Page 11 of 46 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 454

Thread: Robert Lynn Pruett - Texas Execution - October 12, 2017

  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Helen69 View Post
    I see it
    But what did you make of Pruett's evidence? Damning is it not?

    Well I've never been a fan of McDonald, too light weight in my opinion.

    I'd like to see the briefs that the clinic working for him are filing on his behalf, and how they allege they can prove [even just the possibility of] an alternative version of events. As well as the complete prosecution case against him.
    Well it would seem that the state has no evidence, except dodgy snitch evidence and a ripped up charge sheet, that one of the investigates said, as I para-phase, 'we went with that', weak very weak, who had access to that sheet? Where did it come from? Why was there 'no' DNA evidence on it? Oh, and there was no DNA evidence on Pruett from the CO's blood, which was in evidence in large qualities. And he was just in denial another one said, well if he hadn't done it he would deny it would he? Just like when they found a witch, throw her in a pond and if she floats, she must be a witch so kill her, if she sinks and dies, then she wasn't a witch but she dies anyhow.

    *Off Topic from now on*
    Convenient, seen as you have nothing to go on! And Garza most likely was involved, but was he the trigger man?. There is that 'law of parties' again. a catch all position to save on actual investigations, in my opinion!

  2. #102
    Senior Member CnCP Addict Richard86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Wiltshire, England
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by blackadder View Post
    Well it would seem that the state has no evidence, except dodgy snitch evidence and a ripped up charge sheet, that one of the investigates said, as I para-phase, 'we went with that', weak very weak, who had access to that sheet? Where did it come from? Why was there 'no' DNA evidence on it? Oh, and there was no DNA evidence on Pruett from the CO's blood, which was in evidence in large qualities. And he was just in denial another one said, well if he hadn't done it he would deny it would he? Just like when they found a witch, throw her in a pond and if she floats, she must be a witch so kill her, if she sinks and dies, then she wasn't a witch but she dies anyhow.
    Television is a different format to a legal brief, it cannot cover the entire case against him, or the entire case for him. His clinic seemed to be focusing on the fact that the report should be DNA tested in order to possibly identify someone else. I'd respond that the person who ripped up the paper wasn't necessarily the murderer, and playing devil's advocate for Pruett, even if only Pruett and Nagle's DNA can be found on the disciplinary report, it could be that Pruett took the opportunity to rip the report up following the murder that he had nothing to do with! I'm sure his legal team have a better case than that though!

    If I appeared in a similar documentary about the protein that's in my avatar (Not that anyone would watch such a boring documentary about that protein, despite how vitally important it is ) it's obviously not going to be as detailed, in depth, or exhaustive as say, the scientific papers I've authored, my personal website, conference posters or presentations I've made, or my PhD thesis. It'll have a different format and level of detail for each context. Particularly as a TV documentary is made for a general audience, not a specialist audience of legal professionals in the case of this documentary, or professional scientists in the case of my boring documentary.

    Likewise, I'm certain that both the prosecution case is more detailed than dodgy snitches and "we went with that".

    I'll address your comments about Robert Gene Garza on his thread, so that this tread is not derailed any further.

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard86 View Post
    I'd respond that the person who ripped up the paper wasn't necessarily the murderer
    But the investigator though otherwise!

    Pruett and Nagle's DNA can be found on the disciplinary report
    Well from my understanding the test was inconclusive, whatever that means. Does it mean they couldn't get any DNA, was it contaminated, was it from an unknown source? Well we don't know, but where was it tested? By a state lab? I think we should be told and perhaps we will be. But not as long as it took the 'Birmingham Six', to prove their innocence 15 or so years on, after it was realised they were fitted up by PC Plods. But it is getting to that sort deadline, pun not intended.

    Particularly as a TV documentary is made for a general audience, not a specialist audience of legal professionals in the case of this documentary
    Yip, but more and more cases are coming to light via those documentary programmes. Perhaps not supplying the conclusions, but by giving the plods a kick up the backside to get at the truth, as in the Stephen Lawrence case. And is the investigation not going higher up the ladder as the suspicion spreads?

    Likewise, I'm certain that both the prosecution case is more detailed than dodgy snitches and "we went with that".
    Well I'm not so sure, we need more transparency, because he was given the DP on that evidence, will it happen? With his current legal team that might be forced into the open.
    Last edited by blackadder; 07-05-2014 at 11:12 AM.

  4. #104
    Senior Member CnCP Addict Richard86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Wiltshire, England
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by blackadder View Post
    But the investigator though otherwise!
    The investigator is not the one who decides if he's guilty or not, the one who decides if he's guilty or not will be a bunch of people like me who are going to have spent days sitting through this mass of evidence and aren't necessarily going to make the assumption that the person who ripped up the report was the murderer when only being told that in isolation.

    Now, tie that up with a motive of course... and it fits better.

    As I've said before, I don't have all of the evidence, I haven't read the court transcripts from his original trial to know all the evidence presented (which was more than what is in this documentary). Having said that, with my experience of having reading Willingham's transcripts, I find that investigative pieces attempting to uncover miscarriages of justice don't give a good synopsis of the case against the accused.

    And for the record, I don't blindly think everyone sentenced to death must be guilty. I've seen nothing that convinces me that Debra Milke is guilty for example, and yes, I'll be happy to be persuaded otherwise, I'm a scientist, I'm paid to be fickle with my views when they can be rationally refuted with evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackadder View Post
    Well from my understanding the test was inconclusive, whatever that means. Does it mean they couldn't get any DNA, was it contaminated, was it from an unknown source?
    Way to quote me out of context there!

    Quote Originally Posted by blackadder View Post
    Well we don't know, but where was it tested? By a state lab? I think we should be told and perhaps we will be.
    Wherever it was tested it will have a complete chain of custody, else it isn't admissible in court.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackadder View Post
    Yip, but more and more cases are coming to light via those documentary programmes. Perhaps not supplying the conclusions by giving the plods a kick up the backside to get at the truth, as in the Stephen Lawrence case. And is the investigation not going higher up the ladder as the suspicion spreads?
    Even more is coming to light via non-television formats, indeed, it is more accurate and exhaustive information that is coming to light in media other that television.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackadder View Post
    Well I'm not so sure, we need more transparency, because he was given the DP on that evidence, will it happen? With his current legal team that might be forced into the open.
    Once again, that wouldn't have been the entirety of the prosecution case against him. Nor must I add is the entire defense case presented in that documentary.

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard86 View Post
    The investigator is not the one who decides if he's guilty or not
    But has a big influence as I know personally! Years ago when I was in a bar with my brother and somebody throw and hit him with a glass. We all ended up making statements. After I had made mine and read in through, I wouldn't sign it. The PC had written down the exact opposite to what I had said, which was in my brother's favour, but it didn't happen like that. It had to be rewritten to my satisfaction. Therefore it just goes to show how the interviewer can influence statements, the guy was found guilty anyhow.

    When ever it was tested it will have a complete chain of custody, else it isn't admissible in court.
    So there can even be flaws in well established methods of evidence gathering, such as finger prints, that rocks the very foundations of the science! And one a bit nearer to home!

    ‘How accurate is forensic analysis?’

    'Houston shut its police crime lab's DNA division for several years after 2002 because of problems with the education and training of examiners, misleading testimony and improper evidence storage, leading to at least three exonerations and retesting of thousands of cases.'

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...lysis-methods/

    So it would seem to matter who/where/when the evidence is examined!

    Once again, that wouldn't have been the entirety of the prosecution case against him. Nor must I add is the entire defense case presented in that documentary.
    Yes but there are some killer facts (pun intended) to the state's case presented in the documentary, such as Pruett had no blood/DNA on him, as reported in the doc by Prof D Dow!
    Last edited by blackadder; 07-05-2014 at 11:03 AM.

  6. #106
    Senior Member CnCP Addict Richard86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Wiltshire, England
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by blackadder View Post
    But has a big influence as I know personally! Years ago when I was in a bar with my brother and somebody throw and hit him with a glass. We all ended up making statements. After I had made mine and read in through, I wouldn't sign it. The PC had written down the exact opposite to what I had said, which was in my brother's favour, but it didn't happen like that. It had to be rewritten to my satisfaction. Therefore it just goes to show how the interviewer can influence statements, the guy was found guilty anyhow.
    Yes, and you refused to sign the statement that had been amended in this unprofessional manner, so your accurate witness statement was the one which went to court.

    What are you saying? That the witnesses decided to go with the new version of events they'd been fed by an investigator even if it opened them up to perjury charges, and not only that but charges of perjury that results in the execution of an innocent person?

    Quote Originally Posted by blackadder View Post
    So there can even be flaws in well established methods of evidence gathering, such as finger prints, that rocks the very foundations of the science! And one a bit nearer to home!

    ‘How accurate is forensic analysis?’

    'Houston shut its police crime lab's DNA division for several years after 2002 because of problems with the education and training of examiners, misleading testimony and improper evidence storage, leading to at least three exonerations and retesting of thousands of cases.'

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...lysis-methods/

    So it would seem to matter who/where/when the evidence is examined!
    Forensic science, like research science, is about convincing the audience (whether that be a jury or the rest of the scientific community) that the conclusions reached (which are in fact not innocence or guilt despite what programmes like CSI would have you believe) by the experimental procedures used are valid.

    Any half decent defense lawyer is going to have cross examined forensic science testimony thoroughly for all those problems: Training of laboratory staff, maintaining chain of custody, the technical expertise of the lead staff, why alternative interpretations are not considered. If you don't believe me, go and look at any trial transcripts.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackadder View Post
    Yes but there are some killer facts (pun intended) to the state's case presented in the documentary, such as Pruett had no blood/DNA on him, as reported in the doc by Prof D Dow!
    The state's case against him explains why no blood was found on him. Well, actually he did have some blood on him, he just concocted a different explanation for it.

    However watching that documentary, I'm curious as to why Pruett wants the report tested. Since the version of events he presented in his defense was that Nagle ripped the report up himself and was subsequently murdered when Pruett was not it his presence. DNA testing the report actually has more evidential value for the prosecution case!

    Perhaps you should read this.

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard86 View Post
    Yes, and you refused to sign the statement that had been amended in this unprofessional manner, so your accurate witness statement was the one which went to court.
    But I suspect others may have went along with the PC and signed, however I'm more aware for what tricks they are capable of pulling! Just look at what they did to the 'Birmingham six' and others!

    What are you saying? That the witnesses decided to go with the new version of events they'd been fed by an investigator even if it opened them up to perjury charges
    Er, yes, if the new evidence is to be considered true! Promises were but not honoured to the snitchs, in breach of Brady regulations, whatever they are'

    Any half decent defense lawyer is going to have cross examined forensic science testimony thoroughly for all those , some problems
    And there lies the problem some so lawyers aren't even half decent, especially if they are court appointed!

    actually he did have some blood on him
    I'm unaware of that 'FACT' about Nagles blood and so is prof Dow, of his defence team as was stated in the video!

    I'm curious as to why Pruett wants the report tested
    Because as was stated in the video link, technology has moved on and more recent tests can do more to recover evidence. But in this case it was inconclusive, but did I not link a report where the state's lab in Houston was shut down because they weren't following the correct procedures? I don't know where the test was carried out, but where there's one there could be more!

  8. #108
    Senior Member CnCP Addict Richard86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Wiltshire, England
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by blackadder View Post
    But I suspect others may have went along with the PC and signed, however I'm more aware for what tricks they are capable of pulling!
    Once again, so you're saying that the snitches went along with the purjery despite the legal consequences?

    Quote Originally Posted by blackadder View Post
    Just look at what they did to the 'Birmingham six' and others!
    It might astound you to know that there are many people from the west midlands who think that the Birmingham Six were guilty as charged, and their exoneration was a matter of not proven rather than innocent.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackadder View Post
    Er, yes, if the new evidence is to be considered true! Promises were but not honoured to the snitchs, in breach of Brady regulations, whatever they are'
    Now you just don't know what you are talking about. A Brady violation refers to the prosecution not disclosing evidence that is material to the guilt or innocence of a defendant, it's got nothing to do with promises to witnesses.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackadder View Post
    And there lies the problem some so lawyers aren't even half decent, especially if they are court appointed!
    Then they should be struck off the bar, like an incompetent medical practitioner would be struck off the medical register.

    Now, provide me with the court transcripts detailing how an incompetent lawyer incompletely cross examined forensic evidence. Here's one allegedly incompetent lawyer, David Martin, cross examing forensic evidence. I've worked professionally as an analytical chemist, and there is nothing he left out of the chemical analyst cross examination, I'll reserve my opinion on the fire investigator cross examination though, not being my area of professional expertise.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackadder View Post
    I'm unaware of that 'FACT' about Nagles blood and so is prof Dow, of his defence team as was stated in the video!
    Well I knew about it and it took me nothing more than browsing through this thread to find that out. THIS WAS PRESENTED IN OPEN COURT! Maybe you should look at some documents which are not documentaries designed as human interest stories.

    Edit: Also, since Pruett's defense team apparently do not know something that has been presented in open court and would take someone 5 minutes to find on google (i.e. the 5th Circuit court finding), then either Pruett's defense team (headed by a Professor none the less) are complete and utter rubbish, or the defense team have a better case than has been presented in this documentary (owing to the format) and by extension, the prosecution case is also more extensive.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackadder View Post
    Because as was stated in the video link, technology has moved on and more recent tests can do more to recover evidence. But in this case it was inconclusive,
    Apart from cheaper DNA sequencing, very little relevent to this case has moved on significantly in 14 years. Really, it hasn't. Biologists aren't interested in genomics anymore, we're interested in proteomics, interactomics, metabolomics, synthetic biology and all sorts of post genomic technologies.

    Still, since DNA testing cannot prove that Pruett didn't touch the report. It would never prove his version of events. It would however disprove his version of events by proving that he touched the report.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackadder View Post
    but did I not link a report where the state's lab in Houston was shut down because they weren't following the correct procedures? I don't know where the test was carried out, but where there's one there could be more!
    You can't assume that errors were repeated in the lab that handled Pruett's case just because they happened in another lab. You need some sort of evidence that the errors were repeated. You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing or more generally the Ockam's Razor business about making as few assumptions as possible?
    Last edited by Richard86; 07-06-2014 at 01:58 PM.

  9. #109
    Moderator MRBAM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Capital Region NY
    Posts
    865
    Stop arguing with this person as their supply of nonsense is apparently endless. I've quickly put them on my "BLOCK" list and feel better already.

  10. #110
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    20,875
    Brilliant idea MrBam
    "I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions."
    - Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian

    "There are some people who just do not deserve to live,"
    - Rev. Richard Hawke

    “There are lots of extremely smug and self-satisfied people in what would be deemed lower down in society, who also deserve to be pulled up. In a proper free society, you should be allowed to make jokes about absolutely anything.”
    - Rowan Atkinson

Page 11 of 46 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •