If this evidence had been presented in the first place, Mr. Workman wouldn’t be sitting back here.
And he wouldn’t have been killed last night by you and me. The write-up is here, along with a video made well before the killing.
I didn’t even know this killing was on the way. I guess I had better get plugged in to TCASK.
Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.
smijerBarry, that’s what I hear about it. I wonder if you watched the video at Alice’s blog where I linked? The quote at the top of the post was from the testimony of one of the jurors who originally convicted him and sentenced him to death.
RWSorry, but you guys lost me in one of the the many links to blogs that swear innocence that said “Hey, Governor Phil Bredesen killed innocent people for the crime of being poor by removing their life sustaining medications, so it’s no surprise he didn’t intervene with Phillip Workman’s execution, even though Workman was denied due process.”
I’m trying to think of a way where someone could type a more over-the-top piece of hyperbole intended to do nothing but play on emotion. I honestly can’t come up with one.
*****************
blogs, youtube videos, “I hear”, “almost all experts”, “the evidence is overwhelming”, etc……well, the legal system of TN decided to rely on the evidence presented. Sorry, that trumps blogs and well-intentioned-folks who are against the DP in any case and as such would use any argument (honest or no) to do away with it.
I need more to come on board.
Show me the evidence (not a propaganda youtube movie) and I’m on board. Show my why the sitting governor of TN is willing to kill someone for no reason because, according to you guys, he ignored exculpatory evidence that no one in the many years of the legal system saw. Show me and I’m there.
Show me the evidence, not appeals to my emotions. Emotions have no place in the court of law. Facts do. Show me the facts.
(those are all honest queries/requests, not snide comments. honest)
smijerRW, did you watch the video in the first link? I mean all of it, starting with Lt. Oliver’s daughter telling what she thought, through the footage of the first clemency hearing and all?
he ignored exculpatory evidence that no one in the many years of the legal system saw.
From what I can tell, it was seen, and discussed at the clemency hearing.
Did you read the TCASK write-up?
Only one witness, Harold Davis, claimed to have actually seen Workman shoot Lt. Oliver. But since the initial trial, Davis, who had a history of calling in false tips to police in the hopes of a reward, has confessed that he perjured himself and actually was not present at the crime scene. He has passed a polygraph examination verifying this testimony. Worse yet, the only expert forensics testimony on the record, that of Dr. Cecil Wecht, concludes that “to a degree of medical certainty” the bullet that killed Ronald Oliver could not have come from Workman’s gun, a .45 caliber pistol. Wecht’s testimony is based both on the size of the exit wound and on the fact that the bullet exited the body at all. Both are inconsistent with the type of gun and ammunition that Workman was using. This suggests that Oliver was killed by friendly fire. Five of the jurors from Workman’s trial, the original prosecuting attorney, and Lt. Oliver’s daughter have all called for clemency for Workman.
How is that too emotional?
RWRW, did you watch the video in the first link?
Nope. Not going to. Propaganda videos are a dime a dozen (see: Al Gore, Michael Moore, Dick Morris, The Clinton Chronicles - two from each side of the aisle). Evidence. Show me the exculpatory evidence.
Did you read the TCASK write-up?
Nope. Advocacy group. More propaganda. Need tangible evidence.
Worse yet, the only expert forensics testimony on the record, that of Dr. Cecil Wecht
I haven’t clicked one link, done one search, used one bit of resource to ‘cheat’ other than my own brain, and I know this: I’m a huge JFK assassination buff. Huge. My elementary school staff contacted my mom because they were concerned when I was attempting to check out library books on JFK’s assassination when I was in the fourth grade. Now, I state that because unless there’s another go-to forensics expert out there with the same last name (and I apologize profusely if there is and if I’m mistaken), it’s not Cecil Wecht, it’s Dr. CYRIL Wecht. Dr. Cyril Wecht (he looks a bit like Dick Cheney sans glasses) is a legitimate expert in the field - and he’s also one of those folks who gets paid to testify. He’s one of the leading “forensics experts” who has stated on record that there is no way that Oswald acted alone & that there is scientific proof that there was a shooter in the area known as “the grassy knoll”. Now, I’m one of those people who thinks that Oswald was most certainly guilty but I also think that there was more to the story & probably another shooter…..but, that’s my assumption based on many years of reading. If one accepts Cyril Wecht as a forensics expert who is to be believed, one MUST state for the record that they also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone & there was another shooter. Otherwise, they’re cherry-picking their data in order to meet a preconceived conclusion.
It would lead to the credibility of this case if it were shown that Dr. Wecht wasn’t paid to give his conclusion. I doubt that can be shown.
Five of the jurors from Workman’s trial, the original prosecuting attorney, and Lt. Oliver’s daughter have all called for clemency for Workman.
That’s human nature. Many folks - especially jurors - reconsider their judgment after the fact when they realize that their decisions lead directly to the death of another human being. Veterans of wars are often angst-ridden and mentally scarred from the battlefield, after all. That’s the natural human conscience.
I’m not cold-hearted, but I need more than “the size of the exit wound” put forth from an advocacy group. I may as well use the Cato Institute as my source for arguing tax policy & assume that it’s impeccable. These same groups will do the same thing at the next execution. And the next. And the next. And the next.
Hey, I’m told that Mumia is a victim of a white-conspiracy, too.
I need evidence.
RWPlease allow me to reiterate that I’m not some hard-hearted zealot out to kill every perp. I’m just more inclined to go along with Occam’s razor in most of these cases & while accepting that innocents most certainly do get convicted (which pales in comparison to the guilty who are allowed to go free, but that’s another topic and the system is designed for that to happen) the sheer statistical probability that advocacy groups and internet supporters “obviously” seeing exculpatory evidence that jurors & the never-ending appeals courts did not see, coupled with the conspiracy involved with the final prosecutors & sitting governor knowingly killing an innocent person *just so* that their personal political careers are helped….well, it goes against reason. Not impossible, but the odds are definitely in favor of that happening.
Which is why I usually approach andi-DP advocacy groups with a discerned approach: I know those guys are willing to do anything in order for someone not to be executed. And by “anything” I mean “knowingly present false defenses with the justification being that as long as a human life is saved the ends justifies the means”. Or, in short, lie. [But RW, would you lie in order to save my wife? Kids? Family? You betcha, without hesitation.] Those groups are doing just that, except with any breathing human, guilty or not.
RWClosing a tag (hopefully).
smijerSo, basically, before you can consider facts and evidence about a case, I have to bring you the physical evidence and the affidavits. If someone that wants you to know about them tells you about them, then that is “propaganda” and therefore not worth consideration. Ok. Just in case your curiosity gets the better of you, this is from a write-up in the Tennessean:
• The only eyewitness, Harold Davis, has recanted his trial testimony. Police and prosecutors coached his testimony, and despite his disavowal of it more than 10 times in an appellate hearing, they still cling to it.
• Terry Willis also perjured himself, testifying he found the fatal bullet at the crime scene. However, Lt. Clyde Keenan testified in the clemency hearing that he found the fatal bullet. The FBI found there was no fiber, cloth or blood on Workman’s bullet so it could not have gone through the victim.
• Officers at the crime scene lied about not shooting their weapons and checking another officer’s gun.
• The medical examiner, O.C. Smith, was charged with lying to federal investigators and tying a bomb to his chest in an effort to discredit Workman and his supporters.
• State Medical Examiner Bruce Levy, has stated that to “a reasonable medical certainty” the fatal bullet was Workman’s, but the only scientific evidence on record is the testimony of Dr. Cyril Wecht who stated Workman’s bullet could not be the bullet.
I don’t think that any of this is proof he didn’t do it, but I think reasonable doubt has by all means been established.
RWsmijer,
Thanks for the list. That was what I was looking for.
RWFrom wikipedia: Upon their arrival, Workman attempted to flee across a nearby car park, but tripped on a curb and was cornered by the officers. Workman claims he then attempted to surrender but, as he was pulling his gun from his pants to give it to the officers, he was struck on the head with a flashlight. As a result of the blow, Workman claims that he involuntarily discharged the gun twice, once in the air, and then at a person who had fired at him.
And……you believe that.
smijerAnd……you believe that.
No, I don’t. But I also believe the evidence makes it improbable that he killed anyone, and certainly short of the standard of reasonable doubt.
RWOh, man, I just looked and I put a period at the end of comment #10 when it should’ve been a question mark. Sheesh….I’m sorry, upon rereading it I’m nominating myself for a-hole of the week honors.
smijeroh, that is funny. I read it with a question mark.
Unless otherwise specified, all content is made available under the Creative Commons License.
I hadn’t followed this case at all until after the execution and people started talking about it more in blogs. I had no idea there was any ambiguity in the verdict - so you’re saying the ballistics report proved the bullet that killed the officer didn’t come from Workman’s gun and was probably friendly fire? And that he was executed for a death that occurred during the commitment of the crime, but not by he himself - in fact, he’d already been more or less captured at that point?
If that’s so…that’s reprehensible. I really had no idea…