Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2011 7:08:03 GMT -5
Not "obvious" at all Lewis.... If his horse balked and threw him, then the horse also wrapped John Savage's body in a burlap bag. One governmental agency a court, after questioning people & looking at the facts, including the killing AXE marks on his body, wrapped in a burlap sack... with Chipita refusing to testify on her own behalf... found her guilty & hung her on a Mesquite tree. The other, over a hundred years later, with no contact whatever with either Chipita OR witness, OR the body of John Savage, found her "innocent".... Just don't buy it...just more political correctness run amok. our pal has a propensity for conjuring up craziness, or repeating the hallucinations of others, even in the face of conclusive proof that such a thing never happened Jumbo, by all means, please do contact the Texas State Legislature and the office of the Governor of the state of Texas. I'm sure they will be disappointed to learn that you've "out researched" them. They studied the case, too, and came to an entirely different conclusion - mostly, perhaps, because the burlap-bag and axe things were not accurate and there was other no indication of foul play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2011 7:19:00 GMT -5
"You accept "proof" rather easily.....
"evidence" is what the gold was.....certainly not anywhere near "proof of innocence".
=========
Precisely.
Indeed it WAS but "evidence" - although (to a REASONABLE person) very convincing evidence. It didn't become "proof" until pronounced so by the State Legislature.
The action by the legislature was precisely BECAUSE - Jumbo and Akamai notwithstanding - there is NO VENUE for proving innocence once the condemned is dead - no matter how otherwise convincing the evidence is.
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Sept 16, 2011 7:16:04 GMT -5
"You accept "proof" rather easily..... "evidence" is what the gold was.....certainly not anywhere near "proof of innocence". ========= Precisely. Indeed it WAS but "evidence" - although (to a REASONABLE person) very convincing evidence. It didn't become "proof" until pronounced so by the State Legislature. The action by the legislature was precisely BECAUSE - Jumbo and Akamai notwithstanding - there is NO VENUE for proving innocence once the condemned is dead - no matter how otherwise convincing the evidence is. Two governmental agency's, one a court, the other a state legislature..... had totally opposite findings on the woman's guilt. The difference being.... ONE convened within a year, with witnesses still alive...crime scene still somewhat in tact... The other, what?....a hundred years later, with all witnesses long gone....for purely political purposes....found her innocent. I trust the first finding. And the second finding is purely academic to the murderer.... Like they say...."it don't mean squat". I know one thing for sure....she didn't cave in any more heads with an axe..... after her neck was stretched.
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Sept 16, 2011 8:09:22 GMT -5
our pal has a propensity for conjuring up craziness, or repeating the hallucinations of others, even in the face of conclusive proof that such a thing never happened Jumbo, by all means, please do contact the Texas State Legislature and the office of the Governor of the state of Texas. I'm sure they will be disappointed to learn that you've "out researched" them. They studied the case, too, and came to an entirely different conclusion - mostly, perhaps, because the burlap-bag and axe things were not accurate and there was other no indication of foul play. So, over a hundred years later, with both the burlap bag & the axe, and the witnesses, (including the murderer) long gone... They determined that the burlap bag & axe "things" were not accurate.... I'd like to know, how a body, inside a burlap bag, could be signs of "no foul play"...? Hey, if the Texas legislature....a hundred years later "out researched" the findings of the court, which HAD evidence...including the accused..... Why can't we do the same thing to the legislature now? (with the same ammount of evidence THEY had...which was nothing, nada, zip?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2011 10:23:54 GMT -5
Simple.
The "burlap bag" was found not to be a bag, but a cheap, sturdy, robe or poncho made of sisal hemp - such as many of our illegal border-jumpers still wear today.
The "axe marks" were cuts from the stones in the creek he was crossing - and the impact of his head on one such stone killed him. Having been thrown more times than I like to remember, I know that it can cause one hell of a rough landing.
The Legislature didn't just do their thing on the spur of the moment - the matter had been studied by the state's finest legal minds; a study begun by the concerned citizenry the day after the hanging.
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Sept 19, 2011 7:55:33 GMT -5
Simple. The "burlap bag" was found not to be a bag, but a cheap, sturdy, robe or poncho made of sisal hemp - such as many of our illegal border-jumpers still wear today. The "axe marks" were cuts from the stones in the creek he was crossing - and the impact of his head on one such stone killed him. Having been thrown more times than I like to remember, I know that it can cause one hell of a rough landing. The Legislature didn't just do their thing on the spur of the moment - the matter had been studied by the state's finest legal minds; a study begun by the concerned citizenry the day after the hanging. Well, Lewis, I guess I just have far less faith in polititions, and more in courts..... Not total faith in either, but when people set out to prove something, as possibly both the court & the legislature might have done in this case, I have no doubt that they will arrive at their preconcieved opinions. Just curious, did the modern group of "detectives" have the axe, or the burlap bag/sisal poncho, or the head of the victim to examine? If they did, is there any doubt that the evidence was in FAR worse shape than it was, immediatly after the crime/accident? I dunno, I just can't see them keeping the axe or the burlap bag/poncho for over a hundred years. This smacks mightally of either anti-dp, or anti-predjudice paranoria (or both) polititions seeking votes. Just has that "smell".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2011 9:50:27 GMT -5
Well, Trooper -
Conflicting accounts must often be resolved by using common sense. Let's apply a little here.
She killed him by hitting him in the head with an axe? While he was on horseback? Just how tall WAS she, anyway? Was the handle on that axe ten feet long, or twelve?
Then this woman took time to stuff the body of a grown man into a "burlap bag" - and then left him, bag and all, right in the ford portion of the public road? Burlap is basically the same thing as marijuana, so it's disappeared from the modern world. But a conventional burlap bag would have been roughly waist high, from the ground up - hardly big enough to conceal an adult's body.
It would have been quite reasonable, however, for those finding and bringing in the body to cover it with two or three such bags.
Not to mention her leaving the gold (that she allegedly killed him for) in the saddle bag - and let the horse wander off on his own?
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Sept 19, 2011 16:59:54 GMT -5
Well, Trooper - Conflicting accounts must often be resolved by using common sense. Let's apply a little here. She killed him by hitting him in the head with an axe? While he was on horseback? Just how tall WAS she, anyway? Was the handle on that axe ten feet long, or twelve? Then this woman took time to stuff the body of a grown man into a "burlap bag" - and then left him, bag and all, right in the ford portion of the public road? Burlap is basically the same thing as marijuana, so it's disappeared from the modern world. But a conventional burlap bag would have been roughly waist high, from the ground up - hardly big enough to conceal an adult's body. It would have been quite reasonable, however, for those finding and bringing in the body to cover it with two or three such bags. Not to mention her leaving the gold (that she allegedly killed him for) in the saddle bag - and let the horse wander off on his own? Lewis...you make assumptions that are simply not known at the time. They didn't where he was when he was smacked with the axe. Her son was suspected of helping her....that might explain why she stayed silent in court. We don't know where the horse was after all the killin of his master.... You make a bundle of assumptions....that are simply not known, expecially 100+ years later. It seems you simply consider all law enforcement to be just DYING to execute innocent, minority races.... I honestly havn't found that to be true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2011 17:42:43 GMT -5
Well, Trooper - Conflicting accounts must often be resolved by using common sense. Let's apply a little here. She killed him by hitting him in the head with an axe? While he was on horseback? Just how tall WAS she, anyway? Was the handle on that axe ten feet long, or twelve? Then this woman took time to stuff the body of a grown man into a "burlap bag" - and then left him, bag and all, right in the ford portion of the public road? Burlap is basically the same thing as marijuana, so it's disappeared from the modern world. But a conventional burlap bag would have been roughly waist high, from the ground up - hardly big enough to conceal an adult's body. It would have been quite reasonable, however, for those finding and bringing in the body to cover it with two or three such bags. Not to mention her leaving the gold (that she allegedly killed him for) in the saddle bag - and let the horse wander off on his own? Lewis...you make assumptions that are simply not known at the time. They didn't where he was when he was smacked with the axe. Her son was suspected of helping her....that might explain why she stayed silent in court. We don't know where the horse was after all the killin of his master.... You make a bundle of assumptions....that are simply not known, expecially 100+ years later. It seems you simply consider all law enforcement to be just DYING to execute innocent, minority races.... I honestly havn't found that to be true. I'd say that she found that to be entirely TOO true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2011 8:32:31 GMT -5
In spite of Akamai's circular arguments, I have maintained all along that there IS no venue for actually proving wrongful conviction after an execution has been carried out.
I have stated many times that in all of our history only one such case has been "officially" handled, and that even THAT one is denied by die-hard PROs.
You've just proved my argument.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Sept 21, 2011 13:04:36 GMT -5
In spite of Akamai's circular arguments, I have maintained all along that there IS no venue for actually proving wrongful conviction after an execution has been carried out. I have stated many times that in all of our history only one such case has been "officially" handled, and that even THAT one is denied by die-hard PROs. You've just proved my argument. Lewis, You are very stubborn. There IS a venue, and I have proven that with the Roger Keith Coleman case. While Coleman was confirmed guilty posthumously, if the tests were negative, it would have proven him innocent after his execution. The Venue was a posthumous appeal to the courts, and when that failed, they appealed to the governor of Virginia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Keith_ColemanHow do you suppose they got to perform the posthumous DNA tests without the venue? Akamai.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2011 13:13:48 GMT -5
The "evidence" you speak of was never adjudicated by ANY court, because there is no "posthumous appeal" to ANY court.
The nearest you could come would be a civil suit for wrongful death - which is not possible because of the doctrine of "sovereign immunity" (unless the court consents to the suit) - but you'd first have to prove wrongful death; at which point you just caught the tail you've been chasing.
No matter how convincing, evidence not adjudicated does not, and cannot, result in any court finding.
And now, of course, you will begin yet again with your circular arguments.
|
|