Reporter proves convicted U.S. murderer could not have killed several women

C

cancel2 2022

Canceled
US justice at itś finest, it took a Daily Mail journolist to point out to a court that the perpetrator had size 9 feet whilst the defendant has size 14 feet.


Carlton Gary was dubbed the Stocking Strangler in Columbus, Georgia,His alleged murder spree in the 1970s reduced the town to a state of terror
But Mail on Sunday reporter DAVID ROSE says the case has crucial holes The killer left size nine footprints but Gary's - measured in court - are size 14

Victim claimed she recognised him, but initial statement said it was too dark. 'Confession' was also not documented in any way by police at the time.

Rose has been called to give evidence and accused of 'lies and propaganda'

article-2576524-1C21F0E800000578-733_634x360.jpg


Campaign: Mail on Sunday reporter David Rose borrowed a shoe size gauge from a nearby shop to prove his point that Carlton Gary's feet are five sizes larger than prints left by the Stocking Strangler in 1970
 
The defense attorney should be disbarred.

The prosecuting attorney probably noticed this disparity and opted not to examine investigating detectives on the stand about this discrepancy. Hell, the detectives probably brought it to the prosecutor's attention, to which the prosecutor will shrug and say something like, "I'll handle that when it comes up."

And if it never does.... an innocent person can get ROYALLY fecked.

It's all a game to lawyers, win/loss ratios.
 
Taft2016 said:
The defense attorney should be disbarred.

The prosecuting attorney probably noticed this disparity and opted not to examine investigating detectives on the stand about this discrepancy. Hell, the detectives probably brought it to the prosecutor's attention, to which the prosecutor will shrug and say something like, "I'll handle that when it comes up."

And if it never does.... an innocent person can get ROYALLY fecked.

It's all a game to lawyers, win/loss ratios.
Click to expand...

You are totally right about that, I would like to hear Soc´s view on this case but he doesn´t come on very often these days.
 
Taft2016 said:
The defense attorney should be disbarred.

The prosecuting attorney probably noticed this disparity and opted not to examine investigating detectives on the stand about this discrepancy. Hell, the detectives probably brought it to the prosecutor's attention, to which the prosecutor will shrug and say something like, "I'll handle that when it comes up."

And if it never does.... an innocent person can get ROYALLY fecked.

It's all a game to lawyers, win/loss ratios.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I say that when a person is wrongfully convicted, when the prosecution has evidence excluding the suspect, that the person(s) that do this should suffer the same fate as the one prosecuted.
 
I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that an investigating detective gave this bit of evidence to the reporter on the sly.
 
Taft2016 said:
The defense attorney should be disbarred.

The prosecuting attorney probably noticed this disparity and opted not to examine investigating detectives on the stand about this discrepancy. Hell, the detectives probably brought it to the prosecutor's attention, to which the prosecutor will shrug and say something like, "I'll handle that when it comes up."

And if it never does.... an innocent person can get ROYALLY fecked.

It's all a game to lawyers, win/loss ratios.
Click to expand...

but see, prosecutors have absolute immunity, and even in the most extreme cases of misconduct, they are hardly punished.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
but see, prosecutors have absolute immunity, and even in the most extreme cases of misconduct, they are hardly punished.
Click to expand...

You comment is in argument with itself; because you suggest that in the "most extreme cases", they are punished; but you have also said they have "absolute immunity", which would mean there would be no cases of punishment. :dunno:
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You comment is in argument with itself; because you suggest that in the "most extreme cases", they are punished; but you have also said they have "absolute immunity", which would mean there would be no cases of punishment. :dunno:
Click to expand...

that is because it's all left up to judges. the very FEW times i've ever read about punishment has been in extremely conscious shocking incidents, and even then the punishment is light. The last case I read about from 4 months ago had a prosecutor who withheld evidence from the defense that would most assuredly have acquitted the defendant. After the guy spent 20 years in prison, the prosecutor spent one day in jail.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
that is because it's all left up to judges. the very FEW times i've ever read about punishment has been in extremely conscious shocking incidents, and even then the punishment is light. The last case I read about from 4 months ago had a prosecutor who withheld evidence from the defense that would most assuredly have acquitted the defendant. After the guy spent 20 years in prison, the prosecutor spent one day in jail.
Click to expand...

But your original comment was and is still in conflict with itself.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But your original comment was and is still in conflict with itself.
Click to expand...

but it is still reality. there are many cases where you can read that prosecutors are given absolute immunity, yet can still be subject to some punishment in a few cases. that's not an issue you need take up with me, but the USSC.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
but it is still reality. there are many cases where you can read that prosecutors are given absolute immunity, yet can still be subject to some punishment in a few cases. that's not an issue you need take up with me, but the USSC.
Click to expand...

Why would I take up with the USSC, that your post was arguing with itself??
 
SmarterthanYou said:
because the USSC is the entity that both gave absolute immunity and then allowed the light punishment, therefore it's their argument, not mine.
Click to expand...

I can see why you want to switch this to the USSC; because that way you can try to hide that you're the one who made the statement, in which you argued with yourself.
 
http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/2014/hundreds-of-justice-attorneys-violated-standards.html

An internal affairs office at the Justice Department has found that, over the last decade, hundreds of federal prosecutors and other Justice employees violated rules, laws, or ethical standards governing their work.

The violations include instances in which attorneys who have a duty to uphold justice have, according to the internal affairs office, misled courts, withheld evidence that could have helped defendants, abused prosecutorial and investigative power, and violated constitutional rights.

From fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2013, the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) documented more than 650 infractions, according to a Project On Government Oversight review of data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and from OPR reports.

In the majority of the matters—more than 400—OPR categorized the violations as being at the more severe end of the scale: recklessness or intentional misconduct, as distinct from error or poor judgment.

The information the Justice Department has disclosed is only part of the story. No less significant is what as a matter of policy it keeps from the public.

As a general practice, the Justice Department does not make public the names of attorneys who acted improperly or the defendants whose cases were affected. The result: the Department, its lawyers, and the internal watchdog office itself are insulated from meaningful public scrutiny and accountability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top