Julius Jones Death Sentence Overturned

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

 

"At the time at least, one person felt racism was a genuine concern." - THERE WAS NO RACISM!!!! No juror ever "felt racism was a genuine concern". Not at the time, and only 15 years in retrospect! The quote you quoted even makes it clear: "none reported hearing a juror express any opinion as to the appropriate punishment"! The issue at trial was commenting on punishment, not racism! And if you go back to the quote I showed, what was originally reported to the court was that the juror is alleged to have said "he should be put in a box in the ground for what he did". Note how there is zero mention of racism. The claim of racism didn't come until 2017! And that was brought up at appeal, the judge dismissed it by saying what I quoted in my post above - her memory of events in 2002 was undoubtedly more reliable when they happened in 2002, and not what she remembers now in 2017! 

Yes, I know that the juror submitted a sworn affidavit in 2017, but this sworn affidavit does not resemble the facts that happened at trial in 2002. As the appeals court judge ruled, "it is highly improbable that Juror V.A neglected to add, during the court's investigation into the matter, that J.B used a clearly offensive racial epithet". If you disagree, you must satisfactorily answer this - why did Juror V.A  care enough to bring to the court's attention that there was a comment about the appropriate punishment but didn't care enough to add that there was a clearly offensive racial slur? And why should this testimony 15 years later be more reliable than 2002?  

It doesn't matter how old, it doesn't matter if memories don't add up. How many cases have you seen that drag up twenty year old evidence? It has to be cleared. That's the process. Considering the controversy at the time, it sounds like a distinct possibility. 

What needs to happen is investigation. And mainly if it would actually affect the outcome considering the submitted evidence which resulted in the conviction. 

If it really is a big steaming pile of BS, it's just as important to make that clear as it is the opposite. It can only assist in determining if Stitt actually did the right thing. 

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

He was the State DA - that means he was in charge of every case in the State, overall. That doesn't mean he had direct hands in any of them! Like I said, IF he had anything to do with the trial, it was only peripheral - as in, the case went across his desk, and he signed his name to it, the actual case was tried by others who were not him. It's classic guilt by association! Macy had zero to do with the trial. 

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions but no evidence to back your claim. 

What I said is true and can be determined. Macy was DA. Macy set the charges. Lane was assistant DA in 1999 and took over the year of the sentencing after Macy was disgraced. Jordan was sentenced by this time. 

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I think we shall simply agree to disagree on this one. Perhaps you are getting hung up on the description of Jones as having a "shaved head". Keep in mind that shaved head does not mean bald (eg, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Professor X), it means 0 or 1 or 2 on a shaver for really close cropped hair is still "shaved", and that is what is described as seeing. The witness testimony is that she saw a sideburn sticking out. That's Jones. Not Jordan. 

Like I said, let's agree to disagree on this one. 

Definitely disagree. 

Sideburns extend past the ear. That's not the haircut Jones had at the time of arrest. 

A shaved head is not "hair" by any means. 

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

But the reduced sentence had nothing to do with the case, that was an unrelated change in the law (I quoted this to you above, note how there was literally a change in Oklahoma's legal code, and as a result of this some people got reduced sentences, and the State objected to the law being applied to this case because it scuppered the intention of the original plea deal which was supposed to be 30 years. 

That's not an indictment on this case, it's a legal loophole that was opened and Jordan drove his freedom through. That doesn't therefore mean the rest of the trial should be tossed out! 

 

Can you provide a link supporting that? I can't find anything to support it. All I can find is he is free, and allegedly confessed to three people that he set up Jones and was the killer. 

[+Paranoid Android]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It doesn't matter how old, it doesn't matter if memories don't add up. How many cases have you seen that drag up twenty year old evidence? It has to be cleared. That's the process. Considering the controversy at the time, it sounds like a distinct possibility. 

What needs to happen is investigation. And mainly if it would actually affect the outcome considering the submitted evidence which resulted in the conviction. 

If it really is a big steaming pile of BS, it's just as important to make that clear as it is the opposite. It can only assist in determining if Stitt actually did the right thing. 

Then answer the question I asked: Why did this juror not bring up the racial epithet when she raised this other issue with the jury in 2002? And why is her recollection of events 15 years removed more trustworthy than her testimony in 2002  (remember, her affidavit did not explain why she chose not to say anything at trial in 2002 about the N-word)? Even IF this happened exactly as this woman described, she's lost her chance to say something! She felt it was important enough to bring it to the court's attention in 2002, no one has given a reasonable explanation (including her) as to why she did not also mention the N-word was explicitly used!

In other words, I don't believe her! I accept that she MIGHT REMEMBER him using the N-word after 15 years of history has had a chance to affect her memory of events. But memory is a fickle thing, and so I don't believe she is remembering correctly. If it happened as she described, she would have said something when she said the rest in 2002. 

In saying that, if by some miracle this actually happened and she simply chose not to say something (I don't believe that, but let's play make-believe), that's 100% on her, and she has lost all credibility as a witness by waiting 15 years to say something about the N-word when she was quite willing to tell the judge about Juror J.B's "should be put in a box in the ground" comment in 2002. 

 

Quote

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions but no evidence to back your claim. 

What I said is true and can be determined. Macy was DA. Macy set the charges. Lane was assistant DA in 1999 and took over the year of the sentencing after Macy was disgraced. Jordan was sentenced by this time. 

And what I said is true and can be determined - Macy was the State DA (that means he OVERSEES the entire DA"s office). As such, he is responsible for every charge and every case that goes before a judge in the State. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean he had a DIRECT HAND in the trial. Like I said, it can be demonstrated that Macy had nothing to do with the case. He signed some papers making the charges official, but others were the ones who prosecuted and were involved in the case. 

To use an analogy, as a school teacher I often have to deal with student behaviour like truancy. When I deal with truancy, I ring up parents, I set detentions, I organise everything in accordance with the school discipline policy. However, I have a school principal who must sign off on all behaviour reports, to acknowledge that the process I am following is consistent with the policies of the school and the department. That doesn't mean my principal is responsible for what I am doing in my class, but she is the one signing off on it and making what I am doing official policy and procedure. In a nutshell, this is Macy's role in the Jones trial - he was given something to sign to make it all official, but the actual work was done by others! 

 

Quote

Definitely disagree. 

Sideburns extend past the ear. That's not the haircut Jones had at the time of arrest. 

A shaved head is not "hair" by any means. 

Then we shall agree to disagree, it was not "1-2 inches of long hair" (that would be Jordan) but instead, "half an inch to an inch of hair" showing as a sideburn (that is Jones). 

 

Quote

Can you provide a link supporting that? I can't find anything to support it. All I can find is he is free, and allegedly confessed to three people that he set up Jones and was the killer. 

"On November 1, 2014, ODOC operations procedure OP 060211 "Sentence Administration" was revised to clarify when an inmate is sentence to life suspended except for a term of incarceration (split life sentence), the term of incarceration shall not be subject to subsection A of 57 OS 138. Mr Jordan's file was audited and he had accumulated enough earned credits (5342 earned credits) to complete his 30-year incarceration sentence and was released on December 5, 2014, to begin serving the Life suspended portion of his sentence". 

Source

This is the ONLY reason Jordan is out today. The prosecutors opposed what happened. Jones claims there was a secret plea deal, but that (as you can tell) is another lie. 

By the way, the alleged confessions to other inmates is far less relevant than the Jones camp wants you to believe. At best, the confession shows Jordan was taking credit for murdering someone, in a place where being seen as someone not to be messed with can make a real difference to your social life - or in other words, at best it demonstrates that he was willing to leverage the situation to his advantage in prison! The appellate court examined the confessions and determined (very rightly) that the confessions were not credible. 

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Then answer the question I asked: Why did this juror not bring up the racial epithet when she raised this other issue with the jury in 2002? And why is her recollection of events 15 years removed more trustworthy than her testimony in 2002  (remember, her affidavit did not explain why she chose not to say anything at trial in 2002 about the N-word)? Even IF this happened exactly as this woman described, she's lost her chance to say something! She felt it was important enough to bring it to the court's attention in 2002, no one has given a reasonable explanation (including her) as to why she did not also mention the N-word was explicitly used!

In other words, I don't believe her! I accept that she MIGHT REMEMBER him using the N-word after 15 years of history has had a chance to affect her memory of events. But memory is a fickle thing, and so I don't believe she is remembering correctly. If it happened as she described, she would have said something when she said the rest in 2002. 

In saying that, if by some miracle this actually happened and she simply chose not to say something (I don't believe that, but let's play make-believe), that's 100% on her, and she has lost all credibility as a witness by waiting 15 years to say something about the N-word when she was quite willing to tell the judge about Juror J.B's "should be put in a box in the ground" comment in 2002. 

It doesn't matter if you don't believe her. It matters what the courts decide and if it's admissible. Unless you think we should release Harvey Weinstein? Age has no bearing on accusations. 

It's up to her to prove. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

And what I said is true and can be determined - Macy was the State DA (that means he OVERSEES the entire DA"s office). As such, he is responsible for every charge and every case that goes before a judge in the State. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean he had a DIRECT HAND in the trial. Like I said, it can be demonstrated that Macy had nothing to do with the case. He signed some papers making the charges official, but others were the ones who prosecuted and were involved in the case. 

To use an analogy, as a school teacher I often have to deal with student behaviour like truancy. When I deal with truancy, I ring up parents, I set detentions, I organise everything in accordance with the school discipline policy. However, I have a school principal who must sign off on all behaviour reports, to acknowledge that the process I am following is consistent with the policies of the school and the department. That doesn't mean my principal is responsible for what I am doing in my class, but she is the one signing off on it and making what I am doing official policy and procedure. In a nutshell, this is Macy's role in the Jones trial - he was given something to sign to make it all official, but the actual work was done by others! 

Macy brought them in. Macy laid the charges. That's direct involvement. He didn't just sign paperwork he laid the charges. His involvement from there is hard to find. Anyone's is. But I know Lane was an assistant DA under Macy in 1999 and 2001.

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Then we shall agree to disagree, it was not "1-2 inches of long hair" (that would be Jordan) but instead, "half an inch to an inch of hair" showing as a sideburn (that is Jones). 

Except Jones didn't have sideburns. And his head was cropped.

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

"On November 1, 2014, ODOC operations procedure OP 060211 "Sentence Administration" was revised to clarify when an inmate is sentence to life suspended except for a term of incarceration (split life sentence), the term of incarceration shall not be subject to subsection A of 57 OS 138. Mr Jordan's file was audited and he had accumulated enough earned credits (5342 earned credits) to complete his 30-year incarceration sentence and was released on December 5, 2014, to begin serving the Life suspended portion of his sentence". 

Source

This is the ONLY reason Jordan is out today. The prosecutors opposed what happened. Jones claims there was a secret plea deal, but that (as you can tell) is another lie. 

That's a special deal! Not even mentioning Arkansas.

You don't think a suspended sentence isn't a special deal for a mixer accomplice? Especially when his testimony arrives at a quick solution? As far as I can tell from briefing ODOC that lesser sentence as to be in place to begin with. Sounds like a special deal to me. He managed thirty years of credits in ten years. How's that work? It doesn't. 

There's just no good reason that Jordan is free and Jones on death row. The disparity is disturbing to say the least. 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

By the way, the alleged confessions to other inmates is far less relevant than the Jones camp wants you to believe. At best, the confession shows Jordan was taking credit for murdering someone, in a place where being seen as someone not to be messed with can make a real difference to your social life - or in other words, at best it demonstrates that he was willing to leverage the situation to his advantage in prison! The appellate court examined the confessions and determined (very rightly) that the confessions were not credible. 

Speculation. What we do have is there signed affidavits. If you believe in law, then you know they should be investigated. 

What you aren't seeing is a zealous reaction that has resulted in the Howells from being completely straightforward as well. They seem hellbent on Jones death, but I can't say that would be unreasonable good Ven their position. Problem is the case is fraught with discrepancy. The only fair thing to do is have a retrial. He is definitely involved. There's no question. Questions exist about who pulled the trigger according to additional information. Jones council appears to have been very ineffective. However, knowing you hate media and celebrities with a passion, I have little doubt that you're also too zealous about Jones. Yes Kardashian is involved and as a result I have no doubt that his innocence is overhyped. But with all the questions about a retrial would settle a lot of questions and out the case in a clearer light. 

I still think the law should be compensating the Howells somehow though. They are just another set of victims from a messy trial. 

[+Paranoid Android]

  

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

It doesn't matter if you don't believe her. It matters what the courts decide and if it's admissible. Unless you think we should release Harvey Weinstein? Age has no bearing on accusations. 

It's up to her to prove. 

The courts have already ruled on it. Read post #23, I quoted the decision by the appellate judge! My previous post was basically paraphrasing his official judgement - if I were to summarise it in one sentence it would be this: her memory was undoubtedly better in 2002 and it is highly improbable she would have not mentioned it at trial, therefore the testimony is invalid! That's a fact of law as adjudicated on by the appellate judge, it's not just an opinion (though I happen to concur with the judge and have the same opinion on the matter). 

 

Quote

Macy brought them in. Macy laid the charges. That's direct involvement. He didn't just sign paperwork he laid the charges. His involvement from there is hard to find. Anyone's is. But I know Lane was an assistant DA under Macy in 1999 and 2001.

I think we have slightly different definitions of "direct involvement". Nevertheless, the arguments against Bob Macy come from his earlier cases when he was an active DA, and he was using unethical means to secure convictions! That is NOT what his role in this case was, he had NOTHING to do with the prosecution, and therefore his entire past history of unethical behaviour is irrelevant to the Jones case. Jones' case was prosecuted by a different DA, simple.

 

Quote

Except Jones didn't have sideburns. And his head was cropped.

You would see "half an inch to an inch of hair" sticking from out of that if he was wearing a beanie!

 

Quote

That's a special deal! Not even mentioning Arkansas.

You don't think a suspended sentence isn't a special deal for a mixer accomplice? Especially when his testimony arrives at a quick solution? As far as I can tell from briefing ODOC that lesser sentence as to be in place to begin with. Sounds like a special deal to me. He managed thirty years of credits in ten years. How's that work? It doesn't. 

There's just no good reason that Jordan is free and Jones on death row. The disparity is disturbing to say the least. 

His plea deal was for 30 years, the rest of his life sentence was suspended. The law changed in 2014 that favoured him when it came to split sentences! End of story. Nothing here affects the outcome of the trial. 

That doesn't make it "right", but it is what it is. 

Quote

Speculation. What we do have is there signed affidavits. If you believe in law, then you know they should be investigated. 

What you aren't seeing is a zealous reaction that has resulted in the Howells from being completely straightforward as well. They seem hellbent on Jones death, but I can't say that would be unreasonable good Ven their position. Problem is the case is fraught with discrepancy. The only fair thing to do is have a retrial. He is definitely involved. There's no question. Questions exist about who pulled the trigger according to additional information. Jones council appears to have been very ineffective. However, knowing you hate media and celebrities with a passion, I have little doubt that you're also too zealous about Jones. Yes Kardashian is involved and as a result I have no doubt that his innocence is overhyped. But with all the questions about a retrial would settle a lot of questions and out the case in a clearer light. 

I still think the law should be compensating the Howells somehow though. They are just another set of victims from a messy trial. 

Once again, they were investigated. Read This page and scroll down to the heading "The Witnesses to Whom Jones Allegedly Confessed", it outlines what happened when these witnesses were brought before judges (all of them were dismissed as unreliable). 

That said, and on another note, one sentence in your comment does stick out, and that is "Jones council appears to have been very ineffective". If by "ineffective" you mean they were unable to secure a not guilty verdict, then I guess they were. However they were very competent and any claims to the contrary is simply more lying by the Jones team. If you think me wrong, by all means bring allegations of ineffectiveness. I have not seen any yet. I don't know to what you are referring when you suggest ineffective counsel, but there are already a lot of lies (eg, the claim that Jones was at home at the time of the murder and that his family were his alibi, and yet the counsel didn't call any of the family to the stand to back this claim up - see my post to LG in post #7 for evidence of how this is simply a lie by Jones' team). 

[+Paranoid Android]

57 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

it outlines what happened when these witnesses were brought before judges (all of them were dismissed as unreliable). 

@psyche101 - I was rushing through some of that post, noticed on a re-read that I made a small typo. What I intended to say in this quoted part was "it outlines what happened when these CASES were brought before the judge". Sorry. 

[psyche101]

On 11/23/2021 at 6:16 PM, Paranoid Android said:

 The courts have already ruled on it. Read post #23, I quoted the decision by the appellate judge! My previous post was basically paraphrasing his official judgement - if I were to summarise it in one sentence it would be this: her memory was undoubtedly better in 2002 and it is highly improbable she would have not mentioned it at trial, therefore the testimony is invalid! That's a fact of law as adjudicated on by the appellate judge, it's not just an opinion (though I happen to concur with the judge and have the same opinion on the matter). 

Yes but that's not quelled anything had it. It's just gained momentum and rumours keep being added in. I think there's plenty of reasons to think racism was rife in the time and place so the only way to end the accusations is to face them in court again, all at once. Maybe even use media live so there's a clear record of the impact of these claims in the case. As long as people say it's done and dusted other will say it's not.

On 11/23/2021 at 6:16 PM, Paranoid Android said:

I think we have slightly different definitions of "direct involvement". Nevertheless, the arguments against Bob Macy come from his earlier cases when he was an active DA, and he was using unethical means to secure convictions! That is NOT what his role in this case was, he had NOTHING to do with the prosecution, and therefore his entire past history of unethical behaviour is irrelevant to the Jones case. Jones' case was prosecuted by a different DA, simple.

You can consider it irrelevant. I, and obviously others do not. As far as I can tell he definitely has some involvement. And there's no way Lane was unaware of his unethical practices. 

On 11/23/2021 at 6:16 PM, Paranoid Android said:

 

You would see "half an inch to an inch of hair" sticking from out of that if he was wearing a beanie!

I see no sideburns.

On 11/23/2021 at 6:16 PM, Paranoid Android said:

His plea deal was for 30 years, the rest of his life sentence was suspended. The law changed in 2014 that favoured him when it came to split sentences! End of story. Nothing here affects the outcome of the trial. 

That doesn't make it "right", but it is what it is. 

As far as I understand it's the suspended part that gets split. You can consider it above board. I think there's need for a proper investigation. As I have said all along, I do think Jones is guilty. I think Jordan's involvement is definitely more than has been inferred. 

On 11/23/2021 at 6:16 PM, Paranoid Android said:

Once again, they were investigated. Read This page and scroll down to the heading "The Witnesses to Whom Jones Allegedly Confessed", it outlines what happened when these witnesses were brought before judges (all of them were dismissed as unreliable). 

Jordan you mean.

Sounds loose to me. Witnesses seem denied in he said she said. I don't agree excluding them altogether is a good idea. 

On 11/23/2021 at 6:16 PM, Paranoid Android said:

That said, and on another note, one sentence in your comment does stick out, and that is "Jones council appears to have been very ineffective". If by "ineffective" you mean they were unable to secure a not guilty verdict, then I guess they were. However they were very competent and any claims to the contrary is simply more lying by the Jones team. If you think me wrong, by all means bring allegations of ineffectiveness. I have not seen any yet. I don't know to what you are referring when you suggest ineffective counsel, but there are already a lot of lies (eg, the claim that Jones was at home at the time of the murder and that his family were his alibi, and yet the counsel didn't call any of the family to the stand to back this claim up - see my post to LG in post #7 for evidence of how this is simply a lie by Jones' team). 

I think the entire case seems to have problems. I'm not interested in arguing nuances. I simply find your approach overly confident considering Jordan. As I keep saying, I don't think Jones is innocent, I think Jordan sold him out and should be beside him every step of the way. Jones has had plenty of time to cast seeds of doubt, so to shut the celebrities up, clear up any seeming discrepancies and remove all.dount of racism, which the office was embroiled in st the time, would be a retrial. I can't see Jones getting away with anything as the evidence against him is damning, but it will stop people proclaiming innocence where it doesn't exist.

[+Paranoid Android]

20 hours ago, psyche101 said:

As I keep saying, I don't think Jones is innocent, I think Jordan sold him out and should be beside him every step of the way. Jones has had plenty of time to cast seeds of doubt, so to shut the celebrities up, clear up any seeming discrepancies and remove all.dount of racism, which the office was embroiled in st the time, would be a retrial.

Ok, I don't feel like we're getting anywhere. I firmly believe you are closing your eyes (intentionally or unintentionally) to the facts, but I'm not going to continue beating a dead horse. There are a couple of minor issues that I could clarify, but ultimately I thought I'd end on this point. Firstly to say I agree with you, I don't think Jones is innocent either. However, a retrial 22+ years after the events is not tenable. No court in their right mind would grant such a motion! 

I would argue the only reason there is any doubt is that Jones has told so many lies that people have the wrong impression that there is somehow doubt in this case. As that is not a valid reason to retry a case, I'm comfortable the very correct decision was made. 

Honestly, I wish Oklahoma would do away with capital punishment. That would end any argument about this topic as far as I'm concerned. Whether we agree with his guilt or innocence, if the death penalty was never on the table we'd never be arguing about it! 

~ Regards, PA

[psyche101]

On 11/27/2021 at 6:35 AM, Paranoid Android said:

Ok, I don't feel like we're getting anywhere. I firmly believe you are closing your eyes (intentionally or unintentionally) to the facts, but I'm not going to continue beating a dead horse. There are a couple of minor issues that I could clarify, but ultimately I thought I'd end on this point. Firstly to say I agree with you, I don't think Jones is innocent either. However, a retrial 22+ years after the events is not tenable. No court in their right mind would grant such a motion! 

I would argue the only reason there is any doubt is that Jones has told so many lies that people have the wrong impression that there is somehow doubt in this case. As that is not a valid reason to retry a case, I'm comfortable the very correct decision was made. 

Honestly, I wish Oklahoma would do away with capital punishment. That would end any argument about this topic as far as I'm concerned. Whether we agree with his guilt or innocence, if the death penalty was never on the table we'd never be arguing about it! 

~ Regards, PA

Well you can be confident as you like but a lot of people are saying they aren't. Personally, I find the lack of justice to Jordan concerning and whilst it probably will not go to retrial, (as I said I don't think it could change the outcome) I don't think it would be a bad idea in order to put wandering notions to bed. There also may be more justice regarding Jordan who had got of in what appears extremely light circumstances considering his involvement. 

That's right, we wouldn't be discussing it if not for the death penalty, but the death penalty I can't help but think shows what a wide gap there is regarding justice between the two. Jordan should be there with him. I know you posted the law that released him, it doesn't quite add up considering suspended sentences. Jordans very light sentence by comparison just doesn't sit right. Wether it's legitimate or not, it looks bad. 

[+Paranoid Android]

  

20 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Well you can be confident as you like but a lot of people are saying they aren't.

A lot of people think Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty too. That doesn't make them right! It just makes them sincerely deluded! 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

  

A lot of people think Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty too. That doesn't make them right! It just makes them sincerely deluded! 

Kyle wasn't tried twenty years ago in a police station embroiled in racist controversy and he isn't carrying an accomplice who by comparison was treated lightly. There was no investigation required. Footage was available.

Kyle was a dumb kid doing dumb things under a dumb law. People died and he just did the stupid things he was brought up to do. He acted alone and had clear evidence to work with. No jury had to work out what he did or who was there,  just if it was legal. 

Chalk and cheese. 

[+Paranoid Android]

  

9 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Kyle wasn't tried twenty years ago in a police station embroiled in racist controversy and he isn't carrying an accomplice who by comparison was treated lightly. There was no investigation required. Footage was available.

Kyle was a dumb kid doing dumb things under a dumb law. People died and he just did the stupid things he was brought up to do. He acted alone and had clear evidence to work with. No jury had to work out what he did or who was there,  just if it was legal. 

Chalk and cheese. 

Nevertheless, the people who think Rittenhouse is guilty are just as deluded as those who think Jones is innocent! People can "believe" whatever they want about the situation, it doesn't change the facts! 

 

[psyche101]

24 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

  

Nevertheless, the people who think Rittenhouse is guilty are just as deluded as those who think Jones is innocent! People can "believe" whatever they want about the situation, it doesn't change the facts! 

 

It may not, but it does cause riots and unrest. Once the can of worms is open they spill out. We can address that or tell these people to suck it up whilst they burn buildings. How many examples of such behaviour do we need to see that coming? The real problem is there is racial tensions in the states and the people in charge of the law when he was sentenced were below par. That's on the states legal system allowing corruption to slip in. 

If I was involved in the Jones case, I wouldn't be as concerned over Jones as much as his Jordan got of so lightly by comparison. Your too keen to bury that anomaly IMHO. 

 

Also to note here that I've not suggested Jones is innocent at any point. People who say he is innocent are making assumptions based on what I deemed earlier as talking points rather than evidence. There's nothing to suggest he is innocent. Although some aspects I do feel are questionable, that doesn't change the end result.

Edited November 30, 2021 by psyche101

[+and-then]

On 11/18/2021 at 5:45 PM, Paranoid Android said:

there is no doubt in the case records of his guilt and he has demonstrated zero remorse for his crime.

Cases like his, where mercy is shown even when it's generally understood that he DID murder, should come with the Caveat that if he kills again while in prison, he be executed as soon as possible.  

[+Liquid Gardens]

4 hours ago, and then said:

Cases like his, where mercy is shown even when it's generally understood that he DID murder, should come with the Caveat that if he kills again while in prison, he be executed as soon as possible.  

"Let he who is without sin throw the first stone"

(but only sometimes apparently...)