Okay, I'm 100% serious here - is there any sort of just-the-facts neutral piece about what's going on with this? I see plenty of partisan stuff flying around, and both sides say they have the facts and they aren't meshing together.
I only heard about this case this week. I want to know what's happening here.
AFAIK, the situation is this: 1) He was originally convicted with just eyewitness testimony from nine people, and no physical evidence. 2) Of those nine people, seven have since recanted their testimony. 3) Of those seven people, five said there were coerced/intimidated by the police to give their statements.
1) I'm hearing 9 people from some corners, and 34 people from others. Which one is it?
2) I'm hearing 7 of 9, and I'm hearing 2 of 9, neither of which were brought up to testify in the appeals. I'm also not sure which one is true on this count.
3) I know nothing of this at this point.
That's why I'm looking for something broader. So much noise on this one.
1) Ann Coulter is the only person I've seen say 34. She is hardly reliable. Also, I think she "misreads" the fact that there were 34 witnesses for the prosecution. "Witness" does not mean "eyewitness". I'm sure plenty of people testified about things other than the events of that day.
2) As far as I know it's 7 of 9. Of the two who didn't recant, based on what I heard, one was fingered as the actual culprit (and supposedly bragged about it to others).
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 12:26 am (UTC)I only heard about this case this week. I want to know what's happening here.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 12:30 am (UTC)1) He was originally convicted with just eyewitness testimony from nine people, and no physical evidence.
2) Of those nine people, seven have since recanted their testimony.
3) Of those seven people, five said there were coerced/intimidated by the police to give their statements.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 12:35 am (UTC)2) I'm hearing 7 of 9, and I'm hearing 2 of 9, neither of which were brought up to testify in the appeals. I'm also not sure which one is true on this count.
3) I know nothing of this at this point.
That's why I'm looking for something broader. So much noise on this one.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 12:42 am (UTC)2) It's my understanding that they weren't permitted to testify.
As a 4), one of the two who didn't recant yet is apparently being accused by other witnesses as the one who actually shot the cop.
Not sure if you'd count the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Davis_case) page as a non-biased source or not.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 12:50 am (UTC)2) These are just some of the facts I'm trying to figure out.
Not sure if you'd count the wiki page as a non-biased source or not.
I've taken a look, but the way its set up right now isn't too condusive, and Wikipedia during a tumultuous time is never a good idea.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 01:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 03:50 am (UTC)2) As far as I know it's 7 of 9. Of the two who didn't recant, based on what I heard, one was fingered as the actual culprit (and supposedly bragged about it to others).
no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 06:35 am (UTC)i consider the BBC to be majorly non partisan. however, what ive got is "most witness", so..eh?
no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 02:58 am (UTC)