Quoting kdh1949:

Quote:
The only problem I have with this matter is the refusal of the State of Alabama and its governor Riley to allow DNA testing of existing evidence.  Mr. Athur's fans claim such evidence is exculpatory and will "prove" his innocence.  Other than the view that DNA testing as only a delaying tactic, there doesn't seem to be a lot of reasons why the DNA testing SHOULDN'T be done.  For example, no argument has been made that DNA testing would NOT be conclusive or that the preponderance of the other evidence or testimony is so strong that it outweighs DNA results.

There has been more than enough time to conduct the DNA tests -- and I'm sure there are organizations willing to pay for them.  What I don't understand is why Alabama won't allow testing which could resolve -- one way or the other -- the question of Mr. Arthur's innocence.  Even if this is only the maneuvering of a desperate individual, what harm would be done if it could answer this troubling question?

Ken:

The Governor is dealing with the Court Ruling, what he has the power to do is limited, he could offer clemency or a pardon to the inmate, both of which base on the court pleadings would wholly inappropriate and would undoubtedly cause him far more trouble with the his cnstituents. I suppose he could commute the sentence to life, but in view of what I read in the pleadings, this would also be troublesome and inappropriate. As I stated before, he is innocent if you don't believe me just ask the inmate, or any other inmate convicted of any felony, they are nearly ALL innocent of the charges and should not be incarcerated......RIGHT!!!!!!!!! This inmate had his day in court and then some, I am in absolute agreement with the Judge's ruling on this matter and it is time for the inmate to pay for his crime. Let's remember that Troy did not get the benefit of pleading with the inmate for TWENTY-SIX Years to spare his life, he was SHOT in the right eye by an ARMED criminal who was prepared to and DID use his firearm during the commission of a felony.

People, and I use the term loosely, like this inmate are merely blood suckers on the back of society and there are bleeding hearts who will defend him....not I. It is time for him answer for his crimes and try and convince the ONE person who really KNOWS the truth that he was innocent.

Skip

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
In addition to the two eye witnesses present during the murder who knew him personally and conspired with him to commit the crime for the $90,000 insurance policy, how about the .22 caliber long rifle bullets and casings that he bought the day before the crime and were recovered from the body of the victim?

There were three separate trials resulting in three separate convictions.

There had to be an awful lot of money spread around to maintain a conspiracy of those proportions!

It looks like you believe what you want to belive. You have not convinced me why the test should not be taken.

Quoting sugarjoe:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
No, I don't.

But unlike you, I do not assume that the everything I read on the internet is true.

You do not know me, so you have no idea what I believe and what I don't.

I this case, I do not assume anything. Nobody questions the fact, that there is DNA evidence. My simple question is why it is not being used when a life is at stake?

I know I am going to get a red arrow for this but I think what people are asking you sugar is since no one is interviewing the prosecutor how do any of us know if the DNA has been run or not?

Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
I'm trying to figure out how he was tried three times for the same crime.

The first two convictions were overturned on "technicalities" and retrials occurred.

Quoting Rico:

Quote:
Hi Hal,

I used the word "SEEMS" this implies my belief, can you explain:

Actually, you only used the word 'seems' in reference to vengeance being the motivating factor in the death penalty..."a sense of vengeance seems to motivate."

Your other part of your statement, that the US "is not as mature in its thinking, as other countries (not having death penalty)," was a blanket statement...just like the ones Hal made that you are now questioning.

In light of that questioning, I have to ask, on what basis do you make the claim that the US is not as mature in it's thinking as other countries?  Was there some study done that proves that an anti-death penalty stand is more mature than a pro-death penalty stand? 

As to the case at hand.  If we are going to have the death penalty, we better be 100% certain of a person's guilt when we put them to death.  In this case, I don't see that.  The victim's wife claims that the person who killed her husband also raped her.  While he wasn't convicted of the rape, if the rape kit does not match his DNA, it does raise some serious questions.

I know the judge believes that the testimony would have outweighed the DNA evidence, but I am not so sure.  I would be hard pressed to ignore that huge hole in the wife's story.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
  The victim's wife claims that the person who killed her husband also raped her.  While he wasn't convicted of the rape, if the rape kit does not match his DNA, it does raise some serious questions.

This is the "story" they made up as part of their plot to kill the husband.  This "story" was later recanted, not only by the wife, but by the wife's sister.  And the wife's sister's husband also particpated in the planning of the murder. 

It is unlikely that any rape took place at all.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:


I know there wasn't a rape but, from my reading of the court papers, a rape kit was done and fluids were collected.  That means she had sex with someone...which makes sense, if you are going to claim 'rape', to cover up your part in the murder, there should be some evidence.

Not necessarily.  What if the rapist wore a condom? Or never had an orgasm...or whatever.  The rape kit could very possibly have had no evidence whatsoever.

Nobody would claim they were overly bright.

Sugarjoe,

You are vastly oversimplifying a very complex situation. I was a prosecutor for seven years and while I did not deal with death cases (b/c the state where I practiced law had no death penalty) I did work on appellate briefs and worked with colleagues who dealth with DNA testing for closed cases.

A long standing case like this has been litigated extensively and in this case there were actually 3 trials and he was convicted at each. The evidence against him is strong and the "DNA evidence" he wants examined has been available for testing for 20+ years --- He did not request the testing of the material at either his second or his third trials!

Furthermore if you read the Judge's ruling as Ken has shown it is clear the DNA evidence would not change anything as to the MURDER conviction which is all he was convicted of. The DNA evidence cannot and will not exonerate him regardless of the results. In other cases it might and in those cases the testing is almost always ordered by the courts -- in this case it was not. That should tell you something.

I would suggest that you read the extensive written opinion from the Judge and you will realize how extensively this case has been reviewed and how many differents Judges have ruled against him. The fact that he could not convince one of these judges is a strong indicator of the meritless nature of his arguments.

The vast majority of judges, prosecutors, and police officers are interested in the truth and support efforts to get to it -- to suggest otherwise without very good reason (particularl without full knowledge of the facts as you have) is unfair and demeaning to these public servants.

In the future I would suggest fully informing yourself as to the facts before going of on a self-righteous crusade. I've been there as a prosecutor and it sucked to be second guessed by people who new little about the case.

Brian