He is if he's trying to present a case for innocence, especially one that happened years ago. Presenting only one side is clear bias. Here a convicted murderer had his case overturned and they still explained information on the record as to why he was convicted in the first place.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/3641280/detail.html

This story talks about prior history as well in discussing a new trial.

http://www.wnbc.com/news/3841523/detail.html

Another...

http://www6.law.com/lawcom/displayid...news&flag=full

This is a famous case about the couple convicted of murder because of their dogs. It was overturned and the evidence is listed in detail.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/0617...entencing.html

It didn't stop them when it came to either Bush or Kerry's service records and their history. And if a reporter is abdicating an issue on a position (which they clearly did) then they have a duty to present both sides. Not just a biased printing of evidence which backs only their pre-conceived notions.

And that's my point, the police gave them that evidence that he was guilty. They didn't just gather it on their own.

It depends, were you robbing them at the time? I'm not sure how this part is so confusing, the law CLEARLY states that if murder is commited in the commission of a felony you are guilty of murder. I quoted the statute to you below.

Which only further proves my point above. That snippet doesn't even mention that they were in the midst of committing a felony.

I don't have to, they made the case themselves. He and his wife admitted they were in the middle of a large drug deal at the time that it happened. The DA's job is to get as much evidence as possible. Getting him to name Tafero as the shooter is just another piece.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

You are assuming he began his investigation with the intent to present a case for innocence. Big assumption. Maybe he went into the case with the intent to squash those rumors, or with no intent at all but to see for himself.
He simply provided us with the testimony of the investigating officers who claim he was innocent. I know that sucks to hear, but it it what they believe. May be that is what led the reporter to believe they were innocent. Not a pre-concieved opinion going in.

Wrong. The police gave them evidence. The DA made an opinion of guilt based on that evidence. And as we know, DAs like to get convictions for crimes like these no matter what. Sometimes this happens against the advice of the investigating officer.

They weren't in the middle of a drug deal. They were in the middle of sleeping. Maybe they were going to commit a drug deal offense, but not at the time of the officer's killing. It might interest you to know that his wife has been exonerated totally and released from prison. There was no evidence to retry. Also it might interest you to know that:

"After Tafero’s trial, McCain (trial attorney) was disbarred. He was convicted of obstruction of justice for bribing a witness in another case and for narcotics conspiracy."

And also:

"Two truck drivers watched the drama unfold from a distance of 150 to 200 feet away. ( Pierce Hyman and Robert McKenzie.) Neither truck driver could say who the shooter was, but both said in their first statements to the police that Tafero was pinned over the hood of the car during all the shots. Hyman’s story changed slightly only after several discussions with the police. He then said Tafero might have gotten up off the hood of the car before the shooting stopped, but almost when it was over. Both truck drivers saw slightly different things, the most significant being where co-defendant Walter Rhodes was standing. Hyman said Rhodes was always standing in front of the car. McKenzie said Rhodes moved to the rear of the car as the shots were fired. McKenzie’s statement was very significant because the shooter, according to ballistics evidence, had to have shot from the rear of the car. The reason Hyman thought Rhodes never moved from the front of the car is because McKenzie moved his truck toward the exit blocking Hyman’s view of the scene at the exact time Rhodes moved to the back of the car. In Rhodes’ 1982 recantation, he swore under oath he moved from the front to the back of the car and fired at the two cops."

http://www.lairdcarlson.com/grip/Taf...se%20Chart.htm

__________________
lambaste me not

Here is the forensic evidence (again I welcome you to challenge the validity of each point by providing evidence these points are incorrect):

Walter Rhodes – gunpowder residue found consistent with "having discharged a weapon."

Jesse Tafero – gunpowder residue found consistent with "handling an unclean or recently discharged weapon, or possibly discharging a weapon."

Sonia Jacobs – residue found consistent with "having handled an unclean or recently discharged weapon." Jacobs's 9 year old son had the same result as she.

Other evidence:

In 1977, Rhodes bragged to two inmates that he alone committed the double murder.

A prison guard named Jowers overheard the confession. (oops)

The prosecutor said he relied on a polygraph in giving Rhodes a plea bargain to second-degree murder.

Later, three polygraph experts confirmed that Rhodes did not pass the polygraph and one said it was the most botched test he had ever seen.

__________________
lambaste me not

Now THAT is a stretch. You do know that Herbert is an open opponent of the death penalty right? Here, look for yourself. Here's how many articles he wrote against it in the past few years. His intention was not to present new facts, but to present a position. One he has presented 17 times in the last 3 years.

http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...te_select=full

It's not wrong, you said so yourself the police presented the evidence. If there was no evidence he was guilty they wouldn't have presented it.

I have no problem with the thought that was Rhodes was equally deserving of the death penalty. And actually I believe his wife agreed to plead at time served and be released. And according to her statement they had already made the contacts to make the deal and violated law (a felony) by obtaining a sample. Additionally, they stole the patrolman's car (not exactly the act of an innocent man), stole another car, and were all caught together after trying to run a police roadblock. Oh, he also had the murder weapon in his possession. Gun powder tests said if he didn't fire it, he at least handled the weapon. There were police witnesses to a confession by Sonya (thrown out on technical grounds). There was also a kidnapping charge. He's someone who only would have caused misery and grief for others...good riddance. My only problem with this case is that the judge overruled the jury's finding of life in prison.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

Yes, he is an opponent. And so am I. But not before becoming educated on the subject. I used to be pro-death penalty before I started becoming aware of these types of cases. This does not mean that he approaches the case without a sense of fairness. Neither of us knows for sure what happens in someone's head, but I do not accuse someone of biased reporting until I know for sure, and that includes reporters who provide evidence even if I disagree with their conclusions. The opinion of their innocence by those who investigated the case is not in dispute, unless you would like to provide contradictory evidence.

They did not provide evidence they were guilty, they just provided evidence. Guilt is determined by the DA. The DA looks at evidence and determines guilt, and this often happens not in pursuit of justice but to get convictions.

Rhodes wife was not present at the scene. Do you mean Tefaro's wife? She was sentenced to life and was exonerated later. She did not serve out a set penalty.

Obtaining a sample did not cause the patrol man's death, neither did making contacts to make a deal in the future. A drug deal happens when there is an exchange, this is why the police wait to bust up a deal until after the exchange occurs so that they can bust the buyer and not just the seller. If the patrol men were shot by the dealer, they could all be implicated as murderers, dealer or buyer. This is what your definition is talking about. Otherwise, why would Tefaro's wife be set free before serving her life term if she were a murderer?

Sorry, this did not cause the patrol man's death though it was a felony. This happened after they were dead.


So what if he handled the weapon? Tefaro's son had the same results, should he be implicated?

And we know how reliable those sort of witnesses are don't we? And there were also witnesses at the scene of the crime that claim it was Rhodes who pulled the trigger.

The kidnapping occurred after the fact. We do not put people to death in this country because we do not like their behavior and wish to bid them good riddance. You are put to death when you commit murder, which clearly Rhodes did.

__________________
lambaste me not

I'm quite familiar with Herbert's work, he is as biased as they come. However, that is not what I based my comment on. It is based on the fact that he clearly went into this with a prior opinion and that was based on the fact that he provided only one side of the story just like he has on every article he's ever written on the subject. I've already provided on several threads that I believe their innocence is very much in doubt and have provided links and evidence on such position.

They provided evidence they were suspects. Police do not present evidence and the DA just picks a name out of the pile that looks most appealing. I'll also add that having worked with a dozen people under three different DA's that their first concern is getting the right person. Convictions play a part in that they do not want to pursue a case unless there is a strong case for conviction. But in four years I never once presented evidence and had it ignored by a DA and I have never heard of even one instance among the agency where I worked where a case was presented and the DA went another direction in terms of prosecution. The DA relies heavily, if not exclusivey, on the opinions of police.

Apparently she wasn't as involved in the deal as he was. According to her testimony he did all of the work on it. Typically you are correct, that is when an arrest occurs. However, it is still a felony by definition. The evidence would have been her direct testimony.

No, but it is evidence as to his participation and guilt. People who are not involved in murders do not typically steal the car of the person who was just killed and then try and run a police roadblock after stealing a second car. Those are not the actions of an innocent person.

Again, it is further evidence that he was a willing participant. The reasons as to his son's positive test were never explored nor explained by he or the mother. And if he's a child then the likelihood of his involvement is low. He also didn't just test positive he had it in his possession. If someone is murdered innocent people don't have a habit of playing with the murder weapon or keeping it as a souvenir or future use. Knowing that if the police found it on him it would show up as the murder weapon used on a police officer.

They're police officers. It doesn't mean they never lie, but I'll take their word over anyone if we're going to rank reliability.

The article I read didn't say that. I didn't see why he was charged, just that kidnapping was part of the extenuating circumstances used by the judge in giving the death penalty. You are right in regards to the use of the death penalty, however in this case I feel he was guilty even if he didn't pull the trigger. At the least he tried to assist the actual murderer after the fact. He was a criminal who had hurt people in the past, done it at the time of his arrest, and would have done it again in the future. So my sympathies for him do not exist except for the fact that he was given the electric chair and that he was tortured during it.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

You have not provided much evidence to counter the claim that the detectives on the Spence case felt he was innocent.

Not in all cases. DAs are under alot of pressure to get convictions. And this particular DA was an elected official, which doesn't surprise me.

I never claimed that the DA ignored evidence in this case. But guilt is not a built in component of evidence. Evidence is objective. Guilt or innocence is a subjective decision made by the DA based on that evidence, and as we all know facts are elastic, they can be twisted. Guilt can be interpreted using evidence which leaves a large amount of reasonable doubt.

The DA? As in all DAs in all cases? Watch those assumptions.

Yet there was no drug deal at the time of the murders so it did not result in their deaths. So what was going down at the time of their deaths? Snoring in the first degree with intent to yawn.

That is actually not true. In the heat of the moment people can make illogical choices. Running from the police is not indicative of guilt, but of panic.

Yet forensic evidence clearly shows that Rhodes had fired the weapon, and this is backed up with eyewitness testimony. Whether or not Rhodes was helped in this by Tefaro is inconclusive at best. Tefaro did not force Rhodes to fire the weapon.

Most likely because they handled the weapon as well.

This is untrue. If I shoot someone and throw the weapon at you and you catch it out of reflex and handle it, you will have residue on your hands consistent with handling the murder weapon. This does not mean you had a hand in the murder.

Exactly. It was a result of panic.

Since you are a police officer I don't doubt that you would. That the system is full of corruption I do not doubt, which is why I do not support the death penalty.

The kidnapping occurred after the killing pure and simple. It is a fact of the case.

Assisting a murderer after the fact during a crime like kidnapping is not a capital offense in itself and is not part of the definition of murder.

I have not much sympathy for him either other than the fact that he did not commit murder and died for someone else's crime. Had he not been convicted of murder I would support prosecuting him for kidnapping and any other offense.

__________________
lambaste me not

In most cases, and yes they are under pressure. Which means they only file charges when they feel strongly they can get a conviction. They don't throw something against a wall and hope that it sticks. I worked in Clark County, Nevada and their DA's are elected as well. Doesn't mean they are under pressure to file charges even if they are false. That is blatantly untrue wherever you read that.

Can be true, but mostly not true. Most cases do not contain evidence that can be applied to people randomly. And I don't think you quite understand how criminal charges work. Police do not gather a bunch of facts and give it to a DA and say "here you go, you figure it out and file whatever charges you feel necessary...you take it from here." They gather evidence regarding a crime and present a suspect along with evidence against him/her to the DA. The DA then decides if there is enough to make a case. If there is then the police make an arrest. If there isn't then they are told to get more and they either do or they don't.

Not an assumption, in all and every case I ever worked or have ever heard of while I was employed. That would be 100%. Not to say it has never happened elsewhere, but you inferred that it happens many times. It does not.

If you launder money, you don't have to be caught with the money going to whatever source you are using to launder it to be convicted or guilty. Various states have conspiracy charges...or racketeering can be applied. Her words were they were in the middle of it.

Actually it is true. Innocent people rarely rarely run from the police. Those, like OJ, who do run are nearly always guilty. And they most certainly do not panic by commiting more crimes like stealing a car or running a barrier.

Testimony that is contradictory. Yet tests show at the least he handled the weapon. Whether he helped isn't inconclusive. He handled a murder weapon, tests show that to be a fact. Rhodes did not force him to handle a weapon that had just killed two cops.


Talk about a reach! Any evidence that he "threw it at him and he caught it out of reflex?" Murderers do not typically give evidence of their guilt to others to hold. If he didn't want it he would have thrown it in a lake. And he had it on him at the time of arrest. Was it also reflex to put it in his waist band?

Actually I was, and the reason I'm not anymore is because the system is corrupt. However, most of the corruption lies with the politicians. I knew two corrupt cops (both of which were part of Rampart in LA), but they were the exception. And I and others refused to work with them.

Do you have something on this? I can't find anything other than the comment of the judge who said it was a mitigating circumstance (meaning it was part of the case). But if you say it happened after I'd like to read the context. At the least it shows this guy was scum and would have done nothing on this earth other than cause more misery. The planet is better without his presence on it.

Actually aiding and abetting is a crime. Interestingly enough there are some parallels to the Teena Brandon case.

http://www2.foxsearchlight.com/boysdontcry/trial2.html

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

And sometimes when the public wants a conviction they will twist the facts to get one.

But sometimes true. And this is why I am against the death penalty.

Yes I understand that that is the standard process. But I also realize that DAs are under such pressure to cget convictions for extreme crimes, that they will take extreme measures sometimes at the cost of justice.


Of course it is. You are applying your experience to all cases. How often in your opinion are police officers correct about their assessment of their cases?

But they were not laundering money. Some crimes like murder do have conspiracy charges associated with them. But I have never heard of conspiracy to buy drugs. I could be wrong, but I do not believe you can be arrested for waiting for a drug dealer, which is why police wait until the moment of exchange to bust a deal and make arrests.

Here is a case study for you. Once I was walking down the street with a friend. HE saw a police officer and yelled "run!" HE had his reasons for that. I don't know why, but I did run. I just reacted. I wasn't thinking clearly. I just started to run because of the sudden rush of adrenaline. But I wasn't guilty of anything.

Here is something about what you said earlier I am hoping you can clear up:

Let us assume that there was a drug deal happening at the time of the officer's death (which there wasn't). According to your definition, if someone is participating in a felony which results in the death of an officer, they are a murderer. This is according to your definition. Regardless of her level of participation, she was still committing a crime which supposedly resulted in a murder. So thus she is a murderer. So why would she be released before serving her full term if her participation in that felony resulted in murder, thereby making her one? Even if Tefaro had more of a hand than her in setting up the deal, she was still committing a felony by assisting them and being a part of the purchase. It doesn't follow.

__________________
lambaste me not

"After fleeing the scene in the patrolman’s car, and then dumping the car, kidnapping a man, and stealing his car, the three were caught at a roadblock."
http://www.lairdcarlson.com/grip/Taf...%20Summary.htm

__________________
lambaste me not