Comments on: March From Troy Davis Park to Peachtree and Pine

By: SaraA

SaraA — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:54:36 +0000

I would not have chosen that name for the park but I was not at the meeting when that was done. I don’t choose to second-guess people. However, I also don’t care to either spend a lot of time defending a decision I don’t particularly agree with OR have it fill up my inbox. As I’ve said, there’s a place on this site for lengthy debates. This isn’t it. Please take this conversation to the Forum. ]]>

By: SaraA

SaraA — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 02:39:16 +0000

There is a place on this site for discussions like this. This is not it. Please move this to the Forums. ]]>

By: SaraA

SaraA — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 02:03:41 +0000

There is a place for discussions like this on this site. This isn’t it. ]]>

By: SaraA

SaraA — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 02:01:17 +0000

There is a place on this site for discussions like this. This is not it. Please move this conversation to the Forums. ]]>

By: ohok

ohok — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:45:27 +0000

I understand that the movement is trying to make a point about the system being broken. However, wouldn’t it be better to make that point by renaming the park to someone who was executed but was later definitively exonerated through DNA or some other method rather than someone who, while people can point to plenty of reasons as to why there was reasonable doubt, still has the specter of possibly being guilty hanging over them?

It seems to me like he was chosen just because he was in the news recently, not because he’s really the best icon to make the point.

To me, naming the park is a big deal. We should be naming a park you know for sure represents the ideals we want, not someone who we’re guessing does.

]]>

By: marietta32

marietta32 — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 00:09:01 +0000

I have read it, and it is damning to the defense in its conclusion that the evidence presented in the trial of Troy Davis proves he murdered Mark MacPhail.

It’s such a reach to find problems in the due process of law in this case. The man was tried, convicted, and had his trial re-evaluated at the request of the U.S. Supreme Court. All of the evidence presented shows that he did it. As Judge Moore says in the conclusion of the 2010 hearing, the evidence presented by the defense’s case for a retrial was “largely smoke and mirrors”.

Trial…Conviction…Evidentiary Hearing…..Smoke and Mirrors….

How in the world does this lead you to “innocent”?

]]>

By: Jose

Jose — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:38:05 +0000

Marietta 32, have you read the 2010 court ruling? It was not on whether the evidence merited a new trial but whether it proved conclusively that he was innocent so that no reasonable juror could possibly have voted to convict.
You have eyewitnesses saying they felt pressured by police to testify falsely. You have someone who supposedly heard Troy Davis confess and so testify at the trial admit he made the whole thing up. The federal judge said that was OK because it was obvious at the time of the original trial that the guy was lying.
However, if that is true, then it was incumbent upon that judge to free Troy Davis, because a prosecutor is not allowed to present testimony s/he knows to be false. Yet if none of the previous judges in the case had made that evidentiary ruling, then this federal judge should not have acted as if they had so he could say the recantation had zero weight.
You have five separate persons saying the main remaining witness against Troy Davis had said or implied that he, not Troy Davis, was the shooter. The federal judge dismissed those because, since the guy is a thug, a juror might conclude he just said that to enhance his reputation. There was not a trace of physical evidence tying Troy Davis to this event.
That is why even people like William Sessions, a former federal judge appointed director of the FBI by Ronald Reagan, and ultra-conservative ex-Congressman Bob Barr, urged that his death sentence be commuted. Because there was simply too much doubt. WAY too much doubt.
One cannot read the 2010 ruling and possibly think that justice was done in this case. It may well be that the 2010 judge was right in saying that Troy Davis failed to prove conclusively he was innocent, but is that the legal standard we want to use when someone is being killed in our name? ]]>

By: Jose

Jose — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 23:34:16 +0000

Have you read the 2010 court ruling? It was not on whether the evidence merited a new trial but whether it proved conclusively that he was innocent so that no reasonable juror could possibly have voted to convict.
You have eyewitnesses saying they were pressured by police to testify falsely. You have someone who supposedly heard Troy Davis confess and so testify at the trial admit he made the whole thing up. The federal judge said that was OK because it was obvious at the time of the original trial that the guy was lying.
However, if that is true, then it was incumbent upon that judge to free Troy Davis, because a prosecutor is not allowed to present testimony s/he knows to be false. Yet if none of the previous judges in the case had made that evidentiary ruling, then this federal judge should not have acted as if they had to say the recantation had zero weight.
You have five separate persons saying the main remaining witness against Troy Davis had said or implied that he, not Troy Davis, was the shooter. The federal judge dismissed those because, since the guy is a thug, a juror might conclude he just said that to enhance his reputation. There was not a trace of physical evidence tying Troy Davis to this event.
That is why even people like William Sessions, a former federal judge appointed director of the FBI by Ronald Reagan, and ultra-conservative ex-Congressman Bob Barr, urged that his death sentence be commuted. Because there was simply too much doubt. WAY too much doubt.
One cannot read the 2010 ruling and possibly think that justice was done in this case. It may well be that the 2010 judge was right in that Troy Davis failed to prove conclusively he was innocent, but is that the legal standard we want to use when someone is being killed in our name? ]]>

By: lingsched

lingsched — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:51:55 +0000

That’s about as far from the facts as it gets. Overwhelming doubt? I 100% guarantee you haven’t read the case documents (here they are, which I’m sure you will continue to ignore: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=KR1I5QDX).

Summary:
“Mr. Davis’s new evidence does not change the balance of proof from trial. Of his seven recantantions, only one is a meaningful, credible recantation. The value of that recantation is diminished because it only confirms that which was obvious at trial-that its author was testifying falsely. Id. Part III.B.ii (Kevin McQueen). Four of the remaining six recantations are either not credible or not true recantations and would be disregarded. Id. Parts III.B.i (Antoine Williams), III.B.iii (Jeffrey Sapp), III.B.iv (Darrell Collins), III.B.v (Harriet Murray). The remaining two recantations were presented under the most suspicious of circumstances, with Mr. Davis intentionally preventing the validity of the recantation from being challenged in open court through cross-examination. Id. Parts III.B.vi (Dorothy Ferrell), III.B.vii (Larry Young). Worse, these witnesses were readily available-one was actually waiting in the courthouse-and Mr. Davis chose not to present their recantations as live testimony. Mr. Davis’s additional, non-recantation evidence also does not change the balance of proof from trial.
Moreover, this evidence, whether presented as live testimony or in affidavit form, suffers other serious defects. The two witness identifications of Mr. Coles as the shooter were not credible, and Peggie Grant’s affidavit testimony placing Mr. Coles in a white shirt is widely refuted in the record. Id. Part III.C.iii. The hearsay confessions carry little weight because the underlying confessions are uncorroborated and there is good reason to believe that they were false.FN105 Id. Part III.C.i. Further diminishing the value of this evidence is the fact that Mr. Davis had the means to test the validity of the underlying confessions by calling and impeaching Mr. Coles, but chose not to do so.FN106 Other evidence in this category simply lacks probative value; the munitions evidence and the accounts from April Hutchinson, Tonya Johnson, Anita Saddler, Gary Hargrove, and Daniel Kinsman are either totally inapposite or are of the most minimal probative value. See id. Parts III.C.ii, III.C.iii, III.C.iv. As a body, this evidence does not change the balance of proof that was presented at Mr. Davis’s trial.
Ultimately, while Mr. Davis’s new evidence casts some additional, minimal doubt on his conviction, it is largely smoke and mirrors. The vast majority of the evidence at trial remains intact, and the new evidence is largely not credible or lacking in probative value. After careful consideration, the Court finds that Mr. Davis has failed to make a showing of actual innocence that would entitle him to habeas relief in federal court.”

Troy Davis had appeals… MULTIPLE appeals. The Supreme Court even granted his petition for habeas corpus (look up how often that happens for an inmate on death row). He had two witnesses in the courtroom that allegedly recanted their testimony and he DIDN’T CALL THEM TO TESTIFY. Some “new evidence,” right?

You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. Keep spouting the media’s narrative as if you know what you’re talking about. The case was tried in the court of law — not in the court of public opinion. It seems a lot less one sided when you aren’t totally ignorant on what happened. I don’t agree that he should have received the death penalty, but that’s another issue that DOESN’T merit demanding a name change for public park which is already named for a huge philanthropist (and a MUCH better man than Troy Davis).

]]>

By: marietta32

marietta32 — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:42:12 +0000

His conviction in 1991 AND the subsequent 2010 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia uphold that conviction as the evidence did not merit a retrial. ]]>