Will we execute an innocent man?

[Mr. Deez]

She's not from Bastrop, LOL

My mistake. She was from that bastion of culture and intellect, Giddings, Texas.

That's sorta like if I had suggested that she was from a cold climate area and said she was from Minnesota, and you corrected me because she was actually from Greenland. lol

Are we under oath?

No, but rules of evidence and burdens of proof exist for a reason, especially when we're talking about a criminal case.

Who's paying them?

I don't know. I doubt that Reed is paying them. That would cost a hell of a lot of money for an individual. My guess is that an anti-death penalty non-profit group retained them. They're either getting paid by them or volunteering. I'm somewhat familiar with them, and none have the reputation of being paid hacks. Nevertheless, if they're wrong, the prosecution shouldn't have any problem finding an expert to contradict their findings. It certainly doesn't help that the original medical examiner is largely corroborating their findings.

 

[Texas Taps]

My mistake. She was from that bastion of culture and intellect, Giddings, Texas.

No one worth a **** comes from small Texas towns, right? Which metropolis was Colt from?

No, but rules of evidence and burdens of proof exist for a reason, especially when we're talking about a criminal case.

Not on the internet or in any articles you've posted

 

[Larry T Spider]

"She was too good to sleep with that guy so he must be guilty" is literally the worst logic I have ever read on this board in 10+ years. It's so asinine that you either don't believe it and are trolling or have an IQ so low that even Greg Abbott wouldn't execute you.

 

[Texas Taps]

"She was too good to sleep with that guy so he must be guilty" is literally the worst logic I have ever read on this board in 10+ years. It's so asinine that you either don't believe it and are trolling or have an IQ so low that even Greg Abbott wouldn't execute you.

No, he's guilty because he's a serial rapist and he used the same ******** story he made up the first time he was accused of rape. "I don't know her, oh wait, you got my DNA? Yeah we had a ******* in the state park, dating in gas stations with a pool table in the back kind of romance." Bahahahahahaha. Liberals will believe anything

 

[Larry T Spider]

Not quite anything. I certainly won't continue to believe that testimony that has been recanted is accurate. I won't believe that a 19 year old's choice in sexual partners is evidence enough to kill somebody. I won't believe that the state always gets these things right, especially when the accused was banging a cop's fiancée. I won't believe in killing a person for a crime when there is such obvious reasonable doubt according to just about everybody that has studied the case. I won't believe in throwing away due process because he's probably guilty of other crimes. Lastly, I will not believe you when if you ever get on here and complain about the ills of big government, specifically corruption when you have trusted them with another man's life.

 

[Texas Taps]

Not quite anything. I certainly won't continue to believe that testimony that has been recanted is accurate. I won't believe that a 19 year old's choice in sexual partners is evidence enough to kill somebody. I won't believe that the state always gets these things right, especially when the accused was banging a cop's fiancée. I won't believe in killing a person for a crime when there is such obvious reasonable doubt according to just about everybody that has studied the case. I won't believe in throwing away due process because he's probably guilty of other crimes. Lastly, I will not believe you when if you ever get on here and complain about the ills of big government, specifically corruption when you have trusted them with another man's life.

Do you believe the state found his DNA inside a 12-year-old?

 

[Texas Taps]

If I set up a gofundme account for Reed's defense will y'all contribute?

 

[Larry T Spider]

I have no idea. If they did, then they should charge him with that crime. It's completely irrelevant to the crime they may execute him for. That evidence was not presented to the jury and had no bearing on his conviction. Do you really not know how this works or are you trolling?

 

[Texas Taps]

I have no idea. If they did, then they should charge him with that crime. It's completely irrelevant to the crime they may execute him for. That evidence was not presented to the jury and had no bearing on his conviction. Do you really not know how this works or are you trolling?

I know how it works. If he gets away with murder, then you charge him with sexual assault of a minor.

If I set up a gofundme account for Reed's defense will y'all contribute?

Well?

 

[Larry T Spider]

I know how it works. If he gets away with murder, then you charge him with sexual assault of a minor.
Well?

So why in the world would you bring the 12 year old up in relation to the conviction of a murder that has nothing to do with this? Argue that he should be charged with that crime in a different thread. Is it because your on topic arguments such as "he had to have done it because she would never sleep with a gross black guy" aren't working? You are really doing some mental gymnastics to trust the government or you are trolling. If you are serious, then you are a prosecutor's wet dream because you will literally believe them on any ******** they throw out there.

I'm not discussing a gofundme account or anything else with you because you have such a hard time discussing the very few things that are relevant to Reed's current situation.

 

[Texas Taps]

So why in the world would you bring the 12 year old up in relation to the conviction of a murder that has nothing to do with this? Argue that he should be charged with that crime in a different thread. Is it because your on topic arguments such as "he had to have done it because she would never sleep with a gross black guy" aren't working? You are really doing some mental gymnastics to trust the government or you are trolling. If you are serious, then you are a prosecutor's wet dream because you will literally believe them on any ******** they throw out there.

I'm not discussing a gofundme account or anything else with you because you have such a hard time discussing the very few things that are relevant to Reed's current situation.

For the same reason a hippy liberal did in the article I posted in this thread. Even he doesn't believe in Reed.

 

[Texas Taps]

So why in the world would you bring the 12 year old up in relation to the conviction of a murder that has nothing to do with this? Argue that he should be charged with that crime in a different thread. Is it because your on topic arguments such as "he had to have done it because she would never sleep with a gross black guy" aren't working? You are really doing some mental gymnastics to trust the government or you are trolling. If you are serious, then you are a prosecutor's wet dream because you will literally believe them on any ******** they throw out there.

I'm not discussing a gofundme account or anything else with you because you have such a hard time discussing the very few things that are relevant to Reed's current situation.

So how about some financial support for Reed? You in?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Larry,

Thank goodness you showed up. I haven't seen you on here since the new site launched, and I was starting to get worried. I can't handle these wingnuts by myself. It's just too much. lol.

 

[Mr. Deez]

No one worth a **** comes from small Texas towns, right? Which metropolis was Colt from?

I never said that. My whole point on that issue is that there's no reason to assume Stites was too good to hook up with a loser like Reed. And for the record, my niece is from the Dallas area and is pretty intelligent (but has poor judgment), and she wasn't too good to hook up with losers.

Not on the internet or in any articles you've posted

The evidence I cited from the articles is admissible and relevant, except where I stated otherwise. And I only did that to contradict the irrelevant and/or inadmissible junk you cited.

 

[Texas Taps]

And for the record, my niece is from the Dallas area and is pretty intelligent (but has poor judgment), and she wasn't too good to hook up with losers.

That's quite a population sample you've got there. Has it ever occurred to you that she could be the loser?

The evidence I cited from the articles is admissible and relevant, except where I stated otherwise. And I only did that to contradict the irrelevant and/or inadmissible junk you cited

Is it? Is it in a court transcript?

So can I and Reed count on your financial support for his defense?

 

[Mr. Deez]

I know how it works. If he gets away with murder, then you charge him with sexual assault of a minor.

You sure do talk out your ***. They can and do charge people with crimes while they are incarcerated. Furthermore, they can still charge him with raping the 12 year old girl. There is no criminal statue of limitations for sexually assaulting a 12 year old girl.

 

[Texas Taps]

You sure do talk out your ***. They can and do charge people with crimes while they are incarcerated. Furthermore, they can still charge him with raping the 12 year old girl. There is no criminal statue of limitations for sexually assaulting a 12 year old girl.

I know they can, but what's the point? He'd have to ******* appear in front of a judge. You realize that's his right, don't you? It would be a stupid *** liberal waste of money to charge someone sitting on death row with another crime right now and then have to transport his *** back to court.

Still waiting on your commitment to a defense fund.

 

[Mr. Deez]

That's quite a population sample you've got there. Has it ever occurred to you that she could be the loser?

That's arguable, but the guys are definitely losers.

Is it? Is it in a court transcript?

It doesn't have to be in a court transcript. Where do you get this nonsense?

So can I and Reed count on your financial support for his defense?

He's entitled to a defense as a matter of law and is ably represented. He doesn't need my financial support. Furthermore, I'm not interested in helping Reed out. He's probably a low-life, but that doesn't make him a murderer.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I know they can, but what's the point? He'd have to ******* appear in front of a judge. You realize that's his right, don't you? It would be a stupid *** liberal waste of money to charge someone sitting on death row with another crime right now and then have to transport his *** back to court.

It still happens, because the state can't rely on convictions not getting overturned. It's not going to seem like a waste if that happens.

 

[Texas Taps]

That's arguable, but the guys are definitely losers.



It doesn't have to be in a court transcript. Where do you get this nonsense?



He's entitled to a defense as a matter of law and is ably represented. He doesn't need my financial support. Furthermore, I'm not interested in helping Reed out. He's probably a low-life, but that doesn't make him a murderer.

Well this is West Mall, not West Criminal Court. The rules of evidence don't apply here and everything is up for discussion. You're welcome

 

[Texas Taps]

It still happens, because the state can't rely on convictions not getting overturned. It's not going to seem like a waste if that happens.

It also happens that when someone has committed more than one murder, often they're only tried for one if the prosecution is successful in a conviction. They can charge him for sex assault anytime they wish. What's the rush? Where's he going? LOL

 

[Larry T Spider]

What passes as evidence in court is extremely important to this conversation because we are discussing killing somebody based on that evidence. We can certainly discuss other evidence but what could be entered in court is all that matters for the life of Reed.

I fully support charging him with other crimes that he may have committed. I'm even fine with executing him for those crimes if they meet the legal standard. Executing him for this would be an abomination.

 

[Mr. Deez]

What passes as evidence in court is extremely important to this conversation because we are discussing killing somebody based on that evidence. We can certainly discuss other evidence but what could be entered in court is all that matters for the life of Reed.

I fully support charging him with other crimes that he may have committed. I'm even fine with executing him for those crimes if they meet the legal standard. Executing him for this would be an abomination.

Larry,

There's little point in discussing this further. This guy has been thoroughly discredited on every meaningful point he has made. At this point he's just grasping at whatever side issue he can come up with to avoid admitting that he's wrong.

If you keep this up, the inner ****-flinging monkey (to borrow your brilliant phrase) is bound to make an appearance.

 

[Texas Taps]

This guy has been thoroughly discredited on every meaningful point he has made.

According to the expert. Good job
Go ahead and hang your hat on a time of death opinion given by some fellows that never examined the body. Luckily for you your *** in not in the sling.
Oh, in other news: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/u...zimmerman-in-trayvon-martin-killing.html?_r=0

You're welcome

 

[Mr. Deez]

According to the expert. Good job
Go ahead and hang your hat on a time of death opinion given by some fellows that never examined the body. Luckily for you your *** in not in the sling.

And you hang your hat on what? Not a damn thing. The guy who did examine the body recanted his testimony and is not disagreeing with the experts.

Oh, in other news: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/25/u...zimmerman-in-trayvon-martin-killing.html?_r=0

You're welcome

You just assume I'm a blind liberal because I actually care about executing a probably innocent man. I'm actually a conservative who thinks for himself. I thought the DOJ investigation on the Zimmerman case was stupid and fully supported his acquital. The DOJ should never have gotten anywhere near the case.

 

[Texas Taps]

The guy who did examine the body recanted his testimony and is not disagreeing with the experts.

Do you have his statement?

 

[Texas Taps]

The guy who did examine the body recanted his testimony and is not disagreeing with the experts.

Well, well, well.

In my professional opinion, pinpointing a precise time of exactly when Ms. Stites died would have been, and remains, impossible.

Mr. Deez, you really shouldn't take defense attorney's statements quoted in articles as evidence.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/documents/reed.objections.pdf

http://www.austinchronicle.com/documents/state.objections.to.reed.report.pdf

 

[Mr. Deez]

Well, well, well.Mr. Deez, you really shouldn't take defense attorney's statements quoted in articles as evidence.

I didn't. That quote came from Bayardo's affidavit, which is in the link you posted. By the way, did you read that? I'm not sure why you'd post that. It butchers the case against Reed. Bayardo backed away from his testimony about the time of death. Obviously he's not going to say, "I was full of crap," but he's certainly backpedaling (by diverting attention toward pinpointing a precise time of death, which no one's trying to do) and strongly attacking the state's theory.

Much more significantly, if you read the section on the survival of sperm, he affirms that the sex that occurred with Reed was more than 24 hours before her death - consistent with Reed's version of the facts and Baden's findings. He also states that there is no indication that suggests the sperm was deposited by any means other than consensual sex - no evidence of forcible vaginal sex. The sexual assault that did occur was to Stites' anus, did not involve ejaculation (consistent with Fennell's subsequent sexual assault), and most likely involved a rod-like object "such as a police baton."

The argument that Reed had forcible sex with Stites near the time of her death is crucial to the state's case against him. Everything else is inferred from that assumption. Once that was shown to be inaccurate (not only by the defense experts but perhaps more damningly by the prosecutor's expert), the entire house of cards falls apart.

It's no longer a battle of the experts in which the jury could simply find the prosecution's expert more persuasive. At this point, the prosecution is left with nothing but testimony by non-physicians that sperm can only remain intact in the vaginal cavity for 24 - 26 hours. Two problems with that. First, as non-forensic pathologists, those witnesses may be subject to a Daubert challenge, which means their testimony may not be admissible at all. Second, even if their testimony is admissible and believed (in the face of now four forensic pathologists from both sides of the case disagreeing with them), it doesn't establish that Reed murdered Stites, because there's still no evidence of a forcible attack. They've got nothing.

He may be a thug. He may be a rapist in another case. But he's not guilty of this crime.

 

[Texas Taps]

Have you seen the trial transcript? Do you think a ME should give an opinion based on another crime that happened 11 years after the murder? Come on now.

The guy who did examine the body recanted his testimony and is not disagreeing with the experts.

^^^ This line did not come from any affidavit.

I posted the quote from the objections pdf because as the ME states time of death is an estimate. That's not hard to understand.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Have you seen the trial transcript?

I don't need to see the trial transcript.

Do you think a ME should give an opinion based on another crime that happened 11 years after the murder? Come on now.

This might be too nuanced for you. You've ignored the most important points in this discussion. However, to answer your question, it depends on the subject matter of his testimony. If he's testifying about specifics about the state of Stites' body, that might be a problem if someone who examined her body sooner after her death disagreed with his testimony, which isn't the case no matter how much you want it to be. If he's testifying about the science of agreed upon facts (for example, testifying how long sperm can stay in the vaginal cavity), then it wouldn't matter if he was testifying about the Cain and Abel murder.

^^^ This line did not come from any affidavit.

When did I say that it did? I posted the quote that came from the affidavit.

I posted the quote from the objections pdf because as the ME states time of death is an estimate. That's not hard to understand.

No ****. It's always an estimate. The problem with the state's case is that it relied (in part) upon an estimated time frame with which the examiner no longer concurs and is therefore not supported by evidence. And again, you're showing that you don't understand the burden of proof. If the time of death is indeterminate, that's a problem for the prosecutor who has the burden to present evidence of Reed's involvement, not the for Reed who has no burden.