On another thread, I mentioned this case which has been garnering headlines lately--the story of Roger Coleman, who was perhaps wrongfully executed in Virginia in the 1990's.

As capital punishment is an explosive topic here and elsewhere, and some have brought up arguments that perhaps innocent people have been executed, it will be interesting to follow this case and see how it turns out.

I ain't yet looked into this in depth yet, but...


DNA Tests May Signal Shift in Death Penalty Debate
Capital Punishment Supporters Say Stance Is Boosted by Results Proving Guilt of Executed Va. Killer

By Maria Glod
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 17, 2006; Page B05

As Jim McCloskey drove last week from Virginia back to the New Jersey charity he founded two decades ago to help free wrongfully

convicted inmates, his mind was on the murderer and rapist who fooled him with false claims of innocence.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011601044.html



I will say that the possibility of killin' the innocent is all TOO REAL...



...and that death-penalty advocates don't give a hoot or a holler...




They SEEM ta think it cain't happen ta...




...THEM...



;)



www.if-they-only-they-knew... edu

"I notice that killin' killers don't seem ta lessen the appetite fer VIOLENCE around here..."--that ol' Sparta cuss

The idea of an innocent man frying is horrifying to me, Odder.

In this case tho, hasn't the DNA left at the crime scene already been linked to Coleman via previous testing?
They are testing it again per the governor's orders with more up to date methods, but IMO the results will again be the same--IOW, that he committed this crime.
The defense said the last time it was tested that the results were "flawed"--don't really know what they mean by this.....

Just finished reading that link Odder. Had trouble with it earlier--it states that there is a one in 19 million chance that the DNA belonged to someone other than Coleman.

Many, many thankz fer yer input on this most troublin' topic, rendova...


While DNA PROPERLY used is a VERY powerful weapon in pointin' ta guilt...


...OR innocence (which is why many D.A.s have balked at openin' up old cases in order ta check 'em out with DNA tests)...



...it still ain't a PERFECT TOOL in gittin' at the truth...




It tends ta establish the PRESENCE of some buddy's genes or whatnot at the scene of a crime...


Of course, if the accused had GOOD REASON ta be at the scence of a crime, and wuz even by habit regularly at the scene a crime, then I guess the value of DNA remains doubful or, at best, remains ta be... scene...


"Hmmm, Nicole's dead body wuz found BAREFOOT outside on her lawn, the night of the murders... COULD it be... that it wuz...



...her SHOES that wuz killin' her?"--O.J., tryin' ta catch the killer



DNA evidence, like so much of the rest of forensics, ain't alwayz properly understood by the general public...



"I KNEW he wuz guilty, Judge Ito, as soon as I heard that blood tests showed O.J. had some white cells in his blood samples..."--prob'ly said durin' that glove-hate relationship Officer Mark Fuhrman had with Mr Simpson...



www. even-when-guilty,there-ain't-no-need-ta-kill-all-the-killers-once-they're-behind-bars .edu


www. i-cain't-prove-it-with-lynx,but-a-trip-ta-a-local-zoo-should-suggest-i-ain't-lion .edu



www. sumtimes,odder-tries-ta-joke-back-the-tears-at-the-helluva-world-we-live-in-nowadays... org




:(