|
Post by quicksilver0901 on Aug 31, 2006 12:10:10 GMT -5
Virtually no progress through her appeals. There are appellate levels soon after trial that the inmate never wins anyway, so it comes as no surprise Michelle didnt win any relief then either. It would have come as a major miracle had she done so. A lot was made of those failures on another debate of her case elsewhere, but it was a lot of hot air.
The crucial appeal in her case has been delayed by the Commonwealth by 270 days. I have seen the original appeal document and it is an impressive document by any standards, but I am sworn to secrecy on the specifics contained in it. That document was submitted in May2005 and here we are moving into September 2006 and it is still some months from being deliberated on in a courtroom. I am enormously optimistic on Michelle's behalf that a case that revolves around intent will rebound on the prosecution, because proof of intent to deprive the victim of food rests on the rotting foundation of manifestly unreliable, self-interested witnesses.
The only three inmates executed since PA reinstated the death penalty, all volunteered to give up their remaining appeals. The last woman to be executed in PA was in 1946.
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 31, 2006 12:41:18 GMT -5
QS,
I understand about the appeal being confidential. I hope there will now be some success, as I know what you mean, the early appellate level is a joke. Rubber stamp. Please let us know how it turns out though.
You seem to have some knowledge on PA DP cases for women. Do you know the name of the woman who was executed in 1946? I had a friend, who has since died, that at one point was writing a book about -- I want to say it was the first woman ever executed in PA. I can't remember the name, but if I heard it I would know.
|
|
|
Post by quicksilver0901 on Sept 1, 2006 5:31:49 GMT -5
Hi Maggie
To answer your question as fully as possible......three women were executed in Pennsylvania during the time when electrocution was in vogue:
Irene Schroeder 23 February 1931 Shellie McKeithen 7 January 1946 Corrine Sykes 14 October 1946
The earliest instances of women being executed in Pennsylvania, by hanging, that I found were:
Elizabeth Wilson - executed on 3 January 1786 for the murder of her two illegitimate infant children. Was granted a reprieve but it came through 23 minutes too late to save her.
Susannah Cox - was also executed for the murder of an infant illegitimate child in PA on 10 June 1809.
I hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Sept 1, 2006 6:41:44 GMT -5
Thanks QS.... I thought the name would jump out at me but it didn't. I know that the woman I am thinking of had a Bonnie and Clyde like spree that ended in Arizona when she was surrounded and caught. I'm going to see if I have any of my friends old papers around... it's been a long time, but his own story and death that revolved around this woman is very interesting and I'd love to share it with you if I can get my details right.
ETA- it might be Irene
|
|
|
Post by legallybrunette on Sept 2, 2006 17:04:24 GMT -5
Seriously, the PARTNER dobbed her in?!! That would be rich coming from HIM!! If he was around whilst the child was being deprived of food, what was he doing or is he suggesting he was such a wuss, he stood by and watched it happen without objection. Surely the law should find equally against him?
|
|
|
Post by quicksilver0901 on Sept 3, 2006 8:28:38 GMT -5
Seriously, the PARTNER dobbed her in?!! That would be rich coming from HIM!! If he was around whilst the child was being deprived of food, what was he doing or is he suggesting he was such a wuss, he stood by and watched it happen without objection. Surely the law should find equally against him? Michelle got death. Douglas Bittinger got 15 years after turning states evidence and testifying against her.
|
|
|
Post by legallybrunette on Sept 7, 2006 8:26:55 GMT -5
Maggie, do you think snitches are just an easy way for the prosecution to avoid extra work to get their convictions? Do you know of any cases where the snitches actually got it right? I think I am inclined to share your view of that kind of evidence. It would be like offering a thief a whole lot of money, to make a statement and then treat everything in the statement as the absolute truth!! I am surprised that judges don't direct juries to treat such dubious evidence with the suspicion it deserves.
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Sept 15, 2006 8:34:45 GMT -5
I'm surprised that people on juries don't see the OBVIOUS! I wouldn't trust the testimony of a snitch or a witness who got immunity.... even with OUT an instruction from a judge! Do people really think that swearing on a bible to tell the truth makes people tell the truth? I sure as hell don't. I would have to assess the credibility of the person in my own mind, and testimony in exchange for anything would be suspect to me.
|
|
|
Post by legallybrunette on Sept 18, 2006 7:36:53 GMT -5
In the UK, at long last, they are doing away gradually, with the oath in statements of fact. They are now replaced with 'Statements of Truth' which is basically a declaration that the contents of the statement are true. I see that as an acknowledgement of the nonsensical nature of the traditional oath. This only applies to civil law however, Not sure about the criminal. There was a young girl I knew years ago who could barely organise regular filing and message taking let alone assimilate facts and evidence in a proper fashion in her head, She was called up to murder trials TWICE. On each occasion, she just towed the party line in the jury room as she said she 'couldn't get me 'ead rand it ya know'. She admitted to spending much of the time eyeing up the prosecution counsel who was a 'bi' of a looker'. There must be that kind of individual serving on a jury in the US up and down the country. Horrible thought.
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Sept 20, 2006 13:52:17 GMT -5
I agree with you - how about the system failing the child in question. We have instances of that constantly in the UK and all one gets at the end of the day is a 'public enquiry' highlighting the errors of officials and red tape that got in the way of no nonsense intervention where it was necessary. I once spoke to the head of legal at a large local authority in London and raised some issues in relation to alleged child abuse concerning my client's daughter. The woman was dismissive of my client's concerns and threatened to seek costs against me personally if I sought an order for social services intervention in the matter, via the family courts. Her precise words to me were' well how are you going to prove the blood is a result of abuse, regardless of its location? We don't have time to waste on cases like this, we have enough to get on with already'. If the perpetrator is culpable, so should others who had a reasonable ground for concern be, when it comes time to handing out the punishment. Does Ms Tharp express any remorse for her actions, in her correspondence or do you both shy away from the conviction and facts surrounding it?? I have noticed my penpal is at pains to avoid any discussion of issues surrounding his conviction or the original crime, just as if it all happened to someone else. I agree also, for some of the same reasons as legalbrunette states. Our social service agencies in the U.S. are woefully understaffed and staff are woefully underpaid for the work they do. Too many people wind up in prison because no one wanted to spend a few dollars to get them the help they needed before a tragedy happened. Also, I believe that mental and emotional abuse is far more prevalent that we care to admit and that it does at least as much damage as physical or sexual abuse. People who were emotionally abused often abuse their own children. I'm thinking now of Andrea Yates in particular.
|
|
|
Post by whitehawk on Sept 24, 2006 2:09:06 GMT -5
It is easier to hate than it is to love. How easily people pass judgment on others by following the media hype when a case strikes an emotive chord in the community such as Michelle's case does. Yes, there are some disturbing aspects surrounding this case and the case notes do make difficult reading. However, it is not up to us to judge or demonise Michelle. Whatever the truth of the matter, Michelle is not the same person that she was at age 28 or 29 when she was apprehended. She has reached out for help and acceptance as a human being in need. As a human being she has turned her life over to God and is thus a 'new person in Christ'. Michelle deserves our love and respect as a human being. She deserves a fresh start and a chance to show others that she is a person worth validating. To all the detractors and knockers out there, I would say, 'have some compassion', you have not walked in Michelle's shoes. remember the saying too, 'There but for the grace of God go I'.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Sept 24, 2006 9:36:59 GMT -5
It is easier to hate than it is to love. How easily people pass judgment on others by following the media hype when a case strikes an emotive chord in the community such as Michelle's case does. Yes, there are some disturbing aspects surrounding this case and the case notes do make difficult reading. However, it is not up to us to judge or demonise Michelle. Whatever the truth of the matter, Michelle is not the same person that she was at age 28 or 29 when she was apprehended. She has reached out for help and acceptance as a human being in need. As a human being she has turned her life over to God and is thus a 'new person in Christ'. Michelle deserves our love and respect as a human being. She deserves a fresh start and a chance to show others that she is a person worth validating. To all the detractors and knockers out there, I would say, 'have some compassion', you have not walked in Michelle's shoes. remember the saying too, 'There but for the grace of God go I'. Well, those are some good thoughts to ponder! I made a point similiar to yours on a previous post of mine the other day on here. About how a persons mistakes, if big enough, can sometimes ruin the rest of there entire lives. I believe you about Michelle, and its nice that you have such compassion!
|
|
nora
Settlin' In
Posts: 21
|
Post by nora on Oct 6, 2006 7:42:22 GMT -5
I think this case is really difficult to gauge, especially for those of us, who only know what the press wrote. It doesn't mean that everything is true if it's written in a newspaper. But never mind if she's guilty or not, does this mean she deserves no help??? Does this mean, someone who is guilty deserves no help? For me this opinion would mean, all guilty inmates deserve the death penalty. That really piss me off!
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Oct 7, 2006 9:28:40 GMT -5
I think this case is really difficult to gauge, especially for those of us, who only know what the press wrote. It doesn't mean that everything is true if it's written in a newspaper. But never mind if she's guilty or not, does this mean she deserves no help??? Does this mean, someone who is guilty deserves no help? For me this opinion would mean, all guilty inmates deserve the death penalty. That really piss me off! This Michelle must have a really nice personality or something, since she has so many supporters! She does deserve help, forgiveness, and redemption. But she doesn't deserve to be released from prison, after what she did to her daughter. Yes, she is still worthy of support and help as a human being.
|
|
|
Post by whitehawk on Oct 9, 2006 18:20:48 GMT -5
Good on yer Nora, My sentiments exactly! Although I don't think that anyone deserves the death penalty.
|
|