1. Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Life and Death Row - Episode 2 - Judgement

Discussion in 'Swansea City' started by The Union Jack - RIP Bessian, Mar 27, 2014.

  1. The Union Jack - RIP Bessian

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    12
    Sorry this isn't football related at all but I know some of you have interests out of football that you like to discuss occasionally. As I can relate to most of you more than other people on different sorts of forums and I can't be arsed to sign up to another forum to post this, I thought I'd ask your opinions.

    I've just finished watching Episode 2 of the BBC series Life and Death Row. If you haven't seen it, I urge you to watch it as it's a brilliant and insightful documentary which just documents what happens with no obvious bias. It's not always comfortable viewing, in fact it's rarely comfortable viewing. This episode follows the trial of alleged mass murderer Guy Heinze Jr in the state of Georgia. He is accused of beating 7 members of his family and 1 other to death.

    Waiting for the Jury to come back in, my heart was beating as though I was actually there and part of the process.

    I'd be interested to hear what you thought of the process, the evidence etc. and the verdict.

    I won't spoil things for people who haven't seen it, but I'll post my opinions later after I've heard what some of you have to say.
     
    #1
  2. ValleyGraduate12

    ValleyGraduate12 Aberdude's Puppet
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2012
    Messages:
    30,384
    Likes Received:
    13,499
    This could be an interesting discussion Union. I'll give my views after I have a chance to look at the documentary tonight.
     
    #2
  3. The Union Jack - RIP Bessian

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    12
    Looking forward to hearing your views Valley. It is probably one of the most thought provoking documentaries I've seen. Really got me caught up in the emotions of the situation and really got me thinking.
     
    #3
  4. swanselona

    swanselona Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    Messages:
    2,510
    Likes Received:
    156
    I watched it, and have to be honest, from start to finish I thought the same thing throughout, not guilty, I mean there has to be no reasonable doubt, your innocent until proven guilty, and there was no proof.

    Look at the gun, if he used the gun, then there would have been reason to move it, but he didn't, so why move it? unless he himself thought it was stolen? There was no mention of it ever being used, so why bring it up? and why would he remove it?

    The whole phone call claim where he said they were beaten, that again to me is a strange one, he would have seen his family, if as they said it was through being shot, then other than gun shot wounds, you would not have had much damage to other parts of the body, and he said he seen his dads face, and if what the forensics and doctors said were true, that the skulls and stuff were crushed, then he would have seen damage to those parts of the body, which would explain why he said they were beaten to death. Yet the best question is, how can that police officer think that it was gun shots, when there was no gun used, he clearly didn't see any bullet holes in the victims, so what made him think gunshot wounds? So because the police officer thought that, he must be right, and because the suspect thought beaten, when the bodies were actually beaten, must be obviously guilty cos he knew the cause. Not only that but they mention him being a bit snappy on the phone, urmm hello, he has just walked into a trailer with his family all murdered, and your asking him stupid questions. No wonder he was a bit snappy, he would have been in shock.

    You then have the shorts, that's the only thing I couldn't really answer, the thought occurred to me that maybe there were holes in the pockets, but seeing as they never mentioned anything along those lines, its not something I can have a real set in stone opinion of.

    You have the fact they try and say 1 man can do that to 8 people, I find that really hard to believe, no way can one man do all that in such a confined space, not when 4 were found in the same room, noway can he control 4 people in 1 go, even if he threatened to hurt them if they moved, the moment he goes to attack one, the rest are not going to sit there pretty and do nothing, yet in the room they remained, and as they mentioned, no marks on him, so what, they just stood and watched whilst he battered other people in the rooms? It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

    You have the guy who said that he heard him say he is gonna kill him, ****, I have said im gonna kill my brother when I hear he has done some stupid ****, "im gonna kill the little ****" its a figure of speech, and the fact he got his dates mixed up made it even more stupid.

    The forensics guy, had for me the most compelling stuff, that he seemed to believe showed there was more than one person. And stuff the police missed.

    And the biggest, at the start where it went on about the only dna present was the suspect, no-one else's from any surrounding county. Well no ****, do they think his family lived there, and he never set foot in it? Of course his DNA is going to be there. Its like coming into my house after they find a body and because mine is the only DNA found, that it means it must have been me that done it.

    Also I hated the part where they used him looking down as a case against him, well no offence, but if it was pictures of my families battered bodies being shown on the big screen, id look away too.

    For me, there was no way that jury could give a guilty verdict, and do so with no reasonable doubt to his innocence, noway whatsoever.

    But then thats all depending on the programme giving us all the information, there could be things they did not include that made the difference in the vote. But for me, what they provided, noway could I have voted guilty, and walk away thinking I made the right decision beyond any reasonable doubt.
     
    #4
  5. The Union Jack - RIP Bessian

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    12
    Thanks Swanselona for your thoughts. I must say, I agree with everything you've said there.

    There just wasn't enough evidence to say without reasonable doubt that he was guilty, therefore they had to return a verdict of not guilty.

    As you say, the only thing that was hard to explain was the pair of shorts. But if that was the only incriminating piece of evidence, it's not enough of a case in my opinion.

    The thing about him on the phone, I was thinking of course he's snappy, I'd be snappy if my family were all lying dead in my house.

    It seemed to me as though the police/state had come up with a theory and were determined to prove it and ignore any evidence which went against their theory.

    It is of course possible as you say that the documentary didn't show every piece of evidence and the jury saw more compelling evidence. However having since read articles about the case, there doesn't seem to be any mentions of further evidence.

    They seemed to ignore some of the evidence from the pathologist guy. My heart was beating while the jury were out. I just couldn't see how they could come back with anything other than not guilty based on the evidence presented. The guy might still have done it but until more compelling evidence is presented he is innocent in my eyes and shouldn't be in jail.

    It's alarming to me that on so little evidence a man's life could be ended or spent in prison for the rest of his life. I hope something like that couldn't happen in the UK. The US really need to re-think their justice system and the death penalty if this trial was anything to go by.

    Thank goodness he wasn't sentenced to death though!
     
    #5
  6. The Union Jack - RIP Bessian

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    12
    Btw, the defense and prosecution barristers (or whatever they're called in the US) were pretty pathetic. They could do with Martha Costello (from Silk) or Rumpole of the Old Bailey out there to sort them out!
     
    #6
  7. swanselona

    swanselona Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    Messages:
    2,510
    Likes Received:
    156
    Agree with you that they were terrible, especially for a case of such importance. The defence seem amateurish, even his closing statement was bloody awful.

    I was reading a few comments, and one stood out, regarding the shorts, if he was wearing them during the attack, would they not be soaked in blood more than the spot of blood that they had found on them?

    Like you, my heart was beating whilst waiting for the verdict, I honestly thought that he would be given not guilty, I was gob-smacked to hear guilty, and all through what they claimed were holes. Didn't he say at first that 9 out of the 12 originally voted not guilty? Just re-watched it, and am sure he says "of those 9, is there anybody here that is so strong on their non, that no matter what's laid in front of you, you cannot change your opinion"

    Now I took that as non as those who wouldn't change their non guilty verdict. So if that was the case, why the complete swing to the other direction of guilty. And for all 9 to swing.

    I got to be honest, but what the programme offered us, there is no way on this earth that they can be sure he is guilty, and for all 12 to say without doubt that he was guilty, something dodgy had to be going on. Even when his brother run out and was telling the reporters they were in there too, they heard it, to me, even the reporters were not expecting that verdict.

    What also strikes me, is that if the prosecution were sure it was a clean win case, why take the death penalty off the table?
     
    #7
  8. The Union Jack - RIP Bessian

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    12
    Again agreeing with you Swanselona (which doesn't often happen on this forum <laugh>)

    It seemed as though the prosecution wanted this guy to be guilty whatever happened.

    I just don't understand how they could have come back with that verdict. Guy might be innocent and will now have to spend the rest of his life in prison. They said no chance of parole but can he appeal?
     
    #8
  9. swanselona

    swanselona Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    Messages:
    2,510
    Likes Received:
    156
    I would assume he has the right to appeal.
     
    #9

Share This Page