN- REASONABLE DOUBT- there was plenty of it.

No, there was scant evidence of it. This guy has been a career rapist and murderer since the mid 70's. He should have been executed in the early 80's if there was any real justice in our system. Reasonable doubt? Show me one case that doesn't have reasonable doubt outside of video.

 

[JoeB131]

That's right, when losing a debate, run to your race card. It's the default position of the left.

The police don't need to frame a lifelong criminal. They frame themselves. This lowlife had been a lifelong criminal or prisoner since the mid 70's. If he's not guilty, nobody is.

He's not guilty of the things they executed him for. "Well, you probably did something" isn't a legal standard, buddy. When you have DNA and footprints that don't match, that's still called "Reasonable doubt".

No, you only need to wear them from your vehicle until you get into the house. After that, you can take them off and commit crimes in your socks. Given the fact many of his crimes occurred in his own neighborhood, it's likely he didn't even do that. He walked to the scene, and changed his shoes right before he broke into these homes.

Again, you are going into the hypotheticals of what he MIGHT have done... and not a lot of proof of what he did do. Size 9 footprints and someone else's Jizz Stains, that's REASONABLE DOUBT.

The DNA is from the 70's. It doesn't retain absolute evidence.

That wasn't the issue. The issue was, some old lady said, "That's the guy!" but the jizz stains in her bloomers proved it was someone else.

No, there was scant evidence of it. This guy has been a career rapist and murderer since the mid 70's. He should have been executed in the early 80's if there was any real justice in our system. Reasonable doubt? Show me one case that doesn't have reasonable doubt outside of video.

But that's the point. We have video of Jason Van Dyke executing LaQuan McDonald when he was lying on the ground, followed up by the false report he filed about the shooting.. He only got 3 years. But this black guy whose DNA and footprints don't match gets executed?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He's not guilty of the things they executed him for. "Well, you probably did something" isn't a legal standard, buddy. When you have DNA and footprints that don't match, that's still called "Reasonable doubt".

Not when he confessed to wearing smaller shoes to throw police off. Maybe the guy did have an accomplice that provided him with his DNA to help him get off when caught. It's not unexplainable. He could have been gay. You don't know.

That wasn't the issue. The issue was, some old lady said, "That's the guy!" but the jizz stains in her bloomers proved it was someone else.

As the prosecution noted, there was no evidence that she was wearing that particular gown. In any case, my former comment still stands. Just because one is psycho doesn't mean they are not smart. We had a serial killer here several years ago that got away with killing many people. It took them years to nab the guy. His name was Anthony Sowell. The only thing that gave him away was he ran out of places to bury people in his backyard, and the bodies above the surface started to smell in the summer time.

 

[JoeB131]

Not when he confessed to wearing smaller shoes to throw police off. Maybe the guy did have an accomplice that provided him with his DNA to help him get off when caught. It's not unexplainable. He could have been gay. You don't know.

You're right. You don't know and neither do I. That's called, REASONABLE DOUBT.

You might have heard of it.

As the prosecution noted, there was no evidence that she was wearing that particular gown. In any case, my former comment still stands. Just because one is psycho doesn't mean they are not smart. We had a serial killer here several years ago that got away with killing many people. It took them years to nab the guy. His name was Anthony Sowell. The only thing that gave him away was he ran out of places to bury people in his backyard, and the bodies above the surface started to smell in the summer time.

Again, I've been to your city. The whole fucking place smells like rotting corpses...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You're right. You don't know and neither do I. That's called, REASONABLE DOUBT.

You might have heard of it.

You must have a mental block or something. Either that or you are such a self-hating white that you are sticking up for him because every victim was an elderly white woman.

Wherever this guy lived, there were strange rape/ strangulation murders, usually with the victims own panty hose. In every case, the psycho covered the face as his signature. He admitted to being at 8 of the 9 incidents, and named two people who committed the rapes and murders, none of which checked out by the detectives.

In the final one that got him the death penalty, they did find his DNA IN THE VICTIM, and again, all the same MO's as the other cases dating back to the mid-70's. All were strangled, all had their head covered.

Again, even if there was no evidence against Gary, the fact that he confessed to being there makes him a murderer in the eyes of the law, even if these phony claims of those other people actually were there and committed the murders.

He's guilty, and the only problem any reasonable person could see is how long it took to fry this filthy piece of garbage.

 

[JoeB131]

You must have a mental block or something. Either that or you are such a self-hating white that you are sticking up for him because every victim was an elderly white woman.

Wherever this guy lived, there were strange rape/ strangulation murders, usually with the victims own panty hose. In every case, the psycho covered the face as his signature. He admitted to being at 8 of the 9 incidents, and named two people who committed the rapes and murders, none of which checked out by the detectives.

Okay, then what you are saying is that they executed this guy without the cops doing due diligence and checking out these other two guys. THAT'S CALLED REASONABLE DOUBT. Oh, yeah, and his lawyer wasn't present when he made these supposed confessions.

In the final one that got him the death penalty, they did find his DNA IN THE VICTIM, and again, all the same MO's as the other cases dating back to the mid-70's. All were strangled, all had their head covered.

Except he was never charged in that one. The three he was charged in had no DNA evidence. The one where a witness named him as the ONLY perp, it turned out to be someone else's DNA.

Again, even if there was no evidence against Gary, the fact that he confessed to being there makes him a murderer in the eyes of the law, even if these phony claims of those other people actually were there and committed the murders.

Again, the police beat false confessions out of people all the time... It's why all interrogations should be done with a lawyer in the room AND should be videotaped.

He's guilty, and the only problem any reasonable person could see is how long it took to fry this filthy piece of garbage.

Um, no, there was PLENTY OF REASONABLE DOUBT - the fact cops didn't follow up on other leads, the fact that other people's DNA was found on some of the crime scenes, the fact that the boot size was much too small.

Remember, the American standard of justice is "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", not, "We beat a confession out of this darkie, so fuck it, let's fry him."

This is why you don't get a death penalty.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, then what you are saying is that they executed this guy without the cops doing due diligence and checking out these other two guys. THAT'S CALLED REASONABLE DOUBT. Oh, yeah, and his lawyer wasn't present when he made these supposed confessions.

They did checkout the other two guys. That's the problem. For whatever reason, Gary's story couldn't be true. I don't know if they were in prison at the times the crime was committed, DNA, I don't know. What I do know is that his claims of these people didn't checkout.

Except he was never charged in that one. The three he was charged in had no DNA evidence. The one where a witness named him as the ONLY perp, it turned out to be someone else's DNA.

Yes, that was the one with the DNA evidence.

Again, the police beat false confessions out of people all the time... It's why all interrogations should be done with a lawyer in the room AND should be videotaped.

You don't know what police did, and they probably were videotaped. The only thing a lawyer is good for is to stop you from answering questions where you incriminate yourself. They tell you how to lie to investigators.

Um, no, there was PLENTY OF REASONABLE DOUBT - the fact cops didn't follow up on other leads, the fact that other people's DNA was found on some of the crime scenes, the fact that the boot size was much too small.

Remember, the American standard of justice is "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", not, "We beat a confession out of this darkie, so fuck it, let's fry him."

This is why you don't get a death penalty.

Right, so not only was he a robber, but he gave police information on the robbery/ murders they didn't even know about. He took them to the scenes where the crimes were committed, told them how he broke into the homes which matched exactly how it was done. But no, he didn't kill anybody. I have a bridge to sell you if interested. Let me know.

In GA, they had a string of rape/ murders. Every one, the victim was raped, strangled, had their face covered, lived near Gary, all white females, all between the ages of 59 and 80. When he moved to NY, that activity stopped in Columbus, and started there using the exact same method. So what happened Joe, did bad luck just seem to follow this guy around everywhere he went?

The judges in these cases believe you're wrong Joe, as do the prosecutors, as did the jury, as did the detectives, as did everybody involved in these cases, as did the appeals judges right up to his lynching.

He confessed to the robberies. In one instance, he was wearing a watch stolen from one of the homes. In another, he was in possession of a firearm that was stolen.

I know how these psychos work. How? My best friend growing up was one. He beat up one of our childhood friends and tried to rape her. When he got out of prison for that, he murdered a neighbor at the apartment complex his mother lived in. He killed another one that the police know about, but this was back in the 70's, and they didn't even think of DNA back then. Those are the two I know about. He was stationed in CA while in the Marines, and had a girlfriend there. When he came back without her, I asked what happened to her? He stated he didn't know. She just disappeared.

He was a tough guy, always getting into fist fights with other guys, but never killed any of them. He had a mother hangup, and only strangled girls. He's still in prison until this day, and will likely never get out.

 

[JoeB131]

They did checkout the other two guys. That's the problem. For whatever reason, Gary's story couldn't be true. I don't know if they were in prison at the times the crime was committed, DNA, I don't know. What I do know is that his claims of these people didn't checkout.

Your whole argument is based on "I don't know" and "maybe" and "possibly" and "could have". That's pretty much the opposite of "Beyond a reasonable doubt".

Yes, that was the one with the DNA evidence.

Which he wasn't charged with...

You don't know what police did, and they probably were videotaped. The only thing a lawyer is good for is to stop you from answering questions where you incriminate yourself. They tell you how to lie to investigators.

They protect your rights. Given it looks like this guy was railroaded, that was probably something he needed.

The judges in these cases believe you're wrong Joe, as do the prosecutors, as did the jury, as did the detectives, as did everybody involved in these cases, as did the appeals judges right up to his lynching.

Yup, our system is pretty fucking racist and doesn't like to admit it made a mistake. It took 20 years to free Rolando Cruz and three trials, even with DNA evidence and a confession by Brian Dugan.

But we gots us a darkie to hang, so let's hang him!

I know how these psychos work. How? My best friend growing up was one. He beat up one of our childhood friends and tried to rape her.

Which has nothing to do with this case, but never mind. This case was a guy where it was someone else's DNA, someone else's footprint and a "confession" that he denied making.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Which he wasn't charged with...

The Trial (1984-1986)

Gary was indicted in the Superior Court of Muscogee County, Georgia on May 4, 1984 for three counts of malice murder, three counts of rape and three counts of burglary. Gary was convicted as charged in the indictment and was sentenced to death on all three counts of murder on August 27, 1986. Thereafter, Gary filed a motion for new trial, which was denied on October 18, 1986.

Execution Date Set for Carlton Michael Gary, Convicted of Murder

ATLANTA, GA – An execution date for Carlton Michael Gary has been set for March 15, 2018. Attorney General Chris Carr offers the following information in the case against Carlton Michael Gary for the 1977 rape and murder of Florence Scheible, Martha Thurmond and Kathleen Woodruff. Scheduled...

law.georgia.gov

 

[JoeB131]

The Trial (1984-1986)

Gary was indicted in the Superior Court of Muscogee County, Georgia on May 4, 1984 for three counts of malice murder, three counts of rape and three counts of burglary. Gary was convicted as charged in the indictment and was sentenced to death on all three counts of murder on August 27, 1986. Thereafter, Gary filed a motion for new trial, which was denied on October 18, 1986.

You can go on all day.

The point wasn't "did he get a trial", it was, "Was he convicted of crimes he didn't commit".

But since you provided the links.

Blood evidence and hair samples taken from the crime scenes were inconclusive--they did not establish [Gary] as the perpetrator, nor did they exclude [Gary].

Carlton Gary - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Questions have been raised over the propriety of Gary's conviction. According to a group of supporters and a book by investigative journalist David Rose, Gary's lawyer was refused state funding to carry out a defense.[6] There is also evidence that Gary's fingerprints were not held to match the crime scene prints until seven years after, when the case was re-examined, despite Gary having been printed just one year after the murder, at a time when all prints in the U.S. were being compared to prints found at the crime sites. They also claim Gary's interview at which he supposedly confessed was not recorded, nor were notes taken, and Gary's confession was written by a police officer in the days following the interview, from his own recollection. When submitted as evidence, the confession was unsigned and undated, and Gary denied having made it. They allege Gary's semen antigen secretion did not match the perpetrator's.[7] Furthermore, a cast made from a bite wound on a victim allegedly did not match Gary's bite-mark pattern although it was noted that he had had dental work in prison subsequent to the victims' deaths. His supporters claimed that the prosecution withheld this evidence at trial.[8]

Rose's book also links prosecutors, judges and police who worked on the case to a whites-only organization called The Big Eddy Club and traces the history of racial injustice in Columbus, including the role of the judge's family members in lynchings and other injustices in the city.[6]

So let's review.

Bite marks didn't match
Footprints didn't match
Semen/DNA didn't match
Fingerprints were not found to have matched until SEVEN YEARS LATER
Questionable confession not submitted until days after the supposed interrogation
No one looked into supposed accomplices.
Racist prosecutors, judges and police.

R-E-A-S-O-N-A-B-L-E D-O-U-B-T

Silly Darkie. Rights are for white people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Trial (1984-1986)

Gary was indicted in the Superior Court of Muscogee County, Georgia on May 4, 1984 for three counts of malice murder, three counts of rape and three counts of burglary. Gary was convicted as charged in the indictment and was sentenced to death on all three counts of murder on August 27, 1986. Thereafter, Gary filed a motion for new trial, which was denied on October 18, 1986.

You can go on all day.

The point wasn't "did he get a trial", it was, "Was he convicted of crimes he didn't commit".

But since you provided the links.

Blood evidence and hair samples taken from the crime scenes were inconclusive--they did not establish [Gary] as the perpetrator, nor did they exclude [Gary].

Carlton Gary - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Questions have been raised over the propriety of Gary's conviction. According to a group of supporters and a book by investigative journalist David Rose, Gary's lawyer was refused state funding to carry out a defense.[6] There is also evidence that Gary's fingerprints were not held to match the crime scene prints until seven years after, when the case was re-examined, despite Gary having been printed just one year after the murder, at a time when all prints in the U.S. were being compared to prints found at the crime sites. They also claim Gary's interview at which he supposedly confessed was not recorded, nor were notes taken, and Gary's confession was written by a police officer in the days following the interview, from his own recollection. When submitted as evidence, the confession was unsigned and undated, and Gary denied having made it. They allege Gary's semen antigen secretion did not match the perpetrator's.[7] Furthermore, a cast made from a bite wound on a victim allegedly did not match Gary's bite-mark pattern although it was noted that he had had dental work in prison subsequent to the victims' deaths. His supporters claimed that the prosecution withheld this evidence at trial.[8]

Rose's book also links prosecutors, judges and police who worked on the case to a whites-only organization called The Big Eddy Club and traces the history of racial injustice in Columbus, including the role of the judge's family members in lynchings and other injustices in the city.[6]

So let's review.

Bite marks didn't match
Footprints didn't match
Semen/DNA didn't match
Fingerprints were not found to have matched until SEVEN YEARS LATER
Questionable confession not submitted until days after the supposed interrogation
No one looked into supposed accomplices.
Racist prosecutors, judges and police.

R-E-A-S-O-N-A-B-L-E D-O-U-B-T

Silly Darkie. Rights are for white people.

So that's your argument? Wikipedia (a site where readers can edit) is more reliable than a Georgia government site?

 

[JoeB131]

So that's your argument? Wikipedia (a site where readers can edit) is more reliable than a Georgia government site?

You mean a racist state might actually be less than honest about a case they screwed up.

Come on. They put a guy to death without really knowing if he did it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So that's your argument? Wikipedia (a site where readers can edit) is more reliable than a Georgia government site?

You mean a racist state might actually be less than honest about a case they screwed up.

Come on. They put a guy to death without really knowing if he did it.

They put the guy to death because he was a psychopathic killer. I'm amazed how you leftists always side with the devil. Don't you have any empathy for the family of these multiple victims? It's so revealing of you people. It's not a wonder why you want to disarm America. You people really get off on this kind of thing.

 

[JoeB131]

They put the guy to death because he was a psychopathic killer. I'm amazed how you leftists always side with the devil. Don't you have any empathy for the family of these multiple victims? It's so revealing of you people. It's not a wonder why you want to disarm America. You people really get off on this kind of thing.

Except there was a lot of evidence SOMEONE ELSE DID IT.

The problem with executing the wrong people, besides executing the wrong people, is that the right people are still out there free to keep committing crimes.

We want to disarm people because they have no business having guns to start with.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They put the guy to death because he was a psychopathic killer. I'm amazed how you leftists always side with the devil. Don't you have any empathy for the family of these multiple victims? It's so revealing of you people. It's not a wonder why you want to disarm America. You people really get off on this kind of thing.

Except there was a lot of evidence SOMEONE ELSE DID IT.

The problem with executing the wrong people, besides executing the wrong people, is that the right people are still out there free to keep committing crimes.

We want to disarm people because they have no business having guns to start with.

So why did the strangling stop after he was captured? Why did they stop in NY when they extradited him back to GA? Yes, people do have business owning guns; to stop maniacs like this guy. If one of these old ladies would have had a gun by their bedside, this guy would have been executed by one of them, and saved the taxpayers a million dollars or so.

 

[JoeB131]

So why did the strangling stop after he was captured? Why did they stop in NY when they extradited him back to GA?

Did it? I bet I can google "Georgia" and 'Strangling" and find some cases where they had more stranglings even after this guy was dead.

Yes, people do have business owning guns; to stop maniacs like this guy.

Again- gun in the home 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Did it? I bet I can google "Georgia" and 'Strangling" and find some cases where they had more stranglings even after this guy was dead.

You do that. Find the exact same MO. Broke into a home, strangled elderly white women, with their own panty hose in most cases, and covered their face or body.

Again- gun in the home 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

It's bullshit because those stats include suicides, self-defense and accidents. The problem was, in the 70's, owning a gun was a no-no. Even if you killed an intruder, you could be held to murder charges depending on your state. Many people didn't bother with it.

The Castle Doctrine was not around in the 70's. People were scared to defend themselves either because of prosecution or financial liability. My father never owned a gun. In fact, I didn't either until somebody broke into my apartment, and I knew how dangerous the intruder was. Then I got a gun for self-defense. And again, if any of these victims had a firearm, they would have lived the rest of their natural life, and that animal would have been buried in the ground incapable of killing anymore innocent victims.

That's why we need our guns.

 

[JoeB131]

It's bullshit because those stats include suicides, self-defense and accidents. The problem was, in the 70's, owning a gun was a no-no. Even if you killed an intruder, you could be held to murder charges depending on your state. Many people didn't bother with it.

Actually, we had shitloads of guns in the 1970's, and shitloads of violence, and we still do.

The Castle Doctrine was not around in the 70's. People were scared to defend themselves either because of prosecution or financial liability. My father never owned a gun. In fact, I didn't either until somebody broke into my apartment, and I knew how dangerous the intruder was. Then I got a gun for self-defense. And again, if any of these victims had a firearm, they would have lived the rest of their natural life, and that animal would have been buried in the ground incapable of killing anymore innocent victims.

That's why we need our guns.

Naw, guy, all you gun nuts have your wank fantasies about shooting bad guys... but the reality, you are only dangerous to yourselves.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, we had shitloads of guns in the 1970's, and shitloads of violence, and we still do.

Nothing like today. Gun deaths and violent crime didn't start decreasing until the early 90's, as more and more states adopted CCW and Castle Doctrine laws. Prior to that, the criminals had the upper hand.

The decrease in gun and violent deaths is proportional to those new freedoms extend to the public. Besides the liberty to own and use deadly force, legislatures created laws to protect those who do use deadly force, whereas before, that liberty was extended to the criminal element.

Naw, guy, all you gun nuts have your wank fantasies about shooting bad guys... but the reality, you are only dangerous to yourselves.

I've owned guns for the last 35 years. I've been a licensed CCW carrier for the last 12 years. In fact, I just had to renew my license and got the new one today. Statistically, we CCW carriers are the most law abiding citizens in our nation. Not only that, but we have less of a prosecution and conviction rate than even the police in our country.

CCW holders, using their firearm, protect themselves or others hundreds of thousands of times a year. You have to dig deep to find those stories as they are mostly local, but they are there.