Started by Yorki3, February 01, 2012, 09:46:43 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nevertheless, we pause for a moment to highlight our concern about Noling's death sentence in light of questions raised regarding his prosecution. Noling was not indicted until five years after the Hartigs' murders when a new local prosecutor took office. That new prosecutor pursued the cold murder case with suspicious vigor according to Noling's accusers, who have since recanted their stories and now claim that they only identified Noling as the murderer in the first place because they were threatened by the prosecutor. In addition to the identifications being potentially coerced, there is absolutely no physical evidence linking Noling to the murders, and there are other viable suspects that the prosecutor chose not to investigate or did not know of at the time. Furthermore, that [prosecution witness and former co-defendant Gary] St. Clair switched courses before trial, deciding not to testify against Noling, gives rise to even more suspicion. This worrisome scenario is not enough to create a constitutional claim cognizable under habeas and the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Other evidence considered by the trial court, such as the witness testimony of Wolcott and Dalesandro, prevents us from questioning the jury's decision that Noling was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, reasonable doubt is a legal standard, and given the serious questions that have been raised regarding Noling's prosecution, we wonder whether the decision to end his life should not be tested by a higher standard.
The fact that some person known or unknown to the Hertigs flicked a cigarette butt onto their driveway is irrelevant to the identity of the perpetrator of this crime. There is no information indicating when the cigarette butt was left in the driveway or how long it had been there. If the cigarette butt was from a person known to the Hartigs it could have been left on a visit. Alternatively, if an unknown person left the cigarette butt, there was nothing prevening the public's access to the Hartig's driveway. Therefore, the cigarette butt proves nothing and is not outcome determinative with regards to this case.Nolting cannot demonstrate that retesting the cigarette butt under current DNA technology would render a result that would be relevant or when analyzed in context of and upon consideration of all available admissible evidence related to this case would render a strong possibility that no reasonable fact-finder would have found him guilty of aggravated murder...
You posted in a topic that I think is meant to be for general discussions about the DP, even though we haven't been very good ourselves at following this . Posts regarding a specific case can be made under Cases to watch i.eIf you post here anyway regarding a specific inmate, please write name, state in the header. A very long post like the one you made should at least have a cliff note. A hyperlink to the text you've copied is also preferable.
None - ive noticed that this website likes to keep abreast of all DP news and invites discussion...so im merely facilitating DP related news when i find it
One of the things I have gained a better understanding of by hanging on this forum as an anti is that most DP cases that are described as "weak" "circumstantial" or something similar in newspaper articles or pro-inmate webpages really aren't relying on such weak evidence if you look at them more closely. I'm not familiar with this case, but I would be very surprised if the eye witnesses were the only piece of evidence that was brought up at the trial. In some cases - like that of Hank Skinner - it's an outright lie that some of his supporters have had some success when it comes to having media write and broadcast about it. The abolishion movement is not gained if people are buying inmate propaganda without any control of background facts. Something that also should be remembered that once you are convicted it is no longer about proving "reasonable doubt" to get your conviction tossed. You need to prove either factual innocence or that there was some serious errors in the trial(s). It's the same thing in all countries that I have some knowledge of and the legal system wouldn't work if you could get a new trial with some doubts as the only basis.
I will admit there are some cases where someone did drop the ball
Yes there have been a number of failed cases. My point would be: Knowing that mistakes have been made, do you think its right to risk the death of an innocent man?