Will we execute an innocent man?

[Mr. Deez]

This is a horrible story, which I've discussed with some on Facebook. http://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2015-02-12/rodney-reeds-attorneys-seek-retrial/

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...veals-texas-may-execute-innocent-man-march-5/

In a few weeks, this guy is likely to be executed, and after the case was reviewed by three of the top forensic pathologists in the country, it's clear that it is very unlikely that this guy is guilty. I respect those who oppose the death penalty, even if I don't. The argument that you can never undo a death sentence that is carried out is certainly understandable. However, in some cases, anything short of the death penalty is an injustice. Perhaps even more significantly, the root of the problem isn't the death penalty, so if we got rid of it, the problem wouldn't go away. After all, a life sentence or even a 1 day sentence is an injustice for an innocent man. If we actually got rid of the death penalty, I think many of the people who get involved in these cases and exonerate convicts would think their work was done and stop getting involved. That's a bad thing.

The root of the problem is threefold. First, the deck is stacked unfairly against the defense (especially indigent defendants). How many defendants can afford to retain the elite forensic pathologists who ultimately got involved in this case? Not many. On the other hand, prosecutors have massive resources at their disposal. The indigent need MUCH better resources at their disposal before we're going to put their lives on the line.

Second, I don't think juries always take their instructions seriously enough. If the guy "probably did it," I think that's enough for most people, even though they're instructed to follow a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Folks need to wake up on this, and the point needs to be driven home. Obviously defense lawyers argue this point in closing argument, but the instructions made by the court need to be stronger.

Finally, trial judges and the appellate courts don't scrutinize jury findings in criminal cases to a significant extent. When a civil plaintiff wins a large judgment, Texas appellate courts will nitpick the evidence to no end and come up with every reason in the book why that civil plaintiff's 7th Amendment right should be disregarded. In criminal cases, they mostly rubber stamp guilty verdicts, which is ironic since a prosecutor's burden of proof is much higher than a civil plaintiff's. Accordingly, the prosecutor's evidence should face much higher evidentiary burdens on appeal than a civil plaintiff's. However, nobody is contributing significant money to appellate court judges in hopes that they'll overturn criminal convictions. They are contributing big money to overturn plaintiff's verdicts.

I hope something is done to spare this guy's life at least long enough to review the evidence. However, I'd like to see the entire system reworked so we don't see this kind of thing happen again.

 

[Crockett]

I wonder if Greg Abbott is as interested in justice as he is upping the number of executions on his watch? I'm honestly hopeful we have a better governor now than we did last month though I'm aware of Deez' misgivings.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I wonder if Greg Abbott is as interested in justice as he is upping the number of executions on his watch? I'm honestly hopeful we have a better governor now than we did last month though I'm aware of Deez' misgivings.

You might have a smarter governor, but you definitely don't have a better one.

 

[Horn6721]

This would be horrible. Too many have been ignored already.
Is there an update?

 

[NJlonghorn]

The indigent need MUCH better resources at their disposal before we're going to put their lives on the line.

This.

Since law school, I have consistently maintained that a death-row defendant's budget should be essentially open-ended. Each defendant should be assigned a team of lawyers with experience in criminal law -- not some schlubb who happens to be next on the pro bono list. The lawyers should be paid generously enough to entice them to work their butts off. If counsel can show that a particular test, or expert witness, or whatever, has a puncher's chance to cast doubt on guilt, then the state should be required to either (a) pay for it, or (b) abandon the death claim. In short, every death-penalty trial should be defended like the OJ Simpson case.

 

[Mr. Deez]

This.

Since law school, I have consistently maintained that a death-row defendant's budget should be essentially open-ended. Each defendant should be assigned a team of lawyers with experience in criminal law -- not some schlubb who happens to be next on the pro bono list. The lawyers should be paid generously enough to entice them to work their butts off. If counsel can show that a particular test, or expert witness, or whatever, has a puncher's chance to cast doubt on guilt, then the state should be required to either (a) pay for it, or (b) abandon the death claim. In short, every death-penalty trial should be defended like the OJ Simpson case.

I don't know that an OJ-level dream team is necessary, but I agree with your overall point. They certainly should be be able to retain a first rate defense counsel and pay him through trial. Ditto for experts, subject to court supervision. I'd take it beyond death penalty cases though and require this of anyone facing a prison sentence. Part of my point is that this isn't really about the death penalty. Those cases seem to be the high profile ones, but this is really about basic due process, which should be a concern in pretty much every case.

 

[Horn6721]

I think instead of hiring a team of defense lawyers after someone has been charged and turned over for trail we should provide a team of good investigators whose role is to investigate thoroughly , not to arrest and charge with a crime.
It seems clear that too often it is more important to the police to " solve" a case quickly.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I think instead of hiring a team of defense lawyers after someone has been charged and turned over for trail we should provide a team of good investigators whose role is to investigate thoroughly , not to arrest and charge with a crime.
It seems clear that too often it is more important to the police to " solve" a case quickly.

The problem with that is that it trusts the government's intentions. If we could do that, then we wouldn't need defense lawyers, prosecutors, or even juries. We could just have a well-intentioned judge do what he thinks is the right thing. Obviously that's not a viable option. Nevertheless, the government already has access to top investigators.

Recognizing the inherent tendency for abuse, the founders created a system that is adversarial in nature. Both sides are supposed to have real access to counsel and the ability to build a case. The guys who represent indigent defendants are some of the lowest paid lawyers in the country. Many of them are conscientious, hard working guys, but for the most part, you get what you pay for. Furthermore, even the good ones have to take a lot of cases to make a living, which means they can't dedicate much time to individual cases. There's a reason why OJ hired the people he did. They're worth the money. A good lawyer knows how to scrutinize the other side's evidence. He knows the good investigators. He knows who the good forensic pathologists are and an afford to retain them. I don't think everybody should be able to hire the dream team, but they shouldn't have to hire the cheapest and least qualified either.

 

[Horn6721]

If the Defense lawyer team you envision does not have to be gov't employees why would an investigative team.

 

[CedarParkFan]

After watching a documentary on this case and having been reading about it, I'm almost convinced of his innocence. It would be a horrible miscarriage of justice to carry it out.

 

[Mr. Deez]

If the Defense lawyer team you envision does not have to be gov't employees why would an investigative team.

Maybe I'm missing your point here. What role would you want the investigative team to play? Specifically, what's their job?

 

[Horn6721]

Why couldn't there be a team of investigators who would be like the lawyers you want BUT they would investigate the case independent of the police but with the same access to the same docs you want lawyers to have.
But they would investigate before the accused has to go on trial.
If you read many of the cases where people have been sentenced only later to be exonerated we found out that the investigation was botched or shoddy and missed key elements .Look no further than the case you cited.
If top notch investigators had done investigation even before trial they would have caught the errors in the timeline.
freed the guy and saved the taxpayers a ton of money.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Why couldn't there be a team of investigators who would be like the lawyers you want BUT they would investigate the case independent of the police but with the same access to the same docs you want lawyers to have.
But they would investigate before the accused has to go on trial.

To quote Bob Dylan, you're gonna have to serve somebody. There's nothing such as an "independent investigator." They always work for somebody, and in your scenario, they're still working for the government. Furthermore, the competency of the the investigators isn't usually the problem. The government can hire any investigator it wants and order it to find out the truth without regard to obtaining a conviction. It doesn't do that, because it doesn't want to. Once it decides who it's going after, it wants that guy nailed to the wall, and it's not going to pursue evidence that tends to contradict that. You need someone who's on the accused's side to do that. Furthermore, someone who understands trial evidence (specifically what evidence is helpful at trial and what's not) needs to supervise the investigator's work.

In addition, the problems that often occur aren't just limited to investigative issues. I frequently read cases in which defense attorneys fail to object to inadmissible evidence, fail to properly preserve error at the trial court level (which enables appellate courts to review the error that occured), and things of that nature. Only a defense lawyer can do those things.

If you read many of the cases where people have been sentenced only later to be exonerated we found out that the investigation was botched or shoddy and missed key elements .Look no further than the case you cited. If top notch investigators had done investigation even before trial they would have caught the errors in the timeline.
freed the guy and saved the taxpayers a ton of money.

You think incompetency caused this guy to get wrongly accused? The accused was banging a police officer's fiancee, and "on a hunch" the cops decided to compare the DNA of the semen found in the victim to the accused's. You really think there wasn't involvement by the cop? Of course there was. The only way this could have been avoided is if the accused had been able to bring a stronger and more vigorous defense.

 

[Horn6721]

I am trying understand why a first class investigative team provided for the accuse is different than a first class attorney provided for the defense.
Didn't you post that you would like to see top notch lawyers paid for by us but provided to the accused?

I am thinking it should start the accused getting a fair defense starts with investigation. No all erroneous cases are not dur to poor shoddy lazy work by police but a large number are
And from a cost standpoint ,not to mention trauma for an innocent person accuse if a thorough investigation oen on behalf of the accused wouldn't it be better to not let things get to trial.

Why wouldn't investigators hired for the defense be able to function as independent as lawyers hired to defend?

 

[Mr. Deez]

I am trying understand why a first class investigative team provided for the accuse is different than a first class attorney provided for the defense.
Didn't you post that you would like to see top notch lawyers paid for by us but provided to the accused?

So you're suggesting that this team of investigators work for the accused. That's fine, but somebody has to oversee the investigator's work and incorporate it into the accused's defense. That's where the defense lawyer fits in, and it's where his expertise is. Investigators gather information, but they don't decide how to defend a case and therefore can't be expected to know what information to gather. I hired investigators from time to time. They gathered the information, but I told them what to look for.

And again, a major part of the problem consists of things investigators can't do. An investigator can't keep the jury charge from getting screwed up, can't know who can or should be stricken from a jury panel, or keep the prosecutor from admitting hearsay evidence.

I am thinking it should start the accused getting a fair defense starts with investigation. No all erroneous cases are not dur to poor shoddy lazy work by police but a large number are
And from a cost standpoint ,not to mention trauma for an innocent person accuse if a thorough investigation oen on behalf of the accused wouldn't it be better to not let things get to trial.

Yes, it is better if things never go to trial, but what does that have to do with defense counsel? Hiring a defense lawyer doesn't mean the case goes to trial. In fact, the best way to avoid going to trial is for the accused to have a strong defense and for the prosecutor to fear going to court. (They don't like losing.)

Why wouldn't investigators hired for the defense be able to function as independent as lawyers hired to defend?

Defense lawyers aren't independent. They represent their clients, and they are fiduciaries with a myriad of legal duties to their clients. Investigators are not. They work for who's hiring them and/or who's paying them, but again, that issue can be resolved in part if they're retained by the defense rather than by the prosecution.

 

[Horn6721]

If defense attorneys are not independent then neither would the investigators be
Or both would be
I think we have the same basic idea, make sure an accused really should be an accused.
If things could be sorted out before a trial that seems a great solution.
If an independent ( of police) investigation could be done before an accused has to go to trial and this investigation could discover some of the things that should have been discovered or revealed by the police before trial how much better would that be?

I am not BTW saying good counsel should not be provided I am just saying that of all the exonerations I have read about in last 4 years many would never have gone to trial if a complete and through investigation had been done.
Not all of course and there is a need for more competent defense attorneys
but it is so much cheaper for us to make sure the accused should be the accused.

 

[Mr. Deez]

6721, you're talking as though you don't know what an attorney's job actually is. You highlight that taking cases to trial costs more money than resolving them before trail. That's absolutely true. However, you seem to think that the attorney's job is mostly to walk into court and try the case. That's not true.

Long BEFORE trial, the defense attorney is supposed to conduct a comprehensive investigation on his client's behalf. That's what he's paid to do. In the course of doing so, he's like to retain the assistance of various personnel who might do tasks he cannot or prefers not to do himself. In the criminal context, it could be investigators, forensic pathologists, toxicologists, handwriting experts, etc. He uses what he learns in the investigation to craft a defense for his client, but all of those guys are taking orders from him or from someone who takes orders from him.

A defense attorney (in fact any attorney) doesn't just try cases, and having a better lawyer doesn't mean the case is more likely to be tried. In fact, it often means it's less likely to be tried, because if a prosecutor fears that he's going to lose (which is humiliating for a prosecutor) he's going to drop the charges or get a lot more reasonable in plea negotiations.

By contrast, when the defendant has an incompetent or unprepared lawyer, it doesn't matter if he had great investigators working on the case. They aren't going to know what to investigate, and even if they do, there isn't going to be a way to properly incorporate their work into the defense of the case. Things are going to end badly.

 

[Texas Taps]

Maybe instead of asking “Who Killed Stacey Stites?” and serving as the mouthpiece of the defense, the weekly (Austin Chronicle) should wonder “Why was Rodney Reed’s semen inside a badly-beaten 12-year-old girl?”
There is DNA evidence that while Reed was out on bail in the Wichita Falls case, he beat, raped and sodomized a 12-year-old Bastrop girl. The DNA testing from the Stites rape would tie him to that case, which never went to trial because Reed was sent to death row in 1998.

http://www.michaelcorcoran.net/archives/3005

http://staceystites.com/Reed_Opinion_2000.pdf

 

[dang-str8]

I changed my views on the death penalty after reading about the execution of Carlos DeLuna (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/carlos-de-luna-execution-_n_1507003.html). I felt like it was so obvious that he was innocent, and it was all just ignored... Then I saw an abcnews story on it:


...and then a documentary (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929235/)... I just didn't think that it was the government's place to execute anyone in our name... specially when they are very likely to **** it up and kill someone not guilty... And believe me, if anyone did anything to harm my family, I would be the first one to plot revenge... but I would expect a rational government to not act like a vengeful, crazed individual not thinking straight.

 

[Mr. Deez]

http://www.michaelcorcoran.net/archives/3005

http://staceystites.com/Reed_Opinion_2000.pdf

The article is full of ****. First, nobody is claiming that Reed is a Boys Scout. At a minimum, he was banging another dude's fiancee. That alone makes him a bad guy. He may have attacked other women. Who knows? It doesn't really matter. He was charged with killing Stacey Stites, and evidence pertaining to that is all that's relevant.

Second, he's wrong when he says the only people who claim that Reed was having a consensual relationship with Stites were friends and family members of Reeds. Not true. There's sworn statements from coworkers of Stites who claim that Stites told them she was having an affair with Reed and saw her with Reed acting affectionately. Neither were ever questioned by the police.

Third, and most importantly, the evidence of Reed's innocence isn't based on anything Reed claims. He could be the biggest liar in the world, and it wouldn't matter. It's based on scientific evidence proving that she died earlier than the state claims and proving that Reed's last sexual encounter with her wasn't immediately before her death but a few days earlier. (Does this guy really think a girl can get rid of semen by taking a shower??? For a guy, he doesn't know much about splooge.) But don't believe the forensic experts who are reviewing the case now. The medical examiner who testified in the original case has recanted his testimony - says he was wrong about the sperm and that he couldn't really pinpoint the time of death.

Reed may not be a choir boy and may even be a rapist. But it's highly unlikely that he murdered Stites.

 

[Texas Taps]

The article is full of ****. First, nobody is claiming that Reed is a Boys Scout. At a minimum, he was banging another dude's fiancee. That alone makes him a bad guy. He may have attacked other women. Who knows? It doesn't really matter. He was charged with killing Stacey Stites, and evidence pertaining to that is all that's relevant.

Second, he's wrong when he says the only people who claim that Reed was having a consensual relationship with Stites were friends and family members of Reeds. Not true. There's sworn statements from coworkers of Stites who claim that Stites told them she was having an affair with Reed and saw her with Reed acting affectionately. Neither were ever questioned by the police.

Third, and most importantly, the evidence of Reed's innocence isn't based on anything Reed claims. He could be the biggest liar in the world, and it wouldn't matter. It's based on scientific evidence proving that she died earlier than the state claims and proving that Reed's last sexual encounter with her wasn't immediately before her death but a few days earlier. (Does this guy really think a girl can get rid of semen by taking a shower??? For a guy, he doesn't know much about splooge.) But don't believe the forensic experts who are reviewing the case now. The medical examiner who testified in the original case has recanted his testimony - says he was wrong about the sperm and that he couldn't really pinpoint the time of death.

Reed may not be a choir boy and may even be a rapist. But it's highly unlikely that he murdered Stites.

LOL, so raping a 12 year old = not a choir boy? Got it. Looks like he made up the same story in Wichita Falls in 1987. They also found DNA from Reed's saliva on Stites' breasts so I guess she didn't wash those either.

So let's say Stites was attracted to Reed. What was the attraction? His car? His money? His career? His fancy home?

 

[Mr. Deez]

LOL, so raping a 12 year old = not a choir boy? Got it. Looks like he made up the same story in Wichita Falls in 1987.

If he raped a 12-year-old girl, then charge him with that crime. It has nothing to do with the Stites case.

They also found DNA from Reed's saliva on Stites' breasts so I guess she didn't wash those either.

Maybe she washed them, maybe she didn't. Maybe she washed them but not thoroughly enough to remove absolutely ever trace of DNA from them. So what? Rather than speculate on her bathing habits, why not look at the actual scientific evidence?

So let's say Stites was attracted to Reed. What was the attraction? His car? His money? His career? His fancy home?

You're trying to suggest that she wouldn't have gotten with Reed because he was a loser? Seriously??? Maybe she had a thing for black guys. Maybe she had a thing for trashy guys. Stupid chicks get with loser guys all the time. There doesn't have to be a sensible reason. The biggest losers I've known got more *** than a toilet seat.

Hell, I know a short, fat, almost bald guy who didn't have a job most of the time, and he banged two Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders and one of the girls from Baywatch. The dude just had an incredible rap. He's married now - to a smokin' hot college girl whom he impregnated. She's about 15 years younger than he is. A young, dumb redneck chick banging some loser black guy isn't out of the question at all.

 

[Texas Taps]

If he raped a 12-year-old girl, then charge him with that crime. It has nothing to do with the Stites case.



Maybe she washed them, maybe she didn't. Maybe she washed them but not thoroughly enough to remove absolutely ever trace of DNA from them. So what? Rather than speculate on her bathing habits, why not look at the actual scientific evidence?



You're trying to suggest that she wouldn't have gotten with Reed because he was a loser? Seriously??? Maybe she had a thing for black guys. Maybe she had a thing for trashy guys. Stupid chicks get with loser guys all the time. There doesn't have to be a sensible reason. The biggest losers I've known got more *** than a toilet seat.

Hell, I know a short, fat, almost bald guy who didn't have a job most of the time, and he banged two Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders and one of the girls from Baywatch. The dude just had an incredible rap. He's married now - to a smokin' hot college girl whom he impregnated. She's about 15 years younger than he is. A young, dumb redneck chick banging some loser black guy isn't out of the question at all.

Did you read the entire article I posted that was written by some hippy liberal? Even he doesn't fall for Reed's defense. He raped and murdered Stites whom he said he didn't know until they found his DNA in and on her. There's no reason to charge him with all the other crimes because he's going to take a dirt nap and deservedly so.

Reed claims that meeting was typical of the arrangement they'd had since their first meeting in late 1995. Originally, he said, "I bumped into her, basically, at like a gas station that had pool tables in the back, a jukebox -- you know what I'm saying. I bumped into her and we struck up a conversation, small talk. This was late October or early November 1995."

After that, he said, he would see Stites every other week or so. Sometimes she'd stop by the Bastrop community center, sometimes by his parents' house -- even though his mother didn't like it. But more typically, he said, they would meet before she went to work, late at night, and head to the state park, talk, and have sex, which is what he said happened the last time he saw her. "We were at the park; we were kind of in between both [inside and outside the truck]. Yes, I had sex with her." After a while, he said, they drove off and she dropped him near town. "She took a left and went her way, I went mine," he said. "That was the last time I saw her."

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2002-05-24/93214/

I guess your "friend" that "gets all this ***" probably didn't walk along the railroad tracks in Bastrop, hang out at the community center or in gas stations that had pool tables in the back, and **** all these hot chicks in a state park.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Did you read the entire article I posted that was written by some hippy liberal? Even he doesn't fall for Reed's defense. He raped and murdered Stites whom he said he didn't know until they found his DNA in and on her. There's no reason to charge him with all the other crimes because he's going to take a dirt nap and deservedly so.

Yes, I read it, and they could still have charged him. Regardless, it's not relevant to whether or not he's guilty in the Stites case.

I guess your "friend" that "gets all this ***" probably didn't walk along the railroad tracks in Bastrop, hang out at the community center or in gas stations that had pool tables in the back, and **** all these hot chicks in a state park.

He would have if he didn't have his own place and had to settle for trailer park chicks from Bastrop.

Whatever, Dude. Ignore all the scientific evidence all you want. On some level, I guess it is more fun to discuss how often Stites liked to bathe or why she would bang black dudes.

 

[Texas Taps]

Yes, I read it, and they could still have charged him. Regardless, it's not relevant to whether or not he's guilty in the Stites case.



He would have if he didn't have his own place and had to settle for trailer park chicks from Bastrop.

Whatever, Dude. Ignore all the scientific evidence all you want. On some level, I guess it is more fun to discuss how often Stites liked to bathe or why she would bang black dudes.

1. She lived in an apartment in the same complex as her mother.
2. She graduated from high school.
3. She had a job.
4. It's hard for attractive 19-year-old girls to get ****** so they seek out the lowest of low-lifes in Bastrop by trolling rail road tracks, the community center, and gas stations with pool tables in the back. Girls just want a good ******* in a state park. They don't care about a relationship or certainly any man with money.
5. What scientific evidence points to any other suspect?
6. Is being a serial rapist and sodomite relevant? Reed raped and sodomized his baby's momma in front of his children. He raped and sodomized a 12-year-old. Stites had been raped and sodomized, but hey, apparently all Reed's women like it in the ***, right?

May I direct your attention to page 4 in this link: https://rodneyreedfulltruth.files.w...-report-stacy-stites-murder-investigation.pdf

 

[Mr. Deez]

1. She lived in an apartment in the same complex as her mother.
2. She graduated from high school.
3. She had a job.

So?

4. It's hard for attractive 19-year-old girls to get ****** so they seek out the lowest of low-lifes in Bastrop by trolling rail road tracks, the community center, and gas stations with pool tables in the back. Girls just want a good ******* in a state park. They don't care about a relationship or certainly any man with money.

It has nothing to do with "getting ******" just for the sake of doing so. Young girls do stupid things and can easily be duped into screwing a loser guy. I have a 22 year old niece who's much more attractive than Stites was, and she's built like a porn star. Like Stites, she lives near her mom and works full time. Does she seek out and date successful guys who are looking to marry and start a family? Nope. She exclusively dates losers. The loser she dated a couple of years ago decided to quit smoking pot, went to school, and hustled himself a good job. She quickly lost interest in him and cheated on him with an illegal alien who's a convicted felon and works in the kitchen at a Dallas-area Hooters. She dumped the ex-loser even though she cheated on him and decided to stick with the illegal alien. Some chicks have an inexplicable attraction to trashy men. It's very, very common.

5. What scientific evidence points to any other suspect?

That's the wrong inquiry. The burden of proof is on the state to prove Reed's guilt. It's not on Reed to prove someone else's guilt. The correct inquiry is what scientific evidence points to Reed, and at this point, none of it does. Remember, not only have three independent forensic pathologists stated that the state's theory of Reed's guilt is a scientific impossibility, THE FRIGGIN' MEDICAL EXAMINER WHO TESTIFIED FOR THE PROSECUTION RECANTED HIS TESTIMONY. Do you understand that? At this point, you have nothing but disproven and recanted testimony. That isn't worth diddly dick and sure as hell isn't enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nevertheless, to answer your question even though Reed has no such burden, the forensic pathologists who reviewed the case have put her time of death at a time when she was alone with Jimmy Fennell by Fennell's own admission.

6. Is being a serial rapist and sodomite relevant? Reed raped and sodomized his baby's momma in front of his children. He raped and sodomized a 12-year-old. Stites had been raped and sodomized, but hey, apparently all Reed's women like it in the ***, right?

May I direct your attention to page 4 in this link: https://rodneyreedfulltruth.files.w...-report-stacy-stites-murder-investigation.pdf

Actually, it's typically not relevant in the guilt/innocence phase of a trial. People are supposed to be convicted of the crime for which they are charged, not a past crime or allegation. And bear in mind that for the sake of discussion, I'm presuming Reed's guilt in the allegations you've thrown at him for sexual assault. He's only faced prosecution for one of them, and he was found not guilty by a Wichita County jury in 1991 - not a venue known to be very sympathetic or willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a black guy who was having sex with white women, especially 24 years ago.

Finally, if you think Reed's past deeds suggest guilt despite its lack of legal relevance, consider Fennell's past deeds. He's no choirboy either. He's actually serving time for kidnapping and having sex with a woman in custody, and there have been stories of his own acts of violence and threats to other people. I don't consider that to be evidence of his guilt, but if we're going to go into that, we should be consistent. He's a bad dude.

And just FYI - the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has granted a stay of execution pending further order.

http://www.kvue.com/story/news/local/2015/02/23/appeals-court-stays-rodney-reed-execution/23907771/

http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/ReedR_wrt07_ord.pdf

 

[Texas Taps]

So?

So she's not from a trailer park

It has nothing to do with "getting ******" just for the sake of doing so. Young girls do stupid things and can easily be duped into screwing a loser guy. I have a 22 year old niece who's much more attractive than Stites was, and she's built like a porn star. Like Stites, she lives near her mom and works full time. Does she seek out and date successful guys who are looking to marry and start a family? Nope. She exclusively dates losers. The loser she dated a couple of years ago decided to quit smoking pot, went to school, and hustled himself a good job. She quickly lost interest in him and cheated on him with an illegal alien who's a convicted felon and works in the kitchen at a Dallas-area Hooters. She dumped the ex-loser even though she cheated on him and decided to stick with the illegal alien. Some chicks have an inexplicable attraction to trashy men. It's very, very common.

You have a lot of incredible stories of hot women hooking up with losers. Am I on the internet or what? Thanks for the info on "very common human behavior". I'm very young, naïve, and have no experience on what's "normal".

That's the wrong inquiry. The burden of proof is on the state to prove Reed's guilt. It's not on Reed to prove someone else's guilt. The correct inquiry is what scientific evidence points to Reed, and at this point, none of it does. Remember, not only have three independent forensic pathologists stated that the state's theory of Reed's guilt is a scientific impossibility, THE FRIGGIN' MEDICAL EXAMINER WHO TESTIFIED FOR THE PROSECUTION RECANTED HIS TESTIMONY. Do you understand that? At this point, you have nothing but disproven and recanted testimony. That isn't worth diddly dick and sure as hell isn't enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nevertheless, to answer your question even though Reed has no such burden, the forensic pathologists who reviewed the case have put her time of death at a time when she was alone with Jimmy Fennell by Fennell's own admission.

Yeah, I kind of understand the burden of proof. I guess you don't believe in circumstantial evidence like a serial rapist in the area or where the truck was parked, etc. Care to post the recantation? Did these forensic pathologists actually examine the body, or are they making a judgment from someone else's notes?

Actually, it's typically not relevant in the guilt/innocence phase of a trial. People are supposed to be convicted of the crime for which they are charged, not a past crime or allegation. And bear in mind that for the sake of discussion, I'm presuming Reed's guilt in the allegations you've thrown at him for sexual assault. He's only faced prosecution for one of them, and he was found not guilty by a Wichita County jury in 1991 - not a venue known to be very sympathetic or willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a black guy who was having sex with white women, especially 24 years ago.

So I guess you don't believe his DNA was found inside a 12 year old.

Finally, if you think Reed's past deeds suggest guilt despite its lack of legal relevance, consider Fennell's past deeds. He's no choirboy either. He's actually serving time for kidnapping and having sex with a woman in custody, and there have been stories of his own acts of violence and threats to other people. I don't consider that to be evidence of his guilt, but if we're going to go into that, we should be consistent. He's a bad dude.

Don't violent offenders usually escalate the nature of their offenses instead of de-escalate? So Fennell started with murder and progressed to rape?

Reed's not getting off of death row.

 

[Mr. Deez]

So she's not from a trailer park

In the mid '90s all of Bastrop was a trailer park. That's less true today.

You have a lot of incredible stories of hot women hooking up with losers. Am I on the internet or what?

Just the situations I know about.

Yeah, I kind of understand the burden of proof.

No you don't. If you did, then you wouldn't have asked what scientific evidence points to other suspects.

I guess you don't believe in circumstantial evidence like a serial rapist in the area or where the truck was parked, etc.

I do believe in circumstantial evidence, but the inference drawn from the evidence must be reasonable, and it can't conflict with direct evidence and still has to fit into the timeline of how the incident occurred. Being a "serial rapist" (which hasn't been established anyway) isn't circumstantial evidence. Things such as being with the victim at the time of her death would be circumstantial evidence as would failing a polygraph test, but right now, both of those pieces of evidence point the finger at Fennell, not Reed.

Here's some more circumstantial evidence. Two beer cans were found at the scene where Stites' body was found. DNA tests on the cans came back positive for Fennell, Giddings cop David Hall (who was a buddy of Fennell's and lived in his apartment complex), and Bastrop cop Ed Salmela but not Reed. The jury never saw this evidence, because it was withheld from defense. Hmm, why would prosecutors be willing to break the law to withhold that evidence???

http://www.elgincourier.com/news/article_5f21244a-77aa-11e3-ad3a-0019bb2963f4.html

Care to post the recantation?

"“My estimate of time of death … should not have been used at trial as an accurate statement of when … Stites died,”

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/17/texas-death-row-inmate-rodney-reed-new-evidence

Did these forensic pathologists actually examine the body, or are they making a judgment from someone
else's notes?

They reviewed crime scene photos, autopsy reports, and videos. You can call them into question, but they're some of the most respected forensic pathologists in the country, and Michael Baden is probably the most respected. Nobody is taking issue with their findings, including Bayardo, the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy.

So I guess you don't believe his DNA was found inside a 12 year old.

I have no idea, but for the sake of this case, it doesn't matter. If we were reviewing the evidence in that case, then it would, but we're not, so it doesn't.

Don't violent offenders usually escalate the nature of their offenses instead of de-escalate? So Fennell started with murder and progressed to rape?

It's certainly not out of the question. He may have been willing to kill his cheating fiancee but not willing to kill a totally innocent woman he was bending over and raping on his police vehicle. Nevertheless, we're talking about speculation. I don't know if Fennell killed Stites. He deserves the same presumption of innocence that Reed deserves, but a case can certainly be made. It wouldn't surprise me if he's one day indicted for it.

Reed's not getting off of death row.

I wouldn't be so sure. An indefinite stay of execution from a very pro-prosecution court doesn't look so good for that assumption.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I changed my views on the death penalty after reading about the execution of Carlos DeLuna (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/carlos-de-luna-execution-_n_1507003.html). I felt like it was so obvious that he was innocent, and it was all just ignored... Then I saw an abcnews story on it:


...and then a documentary (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929235/)... I just didn't think that it was the government's place to execute anyone in our name... specially when they are very likely to **** it up and kill someone not guilty... And believe me, if anyone did anything to harm my family, I would be the first one to plot revenge... but I would expect a rational government to not act like a vengeful, crazed individual not thinking straight.

I have somewhat bizarre views on the death penalty. Substantively, I have no respect for the anti-death penalty side. Some criminals deserve to die for their crimes. (If I thought Rodney Reed was guilty, I'd have absolutely no problem with killing his sorry ***.) I don't even have a problem with non-murderers getting the death penalty. If you forcibly rape someone or molest children, I don't think the death penalty is an excessive punishment at all. I also think the argument that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment is total garbage. The founding fathers permitted the death penalty in the US and in the states, so they clearly didn't consider it inherently cruel and unusual. They may not have been fans of the torturous methods used in Europe, but they definitely didn't have a problem with hanging people for horrific crimes.

However, procedurally, I have major problems with how lackadaisical we are about convicting people (in death cases and otherwise). I also have a major problem some of the corrupt practices in which our prosecutors engage and in the half-assed evidentiary reviews that our appellate courts engage in when reviewing criminal cases. If juries' inferences are ripped apart in civil cases, then they should be much more severely ripped apart in criminal cases, where the burden of proof is much higher.

Will I one day lose hope in the reforming itself and oppose the death penalty? Maybe, but I'm not there yet.

 

[Texas Taps]

In the mid '90s all of Bastrop was a trailer park. That's less true today.

She's not from Bastrop, LOL

No you don't. If you did, then you wouldn't have asked what scientific evidence points to other suspects.

Are we under oath?

They reviewed crime scene photos, autopsy reports, and videos. You can call them into question, but they're some of the most respected forensic pathologists in the country, and Michael Baden is probably the most respected.

Who's paying them?

I wouldn't be so sure. An indefinite stay of execution from a very pro-prosecution court doesn't look so good for that assumption.

We'll see