I hate to be insentive to the agrieved family, but you're off your rocker
There's an inmate whose appeal to be have their case heard before the US Supreme Court has been rejected. Not shocking so far; I'm sure tons of cases concerning individuals hoping to be granted clemency from the death penalty are tossed out.
Considering the details, however, this decision strikes me as nothing less than absurd. Of the nine witnesses that claimed the defendant, Troy Davis, was the individual who shot and killed a police officer, 7 of them - not one, not two, not half, but a full-on fucking 77% of them - recanted their testimony; a fifth of them have, in point of fact, since claim to have been pressured by the police into giving the testimony that they did originally. Furthermore, to quote directly from the article, "prosecutors presented no physical evidence and no murder weapon, and three witnesses have said another man admitted to the murder." Not saying he's innocent or anything, but... wait, I think that's exactly what I'm saying. There is, given the facts here and absent anything that would suggest otherwise, these sound like fairly convincing reasons to examine the case one more time.
(EDIT: after reading a good chunk of the Georgia Supreme Courts rejection of the appeal, it's based on a denial of the case to be re-examined under the pretense that, though at least five of the witnesses over the years recanted their testimony, each individual's recantation does not match the court's belief that their original statements can be demonstrated to be "of the purest fabrication." For instance: "We note that, even if the recantations by Sappand McQueen were credited as true, they would show merely that Davis did not admit his guilt to these witnesses, not that Davis was not guilty. [yeah, but they don't prove that he's guilty either.] Furthermore, the witnesses’ original testimony against Davis would remain admissible against him in any retrial. These affidavits lack the type of materiality required to support an extraordinary motion for new trial, as they do not show the witnesses’ trial testimony to have been the “purest fabrication.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Norwood, 273 Ga. at 353 (2)" So, although granting the court's earlier claim that evidence gathered should be considered of greater weight than that gathered after the trial's conclusion, I still don't agree with their reasoning. The court contents itself with the claim that each of the individual recantations, most of them by eyewitnesses, are readily challenged as unimportant to the original case because they don't prove Davis' innocence - which, to be perfectly honest is a fair enough claim, in and of itself. However, since the redefinition of at least half of the individuals' stances were used to define his guilt in the first place - again, many of whom claimed to have witnessed the act itself - it is not enough to prove he is guilty, either, and would seem to deny the court's original stipulation that, in light of these new appraisals, a jury would find the same result as the original did. Furthermore, as we're a system that defines the individual as "innocent until proven guilty," I find it impossible to agree with the court's that this preponderance of recantation doesn't go a lick to at least meriting a reexamination of the case itself.)
Back to the original issue. That the Supreme Court could not consider this case pertinent or interesting enough to do so, for a few more days, just to check one more time, is beyond me. Yet what really gets me - and I understand, this isn't the worst element by far of this situation - is the reaction of the family. I understand that grief can do wonky things to a person's ability to reason, but let's be honest: these people are, in their pain, out for blood and they don't care *who* gets punished.
To pull out the quotes themselves:
"'My son will always be missed in our hearts,' said Anneliese MacPhail, the mother of Officer MacPhail. 'But at least we can relax now and don’t have to worry about whether justice will be served.'" (Lady, your son will still be dead. But justice is never served if the wrong man is executed for the crime. And, considering the distinct possibility of Mr. Davis' innocence, such an action would be a great affront to justice and the system your son was supposed to have stood for.)
"Ms. MacPhail said, however, that she was confident Mr. Davis had committed the murder. 'He didn’t give my son a chance,' she said. 'He just shot him down in cold blood.'" (Were you there? Did you see this? Or is simply by some miraculous power of omniscience that you can *sense* Davis' guilt?)
This attitude of anyone will do - especially if they think, despite - reminds me far too much of the attitude exhibited in "carnival justice" (see Carnivale). In this mindset, it doesn't matter who answers for a crime perpetuated against a body as long as someone from the offending community does. What truly frightens me in this family's reaction, especially given the circumstances, is that this attitude smacks of a belief that any man - even a potentially innocent one - will do as long as someone pays.
Considering the details, however, this decision strikes me as nothing less than absurd. Of the nine witnesses that claimed the defendant, Troy Davis, was the individual who shot and killed a police officer, 7 of them - not one, not two, not half, but a full-on fucking 77% of them - recanted their testimony; a fifth of them have, in point of fact, since claim to have been pressured by the police into giving the testimony that they did originally. Furthermore, to quote directly from the article, "prosecutors presented no physical evidence and no murder weapon, and three witnesses have said another man admitted to the murder." Not saying he's innocent or anything, but... wait, I think that's exactly what I'm saying. There is, given the facts here and absent anything that would suggest otherwise, these sound like fairly convincing reasons to examine the case one more time.
(EDIT: after reading a good chunk of the Georgia Supreme Courts rejection of the appeal, it's based on a denial of the case to be re-examined under the pretense that, though at least five of the witnesses over the years recanted their testimony, each individual's recantation does not match the court's belief that their original statements can be demonstrated to be "of the purest fabrication." For instance: "We note that, even if the recantations by Sappand McQueen were credited as true, they would show merely that Davis did not admit his guilt to these witnesses, not that Davis was not guilty. [yeah, but they don't prove that he's guilty either.] Furthermore, the witnesses’ original testimony against Davis would remain admissible against him in any retrial. These affidavits lack the type of materiality required to support an extraordinary motion for new trial, as they do not show the witnesses’ trial testimony to have been the “purest fabrication.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Norwood, 273 Ga. at 353 (2)" So, although granting the court's earlier claim that evidence gathered should be considered of greater weight than that gathered after the trial's conclusion, I still don't agree with their reasoning. The court contents itself with the claim that each of the individual recantations, most of them by eyewitnesses, are readily challenged as unimportant to the original case because they don't prove Davis' innocence - which, to be perfectly honest is a fair enough claim, in and of itself. However, since the redefinition of at least half of the individuals' stances were used to define his guilt in the first place - again, many of whom claimed to have witnessed the act itself - it is not enough to prove he is guilty, either, and would seem to deny the court's original stipulation that, in light of these new appraisals, a jury would find the same result as the original did. Furthermore, as we're a system that defines the individual as "innocent until proven guilty," I find it impossible to agree with the court's that this preponderance of recantation doesn't go a lick to at least meriting a reexamination of the case itself.)
Back to the original issue. That the Supreme Court could not consider this case pertinent or interesting enough to do so, for a few more days, just to check one more time, is beyond me. Yet what really gets me - and I understand, this isn't the worst element by far of this situation - is the reaction of the family. I understand that grief can do wonky things to a person's ability to reason, but let's be honest: these people are, in their pain, out for blood and they don't care *who* gets punished.
To pull out the quotes themselves:
"'My son will always be missed in our hearts,' said Anneliese MacPhail, the mother of Officer MacPhail. 'But at least we can relax now and don’t have to worry about whether justice will be served.'" (Lady, your son will still be dead. But justice is never served if the wrong man is executed for the crime. And, considering the distinct possibility of Mr. Davis' innocence, such an action would be a great affront to justice and the system your son was supposed to have stood for.)
"Ms. MacPhail said, however, that she was confident Mr. Davis had committed the murder. 'He didn’t give my son a chance,' she said. 'He just shot him down in cold blood.'" (Were you there? Did you see this? Or is simply by some miraculous power of omniscience that you can *sense* Davis' guilt?)
This attitude of anyone will do - especially if they think, despite - reminds me far too much of the attitude exhibited in "carnival justice" (see Carnivale). In this mindset, it doesn't matter who answers for a crime perpetuated against a body as long as someone from the offending community does. What truly frightens me in this family's reaction, especially given the circumstances, is that this attitude smacks of a belief that any man - even a potentially innocent one - will do as long as someone pays.