DNA test casts doubt on executed man's guilt

ed243421

gimme

maybe i'm reading it wrong but
nothing in this article says he was proven innocent
and he should not have been executed without absolute proof
chalk up another gem for gw bush and his team


The single hair had been the only piece of physical evidence linking Claude Jones to the crime scene. But the DNA analysis found it did not belong to Jones and instead may have come from the murder victim.

this does not say he did not do it or was not there

Hugh Freaking Dillon

so you think it was right to execute him based on no evidence saying he WASN'T guilty of the crime???!!!!

ed243421 wrote:

gimme

maybe i'm reading it wrong but
nothing in this article says he was proven innocent
and he should not have been executed without absolute proof
chalk up another gem for gw bush and his team


The single hair had been the only piece of physical evidence linking Claude Jones to the crime scene. But the DNA analysis found it did not belong to Jones and instead may have come from the murder victim.

this does not say he did not do it or was not there

gimmesometruth27

ed243421 wrote:

gimme

maybe i'm reading it wrong but
nothing in this article says he was proven innocent
and he should not have been executed without absolute proof
chalk up another gem for gw bush and his team


The single hair had been the only piece of physical evidence linking Claude Jones to the crime scene. But the DNA analysis found it did not belong to Jones and instead may have come from the murder victim.

this does not say he did not do it or was not there

he was not proven innocent, rather the evidence should have proven him "not guilty", and "not guilty" and "innocent" are two entirely different matters. i am appalled that people can say that even though the hair did not match his, he deserves to be executed for this crime that he could or could not have committed... it sounds like there is a reasonable doubt in this case, and you can not convict, let alone execute someone if there is a reasonable doubt as to whether or not they committed the crime. they said the hair was his, dna proves otherwise.

cincybearcat

How does someone serving a "life sentence" who then lights his cellmate on fire, killing him, ever get out of jail?

Who thought that sounded like a good idea? Who thought that would end up with the guy being a productive member of society?

ed243421

Paul David wrote:

so you think it was right to execute him based on no evidence saying he WASN'T guilty of the crime???!!!!

ed243421 wrote:

gimme

maybe i'm reading it wrong but
nothing in this article says he was proven innocent
and he should not have been executed without absolute proof
chalk up another gem for gw bush and his team


The single hair had been the only piece of physical evidence linking Claude Jones to the crime scene. But the DNA analysis found it did not belong to Jones and instead may have come from the murder victim.

this does not say he did not do it or was not there

please read what i said
i said he should not have been executed

ed243421

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

ed243421 wrote:

gimme

maybe i'm reading it wrong but
nothing in this article says he was proven innocent
and he should not have been executed without absolute proof
chalk up another gem for gw bush and his team


The single hair had been the only piece of physical evidence linking Claude Jones to the crime scene. But the DNA analysis found it did not belong to Jones and instead may have come from the murder victim.

this does not say he did not do it or was not there

he was not proven innocent, rather the evidence should have proven him "not guilty", and "not guilty" and "innocent" are two entirely different matters. i am appalled that people can say that even though the hair did not match his, he deserves to be executed for this crime that he could or could not have committed... it sounds like there is a reasonable doubt in this case, and you can not convict, let alone execute someone if there is a reasonable doubt as to whether or not they committed the crime. they said the hair was his, dna proves otherwise.

gimme
did you say the evidence proves him not guilty?
because it does not do that
all it proves is that the hair was not his
he still could have been the murderer
and i have said several times that he should not have been executed

Hugh Freaking Dillon

my bad. you're right, I misread it.

ed243421 wrote:

Paul David wrote:

so you think it was right to execute him based on no evidence saying he WASN'T guilty of the crime???!!!!

ed243421 wrote:

gimme

maybe i'm reading it wrong but
nothing in this article says he was proven innocent
and he should not have been executed without absolute proof
chalk up another gem for gw bush and his team


The single hair had been the only piece of physical evidence linking Claude Jones to the crime scene. But the DNA analysis found it did not belong to Jones and instead may have come from the murder victim.

this does not say he did not do it or was not there

please read what i said
i said he should not have been executed

Hugh Freaking Dillon

without the hair, there was nothing else linking him to the murder, so yes, not guilty would have been ther verdict. No one is saying if he was actually innocent or not. we don't know. all we're saying is the same as you, that he should not have been executed.

ed243421 wrote:

gimme
did you say the evidence proves him not guilty?
because it does not do that
all it proves is that the hair was not his
he still could have been the murderer
and i have said several times that he should not have been executed

gimmesometruth27

^^^

exactly. without the hair there is reasonable doubt, and with reasonable doubt you can not convict, so the verdict would have had to have been not guilty.

cajunkiwi

cincybearcat wrote:

How does someone serving a "life sentence" who then lights his cellmate on fire, killing him, ever get out of jail?

Who thought that sounded like a good idea? Who thought that would end up with the guy being a productive member of society?

I'm with you on that one. He didn't really come across like a prime candidate to be reintroduced into society.