Texas Woman Faces Execution--Please Help!

[DaveM]

Feb. 26, 2007, 10:54AM
Texas woman loses appeal, faces execution


By MICHAEL GRACZYK
Associated Press

TOOLS
Email Get section feed
Print Subscribe NOW
The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected an appeal from a condemned Texas woman scheduled to die soon for the slaying of a 3-month-old child she was baby-sitting in her home.

Cathy Lynn Henderson, 50, faces execution April 18 for the 1994 death of Brandon Baugh, whose body was found stuffed in a wine cooler carton and buried in a field in Bell County, about 50 miles north of Henderson's Austin-area home. The discovery came nearly three weeks after the child was first reported missing.

Henderson's attorneys had asked the justices to review her case, arguing authorities improperly forced Henderson's lawyer to turn over a map the woman drew pointing to the area where the child was buried.

She was convicted in 1995 when a Travis County jury agreed with prosecutors who argued she smashed the child's head with a blunt object while she was baby-sitting him and his older sister.

Henderson fled to her native Missouri. According to testimony at her trial, when arrested in Independence, Mo., she told a childhood friend she had killed someone she described as a male and wanted to change her identity.

FBI agents said Henderson gave several stories about the baby's disappearance before finally saying he fell from her arms while she was answering the phone and hit his head on the floor. A medical examiner, however, said that was impossible because of the severity of the injuries.

The map, which had been the subject of previous appeals in lower courts, never was used in court and did not play a role in her conviction, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled in 1997.

Henderson would be the fourth woman executed in Texas since the state resumed carrying out the death penalty in 1982. In that time, 384 men have been put to death. Of the 388 condemned inmates in Texas, Henderson is one of 10 women.

----------------------------

Don't get me wrong, Ms. Henderson is no saint, but there are serious questions about her case which make the idea of her execution repulsive to me. Further information, resources, and guidelines on writing letters asking for clemency may be found at: http://savecathyhenderson.com/ .

Seems to me that a few letters and a lot of Rudie Power are needed here. There is no good reason for this woman to die.

[Bat]

Sorry, DaveM...can't really find it in my heart to forgive someone who bludgeons a child and buries him in a wine box...ranks right up there with the presently-being-tried Marcus Feisel murder by his foster parents.
The baby might not have stopped crying. Marcus might have been a holy terror as an autistic child. The Adults had better start being smarter than the kids they are tending, and not giving in to their baser impulses to clobber the children.
If there was a misrepresentation of the facts, or the defense did not put up all the positive evidence they had to defend their clients, that is up to the courts to decide, up to them to mitigate or ameliorate the sentences, or call for a retrial. But, if it is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that these actions did take place as murder, then let the perpetrator pay the price.
If they had the guts to do the deed in the first place, then let them have the guts to pay the piper. I am definitely not against the death penalty.
As a friend of mine used to say, "Some people are just a good waste of skin."
I'm also for the idea that is being bandied about that child molesters should be put away for the rest of their natural lives with no possibility of parole.
Call me merciless...yep...just as merciless as the perps are.

[sky]

I don't have much empathy for someone that would hurt any helpless and innocent child especially a 3 month old. I don't know the facts because I hadn't heard of this case before, but if the child was in her custody when it disapeared, and she kept changing her story, and then she directed them to the body---it doesn't sound good.

I agree just "dropping" a baby from your arms accidently isn't going to do that kind of damage--unless it was "dropped" out of a window or something, or thrown with force. Just my two cents worth.

I wanted to add though that I am not sure that I agree with death penalty's in general. I am very uncomfortable with that whole idea---but I don't see why if she should be excluded if that is legal in her state and other people are being executed. Why she is any different? How does she explain directing them to the body---just a guess and it turned out to be there?
Sky

[DaveM]

As far as any "bludgeoning" is involved, no instrument was ever found that could have been used in such a manner. If you will consult the web site I mentioned, you will find there is more to the story than the prosecutor's side, which was outlined nicely in the article I cited. However, "the rest of the story" was not presented in court, and now most likely never will be.

While I am opposed to capital punishment on principle, I, too, would have little sympathy for anyone who cold-bloodedly murdered a child, if indeed their guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt--and not in the Texas sense, either.

[Rkitko]

Regardless of the crime, I agree, DaveM. There's no good reason for any person to be put to death in some twisted effort to deter further crime. I believe we need to embrace the idea that prisons are meant for rehabilitation and not just punishment. If a society begins to believe that no one can be rehabilitated, they begin to believe in the inherent dark nature of the human soul. And when they begin to believe that, they're sure to fail.

Constitutionally, she also deserves a fair trial...

[sky]

I agree with much of what you wrote, and of course there should ALWAYS be a fair trial. But I think that is more rare than people think---I think most trials have many questionable issues. Things are left out that should be in--or things are in that should be left out. Or they get hung up on cetain legal issues that may have nothing to actually do with guilt or innocence. Some innocent people are found guilty unfortunately, and some guilty people are found innocent as well. It is a faulty system.

But I also really don't believe "everyone" can be rehabilitated. Some can--some can't. I don't think sociopaths can be---not that I am saying that woman is a sociopath by any means---I'm not saying that. But when I say that sociopaths can't be rehabilitated I say that having been raised by a man that has been diagnosed as a sociopath.

Going off topic here a bit, but I grew up watching him beat my mother into unconsiousness and if we complained or cried he would get out one of his guns and start threatening to kill himself or us and then he would sometimes hand one of us kids the gun and taunt us and tell us to kill him if we thought he was so wrong and such a bad person. None of us 5 kids ever did---it is something you would have had to live through to understand the turmoil. He would line all 5 of us kids up and beat us if he was angry. He sexually abused us, and so much more than I can tell you here. And his father was a sociopath in my opinion as well. He is known by the family and referred to by the family as that son of b*tch. He was never called dad, or grandpa, or by his name by the family----he was known as that son of a b*tch ----say that and everyone knows who you are talking about. he beat my grandmother, and his kids, was always getting into fights with other men etc.

sociopaths don't get the concept of right or wrong. They don't think that any of the rules apply to them. My father was a cop and he new the laws, he was supposed to enforce them. They don't understand that others have feelings, and they really don't care because the only feelings that exist in the world to them are there own feelings. If they do something wrong and you don't like it they think you are being unfair to them, even though everyone else knows that what they did was wrong.

Sociopaths actually have something different in their brain and they respond differently to things. They have done studies where they show sociopaths puctures, and they have recorded their brain signals and done MRI's on them etc. and they can see how they respond differently than quote "normal" (or non sociopaths) people do in certain parts of their brain to the images of violence etc. How do you rehabilitate that? It's nice "theory" that you can rehabilitate anyone---but I don't buy it because it is incredibly complicated.

And it DOES often have some genetic basis (which scares the h*ll out of me because I have 4 kids and I am pregnant with my 5th) and I come from a family of 5 kids. Although it also does depends on how they were raised. It is both nature and nurture combined. They have a tendancy towards being that way, and if they have a bad childhood it often makes them FAR worse----than if they were treated well.

But to me a bad childhood doesn't excuse it either.

Sky

[Rkitko]

Sky, I was going to qualify what I said with exceptions like what you wrote, but though it would be more powerful without interrupting parenthetical expressions. Indeed, though, I did have mental illness and medical diagnosis in mind when I wrote that I believe in the rehabilitative powers of the system. But I must say I appreciate you feeling safe enough to share your story here. Thank you.


Things are left out that should be in--or things are in that should be left out. Or they get hung up on cetain legal issues that may have nothing to actually do with guilt or innocence. Some innocent people are found guilty unfortunately, and some guilty people are found innocent as well. It is a faulty system.

Ya know, I'm reminded of the federal Santuary Movement Trial of the mid-1980s in the USA. Several members of religious organizations were brought up on charges of illegally aiding and hosting "economic migrants," people the government saw as seeking employment in the US without going through the proper immigration channels. In fact, most of these people were fleeing from the abusive governments of South American countries and the religious organizations thought they should be granted asylum. David Quammen wrote an article on this topic in Outside magazine. He writes:


At the very start the presiding judge, Earl. H. Carroll, issued several orders barring certain types of evidence: No testimony would be accepted concerning the political conditions or dangers in any foreign country; no testimony concerning the defendants' religious beliefs or motivations; no testimony related to the defendants' understanding of U.S. immigration laws; no evidence of the defendants' belief that those aliens they stood accused of helping were legitimate refugees. The list of exclusions covered nearly every defense that the defendants' attorneys had hoped to use. Evidence about the ninety-eight percent denial rate for Salvadoran asylum applicants was inadmissible. The 1980 Refugee Act was inadmissible.

That entire saga seems so... UnAmerican. That wasn't a fair trial at all if every defense is inadmissible. Yes, it's a faulty system. But I don't let that go as an excuse. And especially if it's a faulty system, do I want such a faulty system deciding on such things as the ultimate finality of a person's life? When an individual takes that action of ending someone's life, they're a murderer and a criminal. When the government does it, it's justice. I just don't get it and never will.

[SongDragon]

I'm not going to take a side publicly, as I have no proof one way or another, but if they wish to represent the story two different ways on one page it is hard to argue for them.

http://savecathyhenderson.com/about_the_case.html

Cathy's story on the page:
"While spinning him, Cathy stepped on a sharp object and dropped Brandon. He fell, hitting his head on the concrete floor."

Cathy's story on the page as told in Sister Helen Prejean's letter:
"Cathy was babysitting with little Brandon and, to stop him from crying, was swinging him around when, barefooted, she stepped on a sharp toy, lost her balance, and the baby flew out of her arms, hit the wall, and died."

Notice the mistake? Floor, or wall? Any jury will also notice that, and it seems like a small mistake, but to a jury it becomes huge. Part of persuasion is repetition. The prosecution did so, the defense, even the well-meaning defense on this website, is not doing so.

~SongDragon

[Randy & Betty in Pa]

I agree with Bat... Sorry, she will get our prayers but nothing more...

Best

R. from Pa

[Oak Kitten]

The last time I weighed in on the subject of the death penalty in a thread on this board, which was over a year ago I think, I favored it. I have since changed my mind, having witnessed first-hand how deeply and irretrievably flawed the criminal justice system in this country is.

I cannot condone a justice system as deeply flawed as ours imposing an irreversible punishment on anyone, for the following reasons:

Prosecutorial misconduct - e.g. the illegal withholding of evidence, the introduction of irrelevant issues to inflame the emotions of the jury, etc.

Judges appointed to the bench for life who are obviously too physically or mentally debilitated to absorb all the complexities of the evidence being presented and to render a reasonable and fair judgment.

Elected judges who will not overrule inappropriate jury verdicts that ignored the rules of evidence and the burden of proof because to do so would place them at risk of re-election.

Juries that are either unwilling or incapable of objectively weighing the evidence and following the guidelines for determining whether a prosecutor has in fact met the burden of proof. Wily prosecutors know that if they have a suspect charged with a crime that has an emotionally inflammatory impact on the jury - they are already 95% on the way to a conviction - no matter what the evidence is.

Life in prison without parole should be the maximum sentence allowable under the law. A number of states have already abandoned the death penalty, and Maryland is now considering doing so, a move that I support.

Oak

[DaveM]

The truly funny thing is that if this same person were about to be executed in Iraq....few if any Americans would agree with the execution.

As to whether the child's head hit the wall or the floor, the only person who knows that is Cathy Henderson--and she may not even know. She has a lengthy history of serious mental illness which has over the years led to every manner of odd behavior and severe confusion. You won't find that on any web page--I learned it from one of the other women on Death Row in Texas. Seems to me that we aren't supposed to execute mentally ill people in this country--certainly there have been plenty of official criticisms against other nations which do.

A sidebar: "Sociopathy" (an old term now replaced by "Antisocial Personality Disorder"--psychiatry simply does not like to keep things simple) is a current fad diagnosis, despite longtime empirical evidence that it is a very rare condition. As medications have reduced the number of people seeking long-term therapy, the profession has had to discover others in order to keep the doors open. Hence the profusion of diagnoses of schizophrenia until the late 70s, at which time depression was "in" until c. 1990, at which time "personality disorders" became all the rage. Many have such vague symptoms that they could be applied to any human being. And of course they respond only to long (and expensive) courses of therapy.

An irrelevant note, as to my knowledge Cathy Henderson has not been diagnosed as a sociopath or any of the variations thereof.

I wish you all well when it comes time for you to be judged, as it will, given current social trends, for practically anyone in today's America.

[Eva]

I wish you all well when it comes time for you to be judged, as it will, given current social trends, for practically anyone in today's America.
Is this remark meant to be cynical Dave? Or am I misinterpretating the nuances of your English here?

My opinion
1. Everyone deserves a fair trial. So does this woman. It's a horrible deed, but it needs to be sorted out well if she indeed is guilty to all this.
2. I don't believe in a waterproof justicesystem.
3. I am against the deathpenalty.
4. I don't think everyone can be rehabilitated in every case. I believe people have a very dark side.
5. If ms. Henderson is guilty, I hope they lock her up for a very loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

Eva

[Oak Kitten]

I don't presume to speak for Dave here, but I think it is safe to say he was being justifiably cynical in his last post. Until human fallibility in all its forms can be completely excised from the so-called "justice" system in this or any other country - no one should arrogate to themselves the right render a judgment that will lead to the death of another human being, unless of course they sign a waiver that says if they are proven wrong at some point in the future - their own life is forfeit.

Oak

[mixtymotions]

Being the eldest of 9 children (which I helped care for) and being the mother of three and the grandmother of 3, there was never a time when I spun a baby to "calm" them. I have rocked babies, gently bounced babies in my arms, danced across the room with a baby held (securely) in my arms, swayed with babies against my chest or shoulder, patted babies on the back while they were against my shoulder, but never, EVER, have I swung a baby around to "calm" them. The very thought of such an action gives me moosebumps. I don't even know how one swings a baby around...by the ankles, by the wrists, by the throat? I have tripped over things with a baby in my arms, I have slipped and nearly fallen with a baby in my arms, I have stumbled over things with a baby in my arms, I have even fallen with a baby in my arms, but I have NEVER dropped a baby. This case disturbs me on so many levels - the fact that she did NOT call 911, she buried the baby in an attempt to hide her guilt, she fled state, and she committed this act in a state whose punishment for such a crime is death. She may be mentally ill, but she is not insane as her acts after the death of the baby all show rational planning. Do I believe in mercy? Certainly, but it is conditional. Being entrusted with the care of a helpless infant, and smashing his skull against a concrete floor (or wall, according to some testimony) is completely unforgivable. Faulty judicial system aside, the fact remains that this infant died as a result of her actions.

[DaveM]

Me, cynical? Of course!

I do not regard anyone with a criminal conviction in the state of Texas as having received "due process of law". There are a number of reasons for this, but I will give two special mention:

1. There is no right of discovery for the defense in the state of Texas. The prosecution is free to ignore, withhold, or refuse to release any evidence it wishes, even if that evidence could make the difference between guilt and innocence.

2. The appeals process taken for granted in every other state in the union does not apply to defendants who receive a capital sentence in Texas. Access to state appellate courts and the state supreme court is barred. A death row inmate is permitted one state appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. This court consists almost exclusively of former prosecutors. Someone fighting a traffic ticket in Texas literally has more legal avenues available than does someone attempting to appeal a death sentence.

By the way, I too regard the idea of spinning a baby around ridiculous, and at no point on this thread or elsewhere have I stated that I would wish to hire Ms. Henderson as a babysitter. Or Michael Jackson, for that matter. However, I do not believe that either should be put to death.

[david uk]

just to say that I am oposed to the death penalty.

two wrongs never make a right.

[DaveM]

Those offering prayers may wish to add a few for Ms. Henderson's three children, the oldest of whom is 17. None of them especially wants their mother to die.

[Darlene]

Originally posted by Dave M
Those offering prayers may wish to add a few for Ms. Henderson's three children, the oldest of whom is 17. None of them especially wants their mother to die.
I am offering prayers for those three children right now and will continue to pray for them. Darlene

[DaveM]

Well-intended, I have little doubt. But that and 39 cents will get you a stamp.

[Darlene]

What's with you Dave? Did you take an extra nasty pill this morning? But you are correct the Postal Dept. does take prayers as currency.
Peace, Darlene

[DaveM]

No, just having a bit of an epiphany on the basic nature of humanity. I realize that many of my opinions are unpopular, and neither require nor expect anyone's approval or acceptance. But a few people have stepped over the line today (from various sources) and in my eyes, stock in the human race has dropped steeply in my eyes (not that it was ever too high to begin with). Never before had I realized just how miserable most people are, and how dedicated they are to trying to make others so. It is a lesson I have forgotten before. I will not this time.

"Hands that help are of far more use than knees that pray" --Robert Ingersoll.

Of course, if someone could get me a prayer deal on Priority Mail shipping, I could really use it.

[Darlene]

Dave, I don't understand where you are coming from. Do you think that all of us are just sitting on our a** and not doing anything. If that is what you think then you are wrong. I am a strong advocate for children and the mentally ill and I do pray to a higher being. Now I can sit here a sing my praises about what kind of thing I do but that is not what you want to hear. You can believe what you want to, that is your right. But I know what my purpose is here and I do my dam***t to help in these area as much as I can. Miserable? Not when it comes to what I feel is my purpose is here on this earth, that purpose makes me feel good that, I can in some way help, the people in these two areas. I do not like to be shoved into a group, Thank You!

Peace, Darlene

ps Dave I do not for any reason believe in the death penalty. No one has the right to take human life and I don't believe in a tooth for a tooth we would soon be toothless.
Darlene

[DaveM]

Darlene--my current state of mind has nothing to do with you, with this thread, or with much of anything to do with this board. I am sorry if some of my remarks seemed personal--please ignore them.

My belief in general, however, is that offering to pray for someone is an expression of disdain, condescension, and a refusal to either adopt a moral stance or to even respond directly to the person they are addressing their comments to.

I have also just had an extremely unpleasant personal encounter with a sniveling little twit who uses the claim of faith as an intended evasion of responsibility for being, quite frankly, a rotten person (this is not someone who is online). This individual mouths off with her pious b.s. and metaphorically picks people's pockets while they're distracted by her. And if all else fails she has a pistol-packing husband with a double-digit IQ who goes out "enforcing" should anyone attempt to stand up to her. At least one encounter is pending soon. I don't think they're going to like how it turns out.

I look back on this thread and realize that if, for example, Janis had started it using precisely the same words, virtually every post on it would be different. Which provides considerably insight into where I stand in this community and into how and where certain people get what they believe to be "their ideas", which are not theirs at all.

There are so many other things.....so many other factors. I have avoided going to bed tonight since tomorrow is likely to bring a personal confrontation which has been inevitable for over a decade but in which I hoped the other parties might learn better or otherwise redeem themselves. I'm not looking forward to that one bit, knowing, as I do a bit more clearly today, that the hypocrites have the world on their side. I reassure myself that I do not need or want the world at large. But I did rather hope to remain at large to watch this decaying society collapse.

It may well be that this will not be so. But if I am not heard from again on this board, please do not worry. Some fates are inevitable, and as we know, not all of them are good.

[Dee]

When it comes to the death penalty, it seems to me the only ones being punished are those who are left behind. True punishment for a criminal would be restricting their freedoms for the rest of their life. Death only sets them free and imprisons their loved ones and families. I also believe it makes the executioners guilty of murder too, but I get the feeling this is more about revenge than justice. To me the death penalty is barbaric and a disgrace to humankind.

[Rkitko]

DaveM, be safe, OK? And I do hope to see you posting tomorrow. (I worry, it's what I do...)

And by the way, that had to be the best description of a person and their charming personality that I've ever read. The cadence was so smooth. Don't tell me you're this eloquent offline as well, 'cause I will have to begin being very jealous immediately. I'm a bumbling, mumbling moron when it comes to conversational skills.

Well, anyway, best of luck to you tomorrow.

[ponytail]

Please be careful dealing with these folks, Dave. I always look forward to seeing you here.

For the record, the older I get, the more opposed I am to the death penalty, period. I don't believe in the government, at any level, having the power of life and death. They can't be trusted with it.

[sister rose]

Dave...please don't leave me standing at the alter alone!! :( I've already planned our wedding dinner!

[Bat]

Don't be getting nutsy, Dave! You are worth more than they are all put together (whoever They are). What works better than anything is simply ignoring them. I don't mean merely ignoring them...I mean IGNORING.
That means you look right through them, you don't ever speak to them or act like they even exist. It'll drive them nuts! LOL

[sister rose]

Yeah...what Bat said! :p

[david uk]

When it comes to the death penalty, it seems to me the only ones being punished are those who are left behind. True punishment for a criminal would be restricting their freedoms for the rest of their life. Death only sets them free and imprisons their loved ones and families. I also believe it makes the executioners guilty of murder too, but I get the feeling this is more about revenge than justice. To me the death penalty is barbaric and a disgrace to humankind.

absolutely, Dee

nothing more to add to that.

[greenpaul]

As you may see from my avatar which is the symbol of Amnesty International, I am firmly opposed in all possible situations to the use of the death penalty. The idea that a country's judicial system allows the State to kill even those who murder others is anathema to me. It lowers that State and its citizens to the level of the criminal. I know and understand the emotions such crimes will invoke in us all, but emotions should never be allowed to cloud the process of justice. I'm a UK citizen and there have been many miscarriages of justice here, many of which resulted in innocent people being imprisoned for lengthy sentences and some indeed executed by the State.
I'm not saying that everyone can be rehabilitated in prison, and evil certainly exists across all sectors of the globe, but the taking away of someone's liberty should be the absolute sanction of a civilised due process of law - not murder by the State.

Paul

[sister rose]

I've always felt that the death penalty represented a legalized way to commit murder....I'm opposed to any form of capital punishment.

[ponytail]

Has anybody heard from Dave M. today? I'm worried about him.:confused:

[Darlene]

Hay Dave M, I am sorry if I did anything to exacerbate the problem you are having somewhere. (where, and what) I wish to help but I can't understand what it is you are going through. Please PM me. Darlene

[Rkitko]

me too, Jack. Hope he's OK.

[Judy]

Hmm, this thread took a mighty strange turn.... Frankly, I'm confused by it - I didn't find anything offensive anywhere along the line. So, some people disagreed with the plea for the "Texas Woman", - I don't find that to be an issue at all. And as to the idea that if Janis made the original post, then the response would be a different tone...I don't think that at all, at least I'd surely hope not. The thing I like about this community is that I find most everyone here to be genuine, and as such, it would seem far out of character for the people here to temper their responses based on who's started the thread.
Based on many previous posts I'd say it apparent that you are a welcomed member of this community, Dave...Agreements/Disagreements hardly changes things; I think we're all made of better stuff than that.
Judy

[Dee]

Hmm, this thread took a mighty strange turn.... Frankly, I'm confused by it ....

Me too Judy,

Dave's last post (02-28-2007, 03:26 AM) contained some rather unexpected judgements and a cryptic message that I find well, curious. Not sure what’s going on with him, but I hope he’ll be back and explain.

[Randy & Betty in Pa]

Darlene--my current state of mind has nothing to do with you, with this thread, or with much of anything to do with this board. I am sorry if some of my remarks seemed personal--please ignore them.

My belief in general, however, is that offering to pray for someone is an expression of disdain, condescension, and a refusal to either adopt a moral stance or to even respond directly to the person they are addressing their comments to.


Dave??? You would ask for compassion for this person based on your opinions yet when others react in a way that you don't agree with, our prayers are condecending and filled with disdain? Like you I have expressed a moral stance on this issue which you've brought up.... It's just not one you agree with... Sorry but thats life... As to responding directly to the person I direct my comments to I think I've often done just that and always been quite clear about it... Sometimes to a fault...



I have also just had an extremely unpleasant personal encounter with a sniveling little twit who uses the claim of faith as an intended evasion of responsibility for being, quite frankly, a rotten person (this is not someone who is online). This individual mouths off with her pious b.s. and metaphorically picks people's pockets while they're distracted by her. And if all else fails she has a pistol-packing husband with a double-digit IQ who goes out "enforcing" should anyone attempt to stand up to her. At least one encounter is pending soon. I don't think they're going to like how it turns out.


I'm sorry that you had a bad day for whatever reason but that is no reason to reign terror on others here. You referred to a moral stance and willingness to direct your comments to the person that they are intended for yet you are above calling someone and their spouse names for some unknown reason and I seriously doubt if it has anything to do with anyone on this board... Further, don't you think your enough of a person to say what you mean instead of finely vailed threats at persons unknown like "At least one encouther is pending soon. I don't think they're going to like how it turns out."
On many issues I agree with you but about issues of what we each percieve as justice and law enforcement we stand pretty much on opposite sides of the fence... thats nothing new....


I look back on this thread and realize that if, for example, Janis had started it using precisely the same words, virtually every post on it would be different. Which provides considerably insight into where I stand in this community and into how and where certain people get what they believe to be "their ideas", which are not theirs at all.


I don't believe that either, sorry but your crystal ball has a crack in it... Some of us do have conscious self thought... Just because not everybody agrees with you dosen't make them all right or wrong.... We just all have our own opinions and reasons for having them... As to where I get my ideas, they come from my experiences or observations.... Probably the same place you get yours...



There are so many other things.....so many other factors. I have avoided going to bed tonight since tomorrow is likely to bring a personal confrontation which has been inevitable for over a decade but in which I hoped the other parties might learn better or otherwise redeem themselves. I'm not looking forward to that one bit, knowing, as I do a bit more clearly today, that the hypocrites have the world on their side. I reassure myself that I do not need or want the world at large. But I did rather hope to remain at large to watch this decaying society collapse.

It may well be that this will not be so. But if I am not heard from again on this board, please do not worry. Some fates are inevitable, and as we know, not all of them are good.

Dave, Time for a reality check...society is what we make it....I have no idea why your in such a foul mood or towards whom... My SINCERE prayers and best wishes go out to you....

Best wishes
R. from Pa

[BeckyVA]

Dave M,
I too have always enjoyed your posts; I am worried about you and what you
may be struggling with or with whom you may find yourself confronting and them not liking the outcome.

We all have days that overwhelm us......what I have found here on this board are that there are many, many caring people...as different as we can be from one another at times and yet, very much alike in other ways.

My concern is for your safety, well being and wanting you to know that you are valued here among us all; for being YOU.

I am hoping that we hear from you soon. Even if you just send a one line post letting us know that you are alright...until you are ready to dialogue again. Please......?

Be safe.
Becky

[DaveM]

Folks, despite my posts on this thread, I meant and mean no harm or offense to anyone on this board. What appeared here was the result of some serious personal stress and self-absorbtion which did not belong on this board, and also most definitely should not be taken as a belief that I have any right to "rule" on the value of anyone's opinion. Honestly, I'm not 100% sure why I posted any of the material here at all, much less on this thread.

If Admin would like to delete any or all of it, they are welcome to do so. I feel worst of all because I have done a grave disservice to the matter I originally posted about, making any further comment on it pointless.

As many of you know, I have a rather dark view of society in general and certain components of it in particular. I just had a rather dramatic (and frightening) real-life reminder that those views are not born of my imagination and I really DID NOT NEED IT. None of you had anything to do with--I've told you about the local crazies before and trust I don't need to repeat myself.

I may be in and out of here over the next few days, but hope the personal situation will be resolved within a few days and meanwhile, will not make my problems those of the membership of this board. You may be assured of that. As for what has been done I cannot undo it, but I will do better henceforth.

By the way, if anyone thought I'd taken up drinking again--nope.

[Dee]

Thank you for explaining, Dave.

[Randy & Betty in Pa]

Dave

Thank you for your clarification... You are a valued person on this board though we will probably never agree on this and certain other topics.... Still I do value you as a person and fiend:eek: ....

Best to you my friend...

Stay safe

R. from Pa

[Eva]

Dave, I'm glad you are going strong on the not-drinking :cool:
Self-absortion huh? No, the rest of us never experience that :rolleyes: (s***, it seems you are human after all, Dave)

Eva

[Bat]

Dave, do what you have to do. Don't murder anyone. Hurry back and tell us all about it! We are very nibby and want to know all about it, but mostly want to make sure you're ok.
I know it was stress talking earlier...settle down and think things through, then do what you have to do....:cool:

[BeckyVA]

:) Thanks for letting us hear from you Dave. My only concern was for you; I know what stress can do to a person...had my fill lately. It's good to vent, if for nothing else, to just vomit up all the stress itself. No need to explain or apologize. Please just take care and I hope the issue at hand will be resolved soon and peacefully. We'll dialogue when you come back to the board after you take care of things. Take care.
Becky

[DaveM]

"Houston, TX (AP) The murder of Claude Shaffer Jr. at Joseph's Delicatessen near downtown Houston on Oct. 13, 1980, was a heinous crime by any measure, but if Joseph Nichols is executed by the state as planned on Wednesday, it will also be a terrible injustice. Nichols has been on death row since 1982, convicted of firing the single bullet that killed Claude Shaffer.

At Nichols' trial, the state knew that Nichols did not shoot the single bullet that killed Claude Schaffer, because the state had previously tried and convicted Willie Ray Williams for firing the same single bullet. In January of 1981, Williams, who had confessed to shooting Shaffer, was tried, convicted and sentenced to death as the shooter. Williams has since been executed. According to the trial transcripts, the state argued: "Willie Williams is the individual who killed Claude Schaffer. That's all there is to it. It is scientific. It is complete. It is final and it is evidence."

6 months after Williams' conviction, Joseph Nichols' 1st trial began. Nichols was tried as an accomplice under the law of parties, through which a person can be held criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another under certain circumstances. The jury found him guilty but hung in the punishment phase. After the trial, the prosecutor questioned some of the jurors at a local bar. They stated they were reluctant to impose the death penalty because, as the prosecutors had admitted, Nichols was not the shooter.

Six months later, in February 1982, Nichols' 2nd trial began. This time the state changed its story, and Nichols was tried as the shooter and not the accomplice. He was convicted and sentenced to death. In complete contradiction to the state's previous argument, the trial transcripts reveal that the state contended: "Willie Ray Williams could not have shot [Shaffer]. And I submit to you from this evidence [Nichols] fired the fatal bullet that killed the man in cold blood and he should answer for that."

The prosecution further argued: "You should think about justice when you think about this case. Is it fair and equal for Willie Williams to sit up there on death row when this man [Nichols] planned the whole thing and fired the fatal shot?"

It is an undisputed fact that a single shot killed Shaffer. For their convenience, Harris County prosecutors changed the facts from day to day and case to case, making a mockery of our justice system. This apparently doesn't matter to the state of Texas, as it refuses to give Nichols a new trial.

The state also suppressed evidence favorable to Nichols' defense. There were two witnesses to the crime, Cindy Johnson and Teresa Ishman. Johnson was the state's star witness because she testified to witnessing the entire murder. However, Ishman informed the police that Johnson "could not have seen the fatal shot being fired, because she (Johnson) was hidden in the bathroom when the shooting started." The state suppressed the identity and location of Ishman from the defense so that she could not testify at the trial.

The state of Texas now claims her testimony would not have made a difference and does not matter. If the state doesn't think Ishman's testimony would have altered the outcome of the trial, one has to wonder why they hid her true identity and whereabouts from the defense ? and further, why they refuse to grant Nichols a new trial, one in which the jury hears both witnesses, instead of just one.

Joseph Nichols' court-appointed appellate attorney was shamefully negligent. After 2 years and being granted 11 extensions for filing an appellate brief, Nichols' attorney ignored the orders of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. He was held in contempt, arrested and put in jail. Nichols' appellate brief was written by his attorney while incarcerated. His attorney was so inept he was ultimately disbarred, but the damage to Nichols' case was done. The state doesn't think this matters either, even though the U.S. Constitution guarantees its citizens effective counsel.

Capital punishment is always a controversial issue, a fair trial shouldn't be. It is simply outrageous that Nichols' attorney was in jail while writing his trial brief. It is also fair to conclude that the judge who failed to replace Nichols' counsel had little regard for due process, much less a human life. The state deliberately misled the jury by claiming 2 people fired the same bullet. That is simply dishonest. Finally, suppressing the identity of a witness whose testimony directly contradicts that of the only other witness is the ultimate corruption of justice."

Mr. Nichols was executed earlier this evening. I hope everyone feels safer. Apart from anyone in Texas, that is--they have every right to be looking over their shoulders.

[Rkitko]

Thanks for sharing that, DaveM. Very sad indeed. Will we ever learn?

[pulmike]

Dave and Us All-

I have trouble with the death penalty and with the justice system in general. I have trouble with assaulting defenseles children. I have trouble with holding mentally ill people to the same standard as the rest of us, and with not holding them to the same standard as the rest of us. I have serious trouble feeling that I know best. I wish I believed in Karma.

pulmike

[DaveM]

I wish I did too.