T1B

I don't see much about the details of Claude's life. Tell me he was not a scum bag and committed a lot of other crimes.

Wolfman wrote:I don't see much about the details of Claude's life. Tell me he was not a scum bag and committed a lot of other crimes.

You are truly a fucking idiot.

Wolfman wrote:I don't see much about the details of Claude's life. Tell me he was not a scum bag and committed a lot of other crimes.

That's easy.

He was not a scumbag, and committed a lot of other crimes.

Wolfman wrote:I don't see much about the details of Claude's life. Tell me he was not a scum bag and committed a lot of other crimes.

Truly pathetic. You are pitiful.

Jsc810 wrote:The Claude Jones case is a lot different. Damnit.

No, it isn't. Stop trying to pretend that that asshole was innocent. You should know better.

Did Claude have a rap sheet or not ?

Wolfman wrote:Did Claude have a rap sheet or not ?

Wolfman wrote:Did Claude have a rap sheet or not ?

That isn't the point either. There are several points to consider.

A. Innocence Project is a propaganda organization dedicated to undermining the credibility of the death penalty in the United States. They do this by using lies and half-truths while counting on the lack of critical thinking skills of handwringing tards like JSC and S-M. SM is just a jizzmopper so his dumbfuckery can be overlooked. JSC, OTOH, has no such excuse.

B. The fact that a single piece of evidence is disputed does NOT mean that Jones was innocent. That is the half-truth of IP methodology. Most people stop right there and think that Texas executed an innocent man and forget about it...at least until it becomes a political issue.

C. Now to the blatant lies. Lie number one is that the case was based on nothing more than a piece of hair and accomplice testimony (think about the meaning of the word 'accomplice' for a just a bit while you're at it) and if you knock out the hair then he never should have been convicted on accomplice testimony alone and should have walked free.

Lie number two was the claim that the two eyewitnesses were unable to identify the assailants. The fact is they gave descriptions of sufficient detail to identify Dixon's truck and Jones as the shooter (pot bellied white male with a light colored sweatshirt and jeans). This description was confirmed by the girlfriend of one of Jones' accomplices.

The bottom line here is that there is absolutely no doubt that Jones participated in the armed robbery which resulted in the murder of Allen Hilzendager and was duly and properly executed for his crime. The only injustice here is that his accomplices weren't gassed along with him.

Thanks SC. I wanted to know.

mvscal wrote:Lie number two was the claim that the two eyewitnesses were unable to identify the assailants. The fact is they gave descriptions of sufficient detail to identify Dixon's truck and Jones as the shooter (pot bellied white male with a light colored sweatshirt and jeans).

That is not what Wendy and Leaon Goodson said you lying assfuck and a third person, William Johnson, was the one who told the cops about the truck.

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote:Lie number two was the claim that the two eyewitnesses were unable to identify the assailants. The fact is they gave descriptions of sufficient detail to identify Dixon's truck and Jones as the shooter (pot bellied white male with a light colored sweatshirt and jeans).

That is not what Wendy and Leaon Goodson said you lying assfuck

Page 1 and 2. You're dismissed.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/jo ... exas94.pdf

Goober McTuber wrote:

Wolfman wrote:I don't see much about the details of Claude's life. Tell me he was not a scum bag and committed a lot of other crimes.

You are truly a fucking idiot.

No Goob,..you are.

Claude was a piece of filth murderer. See the rap sheet

I'm just guessing that a lot of people who get emotionally involved with cases like this tend to believe that a guy like Claude was just some poor innocent boob off the street who got railroaded into a conviction for a crime which he would never have possibly committed. In almost all these cases the guy convicted had a long history of antisocial and criminal activity, far from being just some poor innocent schelp. I cannot feel sorry for Mr. Jones.

Roger_the_Shrubber wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Wolfman wrote:I don't see much about the details of Claude's life. Tell me he was not a scum bag and committed a lot of other crimes.

You are truly a fucking idiot.

No Goob,..you are.

Claude was a piece of filth murderer. See the rap sheet

NO, KC_the_Shrubber, you are a fucking idiot. Wolftard obviously knew nothing about Claude Jones but assumed he had done some other bad things, even if he was innocent on the murder charge. Therefore, it was perfectly OK for the state to execute him.

Jsc810 wrote:Mr. Jones may have had a long rap sheet. Mr. Jones may have been involved with the robbery.

There was no "may have" about it, dumbfuck.

But it appears that under Texas law, without that hair, he should not have been executed.

Try again, fuckwit. The opinion from the court of appeals makes it abundantly clear that the hair and the accomplice testimony were not the only pieces of evidence.

Jsc810 wrote:You don't have to feel sorry for Mr. Jones, or his family.

But I suggest that you should be concerned about a system that wrongfully executes someone.

Hey, people die all the time

/s/ Orenthal

everybody's gotta die sometime

Cuda wrote:
Hey, people die all the time

/s/ Orenthal

The correct quote is "People die every day," you fucking moron.

here's my take on the death penalty and wrongful deaths.

has anyone ever been put to death wrongfully?

sure.

how does this number stack up against those that have died at the hands of someone else who has already been tried and convicted of murder, either in prison or on the outside after their "rehabilitation".

i'm sure there are figures guestimating this. and i'll bet that the latter outnumbers the former many times over.

any of you hand wringing anti-death penalty faggits care to elaborate on this? and i would even allow you to count the "may have been innocent" numbers, which i am sure are the majority, compared to the "sure as hell were innocent" ones.

for me, this is the number one argument for the death penalty, not that it is a deterent. you can argue the deterence point all you want. you can not argue the effectiveness of death as having one seriously fukking low recidivism rate.

mvscal wrote: Page 1 and 2. You're dismissed.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/jo ... exas94.pdf

It takes a special kind of stupid to get so much wrong in so few words. The innocence project is full of liars and yet you use THEM as your proof? That being said if you could read more than 2 pages you would see that Hardin calls his top a jacket not a shirt so there is no ID of Jones being the person wearing a lightcolored sweatshirt. Beyond that nowhere on any page does it say that there are two witnesses, not the Goodwins nor anyone else, that IDs Jones as the shooter. That would be direct evidence that he was the shooter. The best you can get from that link is that there is circumstantial evidence, which is way different than direct evidence, that Jones was the shooter. It's Evidence 101. It’s taught on the very first fucking day. How the hell could you be so stupid as to get something so easy so wrong? Don't bother answering that, we all already know it's because you are complete dumbass. Then we have the whole problem of you using eyewitness testimony of something that happened very fast as part of your proof that something happened when YOU are not even a good eyewitness to a few pages of text that you get to look at for as long as you wanted before you posted. Jones might have been guilty but if you were the DA he would have walked at the prelim you black dick loving fuckstick.