- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 65,981
- Reaction score
- 23,408
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The question is not whether he was innocent. Rather, was he guilty beyond any reasonable doubt? I say no.
With his last statement, Barton again declared his innocence as he always had. He had never confessed, always maintained his innocence and it took 5 trials to get a conviction.
This was the only evidence against him:
1. A blood stain on his clothing. A witnesses testified this happened when he lifted a grandchild off the victim, which the grandchild confirmed. The "blood spatter" claim was later discounted by experts - only leaving a
2. A jailhouse snitch - who so much committed perjury in exchange for a deal that a mistrial was called. However, this same jailhouse snitch who committed perjury was used in the subsequent (5th) trial in which he was convicted.
Put simply, he was executed upon the sole testimony of a jailhouse snitch who knowingly committed perjury against Barton in exchange for a deal with the prosecution.
There was no other evidence. The prosecution team was found to have witheld evidence and it was learned had previously sent 4 innocent men to prison for a total of 60 years. Other judges had found the prosecution team had knowingly presented false testimony and withheld evidence in other cases.
At least 3 of the jurors who convicted him said they would not have done so if they had heard the new evidence, heard of the flaws in the "blood splatter" theory or had known the jailhouse snitch previously had been caught lying in a previous trial.
The US Supreme Court ruled that any new expert evidence and prosecution misconduct and his guilt or innocence is all irrelevant because that all should have been taken care of in the trial, for which being innocent, having an incompetent attorney and corrupt prosecutors are all irrelevant.
It is significant and deeply troubling that the SCOTUS ruled innocence or guilt is irrelevant in a death penalty case and only trial procedure matters, with prosecution misconduct and lawyer incompetence all are irrelevant. Life and guilt is irrelevant to the SCOTUS. Only legal proceduralism matters, with the actual accused irrelevant to anything. It is only about lawyers and judges to the SCOTUS, not the accused.
Barton's last words were that he was innocent and they were executing an innocent man. If the sole testimony of a person in prison in exchange for a deal can get anyone executed, then anyone can be convicted of anything any police department or DA wants to convict - guilt irrelevant to anything. Most people in prison will say anything in exchange for getting out earlier.
Walter Barton Was Executed — 6 Facts You Should Know About His Case
With his last statement, Barton again declared his innocence as he always had. He had never confessed, always maintained his innocence and it took 5 trials to get a conviction.
This was the only evidence against him:
1. A blood stain on his clothing. A witnesses testified this happened when he lifted a grandchild off the victim, which the grandchild confirmed. The "blood spatter" claim was later discounted by experts - only leaving a
2. A jailhouse snitch - who so much committed perjury in exchange for a deal that a mistrial was called. However, this same jailhouse snitch who committed perjury was used in the subsequent (5th) trial in which he was convicted.
Put simply, he was executed upon the sole testimony of a jailhouse snitch who knowingly committed perjury against Barton in exchange for a deal with the prosecution.
There was no other evidence. The prosecution team was found to have witheld evidence and it was learned had previously sent 4 innocent men to prison for a total of 60 years. Other judges had found the prosecution team had knowingly presented false testimony and withheld evidence in other cases.
At least 3 of the jurors who convicted him said they would not have done so if they had heard the new evidence, heard of the flaws in the "blood splatter" theory or had known the jailhouse snitch previously had been caught lying in a previous trial.
The US Supreme Court ruled that any new expert evidence and prosecution misconduct and his guilt or innocence is all irrelevant because that all should have been taken care of in the trial, for which being innocent, having an incompetent attorney and corrupt prosecutors are all irrelevant.
It is significant and deeply troubling that the SCOTUS ruled innocence or guilt is irrelevant in a death penalty case and only trial procedure matters, with prosecution misconduct and lawyer incompetence all are irrelevant. Life and guilt is irrelevant to the SCOTUS. Only legal proceduralism matters, with the actual accused irrelevant to anything. It is only about lawyers and judges to the SCOTUS, not the accused.
Barton's last words were that he was innocent and they were executing an innocent man. If the sole testimony of a person in prison in exchange for a deal can get anyone executed, then anyone can be convicted of anything any police department or DA wants to convict - guilt irrelevant to anything. Most people in prison will say anything in exchange for getting out earlier.
Walter Barton Was Executed — 6 Facts You Should Know About His Case