Thank you, Hamlet, for your thoughtful response. I reckon it’s too late for me now, anyway.
zwaldd, just 'cause we’re in the pit, it doesn’t mean you get to give wrong answers. Since you locate yourself in Texas, this bit of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure might help you.
So far, all I’ve read to rebut this is unfounded cynicism.
Diogenes, I would not want to be an innocent person facing execution. I would not want to face one of the Kenneth McDuffs whom your opposition to the death penalty could wind up freeing.
Neither is likely to happen, but I calculate the odds of the latter as being far greater.
We’re still waiting for you to produce names of the “scores” (i.e. 40 or more) or “dozens” (i.e. 24 or more) of death row inmates magically freed by DNA evidence.
And before you “sic” me over an inadvertent misspelling, I suggest you dedicate yourself to proper grammar, capitalization and using complete sentences in your posts.
I have e-mailed Mrs. Ludwig, your old third grade teacher, and she is watching you. 
And by the way, I don’t believe George Bush sent anyone to the gas chamber during his tenure as Texas governor. I don’t think Texas was using the gas chamber.
Perhaps that was just another of your rhetorical devices?
I don’t have an opinion on Coleman’s guilt or innocence, but I think that it’s clear that the right thing to do in this case is take a closer look. Hamlet, I remain unconvinced by your assertions that the evidence presented removes all doubt.
This is circumstantial evidence that could be confirmed or discredited by more specific DNA testing.
Why do you find it salient to point out how relatively uncommon Type B blood is, when the relevant blood type is that found on Coleman’s clothing, which happens to be the single most common blood type, accounting for about 40% of the population? We’re not talking about gore-soaked, hidden clothing, here. Traces of the most common blood type. Not really damning.
That is, according to the inmate in question, who was given an early release, based on his cooperation and good behaviour. Why is hearsay that another man (who also had a history of sexual assault) had confessed to Wanda’s murder less credible than the word of a jailhouse informant who had reason to expect preferential treatment in exchange for cooperating with the prosecution?
There have certainly been enough cases of murder convictions being overturned years after the fact that this case merits looking into – if only to remove the cloud of doubt is obviously hanging over it, and lay the damned thing to rest.
Yes, it’s circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial is not a synonym for unreliable. It definately points to Coleman with a high degree of relevance and certainty.
**
Coleman’s blood type and the fact he was a secretor, was certainly relevant and damning because it matched the vaginal sample taken from the victim. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear enough in my first post, but the blood typing was used twice to prove his guilt, once that it was his type and secretor that was found in the victim, and that the victims blood type was found on the defendant.
**
The confession to the inmate was just that, a confession that Coleman did it. His bias was shown to the jury, and again shown to the appellate court. The inmate also said that the defendant mentioned items in the murder (a paper towel at the scene) that were not known to the inmate before the confession. The supposed exclupatory confession was given to a woman who ODed right after telling her story to TV. That woman’s version of the facts surrounding the confession was contradicted by others who were present.
The evidence, taken as a whole, clearly shows to me, beyond any reasonable doubt, Coleman raped and killed Wanda.
All those convictions overturned were on appeal while they had some relevance to the defendant. There is no “cloud of doubt” except in certain people’s minds, who, it seems to me, haven’t looked all that hard at all the evidence. And the damned thing was laid to rest. He was proven guilty. After numerous rounds of appeal, that conviction was upheld. At clemency hearing phase, he fails a polygraph. The evidence was tested with the most up-to-date methods available at the time. Everything shows that Coleman raped and killed a woman. He was convicted. And Coleman was executed.
Lethal injection.
Yikes. Let’s not lump hair analysis in with DNA evidence, or even serological or fingerprint analysis. The stuff is controversial to say the least, and pseudoscience to some.
Just one example:
“In response to studies indicating a high level of error in forensic analysis, The Law Enforcement Assistence Administration sponsored its own Laboratory Proficiency Testing Program. Between 235 and 240 crime throughout the United States compared police laboratories’ reports with analytical laboratories’ findings on different types of evidence, including hair. Overall, the police laboratories’ was weakest in the area of hair analysis. The error rates on hair analysis were as high as 67% on individual samples, and the majority of police laboratories on 4 out of 5 hair samples analysed. Such an accuracy level was below chance.” Williamson v. Reynolds,904 F.Supp. 1529 (E.D.Okl. 1995).
That certainly makes a big difference, if it’s true.
That being said, I wince every time polygraph testing comes up w/r/t criminal complaints. Consulting tea-leaves would be less embarrassing. Since Coleman’s polygraph test was given on the day of his scheduled execution, he could hardly have been expected to present with the calmness required to “pass” a polygraph test. Not that that matters in the least if Matney’s report of Coleman’s confession is to be trusted. Since the chief investigator of the case didn’t credit it at the time, and Matney himself has since said that he made it all up out of whole cloth, I wouldn’t place too much weight on it.
Teresa Horn died? No, wait, we must be talking about two different women, since Ms. Horn said in her affidavit that Donney Ramey, Wanda’s neighbor, told her that he had killed Wanda while he was raping her (Horn), and there were no other people present during that alleged admission. Which one are you talking about? I’ll allow the possibilty that he said that in order to scare the bejeezuz out of her, but still…
I must admit that the more I look at this, the more interesting I find it. It’s really frustrating that it’s so hard to find published materials that don’t have an obvious bias – on either side.
The Virginia Court of Appeals online archive of decisions only goes back as far as 1995, and I’ve had no luck finding either petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus, or the court’s decisions on them. Maddening!
Larry Mudd
Sorry you can’t getting the court decisions. Most of the facts I picked up from the original appeal at Coleman v. Commenwealth, 226 Va. 31, 307 SE2d 864 (1983) and an appellate ruling in Coleman v. Thompson, 798 F.Supp. 1209 (1992).
Since I don’t believe there is a copyright issue for caselaw (Mods feel free to clip it if you deem necessary) I’ll quote a couple passages:
I don’t know if Matney has recanted his prior standing by his trial testimony, or if you believed his mother-in-laws affidavit was a real recantation. The appellate court heard it and rejected it.
I suppose you can draw your own conclusions, but it seems pretty clear to me where the credible evidence is in this case. If you like, I can email you the caselaw so you can take a look at it. Just let me know.
Can’t getting?..
Me speaka english goodly…
Hamlet– that satisfies me. Thank you very much.
I am still sufficiently interested in reading the appeals court decision that I would be much obliged if you would [email=“larry@pgpin.com”]e-mail it to me, if it’s reasonably convenient for you to do that.
Most of the information that I’ve seen references the appeals themselves, (which I have not seen) and neglects to mention why the court dismissed the assertions.
Thanks!
You’re right that it isn’t part of the system. But it happens, and it is tolerated by judges everywhere who blithely respond to a defense Batson challenge by saying that the prosecution has presented a credible, race-neutral reason for the strike.
Isn’t it amazing, though, that the exact same Commonwealth’s Attorney who, last trial, proferred that her reason for a strike was that the juror was dressed too shabbily is now striking because this juror is dressed too well? That jurors are struck for being too young, too old, too educated, not educated enough - whatever pretextual reason comes to mind, all accepted at face value by the trial judge, and essentially unreviewable by any appellate court. If you’re not seeing this happen, it’s because you’re not doing it - which I applaud. But spend six months at the other table, and tell me if your colleagues are as principled.
- Rick
How ‘bout some personal fuckin’ experience? That language corresponds in no way with reality. If I go to the court and the prosecutor tomorrow and ask for DNA testing on the evidence used to convict a death row inmate because maybe it could prove his innocence, you know what they’re gonna do? The state is gonna oppose it vigorously, and the court is gonna side with the state.
Trust me. :mad:
Thank you, Minty, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. It just seems to me, as a layman, that if a dispositive test can be done then it should be. I can’t understand why prosecutors or judges would oppose them, especially if they truly are confident of guilt.
And Hamlet, just for the record, I have never said anywhere in this thread that I think that Coleman was innocent. I just said I want to know the truth. I don’t care a whit if the prosecutor is “sure” of guilt. The certainty of the prosecutor doesn’t mean Jack shit to me. By your logic if a defender is really, really sure of innocence then we should let the defendant go free.
What really pisses me off, and the reason I started this thread, is the fact that the CoV intends to destroy DNA evidence as a matter of course after executions, soley to preclude any chance of subsequent revelations which might be embarrassing to the state or, God forbid, give “ammunition” to death penalty foes.
If the state is going to insist on murdering people (I know it’s a strong word, but this IS the pit and it’s how I feel) then they better know, and the public better know what the truth is. KNOW. For a fact. Not be 90% sure, not be 99% sure, Fucking cold KNOW it. And if we can run one more test and push that certainty from 99.9% to 100%, then what’s the fucking harm?
What did I say that was a personal attack? I have certainly maligned your profession, but that’s not personal, it’s a broad generalization.
Jack, you’ve got me on the gas chamber thing. I don’t know why I thought that was the method of execution in Texas. I should have looked it up before just pulling it out of my ass.
It’s a good enough reason for me. Feel free to disagree; as I said it’s a matter of personal values.
It’s interesting that you should resort to an argumentum ad populum. As I understand things (and feel free to correct me) the majority of Americans support the concept of capital punishment.
That’s true, although, believe it or not, in my case I am happy to look at the evidence with an open mind and revise my beliefs accordingly. And if someone showed me evidence that execution of folks who are later proved innocent was a significant problem, I would rethink my support of capital punishment.
Honestly, I don’t know. However, I can tell you that if I were wrongfully imprisoned, I might still agree with the concept of incarcerating violent criminals. Further, I would point out that many social policy decisions are made which we KNOW in advance will cost innocent lives. If I became the victim of one of those policies, it might affect my judgment as to the merits of the policy in question.
For what it’s worth, here’s my two cents on prosecutorial ethics: Yes, their obligation is to the truth. At the same time, the reality is that (1) there is pressure on them to win cases; and (2) they are human. So ya gotta figure that the motivation to win will cloud the judgment of some prosecutors now and then.
Diogenes -
You stated:
Not even the right order of magnitude.
Now do you see why it is important that legal evidence be subject to rules of evidence, and presented under the penalty of perjury?
People who feel strongly about the death penalty are subject to the same temptations as the rest of us - consciously or otherwise, to misrepresent the evidence and push for a biased conclusion.
What is to stop some fervently anti-death penalty newspaper reporter from doing the same with new DNA testing?
You are quick to assume that all prosecuting attorneys are uninterested in the truth, and prefer to push another agenda. What makes you think that anti-DP folks are any different?
Regards,
Shodan