Texas man on death row has 'no illusi...

Texas man on death row has 'no illusions': wife

There are 59 comments on the Breitbart.com story from Nov 6, 2011, titled Texas man on death row has 'no illusions': wife. In it, Breitbart.com reports that:

Texas death row inmate Hank Skinner, set to be executed Wednesday, has "no illusions" about his fate despite pending appeals, his French wife said Saturday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Breitbart.com.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#4 Nov 8, 2011
Too bad the courts do not want to recognize "cruel and unusual punishment" when it comes to the issue of victims rights.

This stay is another example of the defense deliberately waiting for the "last minute" to file appeals so that stays will be granted to further "study" or "test."

This happened just a short distance from where my family lives and I have been following it since it happened. Skinner confessed, not only to being there, but having killed the 3 victims. Everyone in the area knew about him and what he did and said. They had to move the trial hundreds of miles away and the jury still convicted him.

Notice that NONE of the courts have said or even implied that is is not guilty. The TX CofCA has just ordered "everything" to be tested, EVEN IF IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL.

You might ask yourself one question: "Why is it that "we" only execute "innocent people???" I just went back throught the past 100 executions. 93 of them claimed to be "innocent" even when caught at the place of the crimes.
These are People

Fort Worth, TX

#5 Nov 9, 2011
In order to see both sides, you need to also read the below which you can find by a web search on the internet: The Texas D.A.s Who Denied Hank Skinner Justice.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#6 Nov 9, 2011
These are People wrote:
In order to see both sides, you need to also read the below which you can find by a web search on the internet: The Texas D.A.s Who Denied Hank Skinner Justice.
And if you believe much of that blog, you are truely a candidate for being a lifetime candidate for the TX State Hospital at Wichita Falls where they still have that special reserved space just for you.
These are People

Fort Worth, TX

#7 Nov 9, 2011
Bill----- wrote:
<quoted text>
And if you believe much of that blog, you are truely a candidate for being a lifetime candidate for the TX State Hospital at Wichita Falls where they still have that special reserved space just for you.
Sorry, Bill, they told me that space was being held just for you.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#8 Nov 9, 2011
These are People wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Bill, they told me that space was being held just for you.
Nope, I checked whan I as over there week before last and you have it reserved for long time resident care.
These are People

Fort Worth, TX

#9 Nov 9, 2011
Bill----- wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, I checked whan I as over there week before last and you have it reserved for long time resident care.
As you say oh yes, "when I as over there" oh yeah, you are fine. LOL LOL LOL

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#10 Nov 10, 2011
Bill----- wrote:
Too bad the courts do not want to recognize "cruel and unusual punishment" when it comes to the issue of victims rights.
The courts don't recognize this, mainly because such a claim isn't cognizable in the context of victims' rights, since the victims aren't being punished by the courts. In other words, where there is no "punishment", there can be no "cruel and unusual punishment". But you already knew that, Bill.
Bill----- wrote:
This stay is another example of the defense deliberately waiting for the "last minute" to file appeals so that stays will be granted to further "study" or "test."
While there are examples of "last minute", frivolous appeals (that are routinely rejected) this isn't one of them. The litigation to test the DNA in the Skinner case has been ongoing for over a decade, and if Texas had tested it at any point during that period, the case would've been resolved by now.
Bill----- wrote:
This happened just a short distance from where my family lives and I have been following it since it happened. Skinner confessed, not only to being there, but having killed the 3 victims. Everyone in the area knew about him and what he did and said. They had to move the trial hundreds of miles away and the jury still convicted him.
So, great: Your family living near the crime scene certifies you as an expert. Good for you! Why would you be so against testing the DNA that would prove you were right all along?
Bill----- wrote:
Notice that NONE of the courts have said or even implied that is is not guilty.
....mainly because that issue was not what the courts were being asked to consider. What they were asked to consider is whether or not the Texas statute granting post-convicton DNA testing ought to apply to Skinner.
Bill----- wrote:
]The TX CofCA has just ordered "everything" to be tested,[QUOTE]
No, Bill. No it didn't. It ordered no such thing. No testing whatsoever. Now, would you like to post a comment correcting your assertion, or shall I?
[QUOTE who="Bill-----"]EVEN IF IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL.
How about testing the Busby rape kit? Would that make sense?
Bill----- wrote:
You might ask yourself one question: "Why is it that "we" only execute "innocent people???" I just went back throught the past 100 executions. 93 of them claimed to be "innocent" even when caught at the place of the crimes.
You might, alternatively, ask yourself: "Does Bill ever get tired of battling straw men?"

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#11 Nov 10, 2011
Bill----- wrote:
Too bad the courts do not want to recognize "cruel and unusual punishment" when it comes to the issue of victims rights.
The courts don't recognize this, mainly because such a claim isn't cognizable in the context of victims' rights, since the victims aren't being punished by the courts. In other words, where there is no "punishment", there can be no "cruel and unusual punishment". But you already knew that, Bill.
Bill----- wrote:
This stay is another example of the defense deliberately waiting for the "last minute" to file appeals so that stays will be granted to further "study" or "test."
While there are examples of "last minute", frivolous appeals (that are routinely rejected) this isn't one of them. The litigation to test the DNA in the Skinner case has been ongoing for over a decade, and if Texas had tested it at any point during that period, the case would've been resolved by now.
Bill----- wrote:
This happened just a short distance from where my family lives and I have been following it since it happened. Skinner confessed, not only to being there, but having killed the 3 victims. Everyone in the area knew about him and what he did and said. They had to move the trial hundreds of miles away and the jury still convicted him.
So, great: Your family living near the crime scene certifies you as an expert. Good for you! Why would you be so against testing the DNA that would prove you were right all along?
Bill----- wrote:
Notice that NONE of the courts have said or even implied that is is not guilty.
....mainly because that issue was not what the courts were being asked to consider. What they were asked to consider is whether or not the Texas statute granting post-convicton DNA testing ought to apply to Skinner.
Bill----- wrote:
]The TX CofCA has just ordered "everything" to be tested,
No, Bill. No it didn't. It ordered no such thing. No testing whatsoever. Now, would you like to post a comment correcting your assertion, or shall I?
Bill----- wrote:
EVEN IF IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL.
How about testing the Busby rape kit? Would that make sense?
Bill----- wrote:
You might ask yourself one question: "Why is it that "we" only execute "innocent people???" I just went back throught the past 100 executions. 93 of them claimed to be "innocent" even when caught at the place of the crimes.
You might, alternatively, ask yourself: "Does Bill ever get tired of battling straw men?"

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#12 Nov 10, 2011
Sumie you just keep spouting off about things you do not know anything about and like "Dolt" and "Sleeze" you distort the rest.

You just might want to go and read the decision. This appeal was a "new" issue. Actually wrapped in "new" phrases to get around the legislation and court decisions that prohibit repetitive appeals on the same issues.

As to your inane remark about my qualifications, as you well know I have been investigating homicides sine the 1960's. Once again too bad you refuse to learn anything and continue to assert that you know everything about everything.
These are People

Fort Worth, TX

#13 Nov 10, 2011
Sumie, Again the expert has spoken. LOL

You know I once had a very dedicated law enforcement official tell me that law enforcement attracts two kinds of people. It attracts those that like to do good for the world and those that like to be bullies. For those that like to be bullies, it gives them the opportunity to continue being bullies for the rest of their career. At the time, I wasn't too convinced of this but after talking to Bill on this board a little I have come to believe it more and more.

As for being liars (which means anyone that dares to disagree with him on anything) let me see, what all has he said about me that is not true:

a. I embrace all murderers. Not true, as anyone that has followed my postings knows I have often stated, I moved from being completely on Bill's side a few years ago to being unsure on this now.

b. I have pen pals in prison. No, never have. I do know someone that went to prison. It took me a very long lifetime to even encounter this world that I thought was so beneath me. When God knocked me off that high plateau and showed me this world, I vowed to try and make a difference.

c. My husband that spent 27 years in the military was never in the service or else he wasn't married to me but a short while (huh, over 50 years).

The list goes on and on. So, yes, of course, believe anything that Bill says. LOL LOL

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#14 Nov 10, 2011
Bill----- wrote:
Sumie you just keep spouting off about things you do not know anything about and like "Dolt" and "Sleeze" you distort the rest.
You just might want to go and read the decision. This appeal was a "new" issue. Actually wrapped in "new" phrases to get around the legislation and court decisions that prohibit repetitive appeals on the same issues.
As to your inane remark about my qualifications, as you well know I have been investigating homicides sine the 1960's. Once again too bad you refuse to learn anything and continue to assert that you know everything about everything.
I did go ahead and read the decision -- that's how I could tell that you were either dishonest or uninformed (in any case wrong) when you claimed that the CofCA granted testing. The way you want to present it, as a "new issue", is the sort of "hiding behind technicalities" that would probably infuriate you if the other side did it. But the central issue is the same old issue that the state has fought tooth and nail for over a decade: Should Skinner have access to post-conviction DNA?

The opinion is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/71983313/Skinner-St...

As to your expertise, you were the one who found it relevant to point out that your family lived in the vicinity, in the context of establishing your knowledge of the facts of this specific case. I don't claim to be an expert on anything (and I dare you to point to a comment of mine that states otherwise). However, and à propos of nothing in particular, having existed since the 60's I am quite capable of recognizing a self-righteous old windbag...

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#15 Nov 10, 2011
Sumie wrote:
<quoted text>
I did go ahead and read the decision -- that's how I could tell that you were either dishonest or uninformed (in any case wrong) when you claimed that the CofCA granted testing. The way you want to present it, as a "new issue", is the sort of "hiding behind technicalities" that would probably infuriate you if the other side did it. But the central issue is the same old issue that the state has fought tooth and nail for over a decade: Should Skinner have access to post-conviction DNA?
The opinion is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/71983313/Skinner-St...
As to your expertise, you were the one who found it relevant to point out that your family lived in the vicinity, in the context of establishing your knowledge of the facts of this specific case. I don't claim to be an expert on anything (and I dare you to point to a comment of mine that states otherwise). However, and à propos of nothing in particular, having existed since the 60's I am quite capable of recognizing a self-righteous old windbag...
Yep, I have read it and my comment stands. The motion on appeal remains exactly what I said and the TXCOCA will review exactly what I said. Everything is now up for testing and further testing.

BTW you have repeatedly indicated that you know everything about everything, most of which comes out of the south end of a north bound cow.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#16 Nov 10, 2011
Bill----- wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, I have read it and my comment stands. The motion on appeal remains exactly what I said and the TXCOCA will review exactly what I said. Everything is now up for testing and further testing.
BTW you have repeatedly indicated that you know everything about everything, most of which comes out of the south end of a north bound cow.
You're incorrect on both your points (such as they are). But other readers can follow the link, read the opinion for themselves and see that it clearly doesn't grant DNA testing of anything at all, but rather directs the convicting court to consider its previous ruling in light of recent changes to the TX DNA statue. Incidentally, as I recall, you didn't say that CofCA "will review" anything (which is a rather odd statement anyway, since we're discussing that court's recent opinion) but rather that they had conducted their review (correct) and granted the testing. They didn't. And continuing to claim that they did doesn't make it so.

As for my "repeated" claims to know everything about everything, my challenge stands: Refer me to a single post, in which I indicate that I have any kind of expertise. You can't, because it doesn't exist.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#17 Nov 10, 2011
Sumie wrote:
<quoted text>
You're incorrect on both your points (such as they are). But other readers can follow the link, read the opinion for themselves and see that it clearly doesn't grant DNA testing of anything at all, but rather directs the convicting court to consider its previous ruling in light of recent changes to the TX DNA statue. Incidentally, as I recall, you didn't say that CofCA "will review" anything (which is a rather odd statement anyway, since we're discussing that court's recent opinion) but rather that they had conducted their review (correct) and granted the testing. They didn't. And continuing to claim that they did doesn't make it so.
As for my "repeated" claims to know everything about everything, my challenge stands: Refer me to a single post, in which I indicate that I have any kind of expertise. You can't, because it doesn't exist.
Hello stalker #3.

What a wonderful example your whole first paragraph is of "double speak" -- or --- when you are wrong, keep repeating garbage endlessly until the reader has no idea what you are saying. LOL LOL LOL

As to your second paragraph, as you well know that is total garbage as well.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#18 Nov 11, 2011
Bill----- wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello stalker #3.
What a wonderful example your whole first paragraph is of "double speak" -- or --- when you are wrong, keep repeating garbage endlessly until the reader has no idea what you are saying. LOL LOL LOL
As to your second paragraph, as you well know that is total garbage as well.
I hesitate to respond, Bill, since you've obviously operating under some sort of paranoid delusion that one hesitates to do anything to aggravate.

The easiest way to resolve the issue of whether or not the court granted DNA testing of everything -- the erroneous claim from which you ill-advisedly continue to refuse to back down -- reads as follows:

"IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
NO. AP-76,675
HENRY WATKINS SKINNER, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM THE TRIAL COURT’S RULING
DENYING DNA TESTING FILED IN CAUSE NO. 5216
IN THE 31st JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, GRAY COUNTY
 
Per Curiam:

O R D E R:
 
This is a direct appeal of the trial court’s ruling on a motion for DNA testing filed in the 31 Judicial District Court of Gray County, Cause No. 5216, styled The State of Texas v. Henry Watkins Skinner.
See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 64.05. Appellant’sexecution is stayed pending the resolution of this appeal.

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 64, which provides for DNA testing, has undergone several changes since its creation, but those changes have never been reviewed in the particular context of this case. Because the DNA statute has changed, and because some of those changes were because of this case, we find that it would be prudent for this Court to take time to fully review the changes in the statute as they pertain to this case.

Furthermore, in denying the motion for DNA testing, the convicting court has failed to enter determinations under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 64.03. The convicting court shall enter an order containing the relevant Article 64.03 determinations within 15 days of the date of this order. That order shall then be included within a supplemental clerk’s record, which record shall be forwarded to this Court within 30 days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 7th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011."

Now, this should be clear enough for all readers (including you) to understand. Kindly enlighten all of your imaginary stalkers what part of this order grants DNA testing of any item of evidence. Alternatively, you could simply admit that you got a little ahead of yourself / overstated your case / imagined things that weren't there / pulled arguments straight out of your derrière. Either choice is fine, really, as these options all entirely plausible, when viewed in the light of your general posturing.

Furthermore, I asked you to point me to a single comment of mine in which I claimed (as you keep insisting I routinely do) any kind expertise. I note that you still cannot do so, and conclude that your slurs are as feckless as they're reckless.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#19 Nov 11, 2011

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#20 Nov 11, 2011
Bill----- wrote:
No, Bill -- you don't get to send me on a wild goose-chase, you irredeemable doofus. It's quite simple: If the law states that Skinner is entitled to postconviction DNA testing, he may ultimately get that testing.

However, that is NOT what the opinion states; the opinion simply states that the court needs to review the case in the context of recent changes to the statute. Nothing more, nothing less.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#21 Nov 11, 2011
Sumie wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Bill -- you don't get to send me on a wild goose-chase, you irredeemable doofus. It's quite simple: If the law states that Skinner is entitled to postconviction DNA testing, he may ultimately get that testing.
However, that is NOT what the opinion states; the opinion simply states that the court needs to review the case in the context of recent changes to the statute. Nothing more, nothing less.
Please contact your nearest adult education program and take a remedial reading program. You really need the help.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#22 Nov 11, 2011
Bill----- wrote:
<quoted text>
Please contact your nearest adult education program and take a remedial reading program. You really need the help.
Fine. I've posted the text of the opinion. You say it grants DNA testing of all the evidence; I say it doesn't.

Without any further argument to back up your claim, you then proceed to state that I need "remedial reading", as if that proves anything other than that your dickishness has now reached some mathematically inexpressible order of magnitude.

So let's leave it at that, Bill. The text of the opinion has been posted, and other readers can resolve the issue for themselves.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#23 Nov 11, 2011
Sumie wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine. I've posted the text of the opinion. You say it grants DNA testing of all the evidence; I say it doesn't.
Without any further argument to back up your claim, you then proceed to state that I need "remedial reading", as if that proves anything other than that your dickishness has now reached some mathematically inexpressible order of magnitude.
So let's leave it at that, Bill. The text of the opinion has been posted, and other readers can resolve the issue for themselves.
To understand the "opinion" a person needs to also know what the appeal was about. You obviously do not know.

BTW going to your own connection at Topix; you have posted that you know all about "mental health issues", "life insurance issues", "court decisions", "American political parties", "European (Danish) politics", "virtually all political science issues", "abortion rights", "litary criticism", and of course all aspects of the death penalty issues.(click on her name at the left.)

It just might be interesting for you to go back and read your own posts. LOL LOL

I see also in this post of yours that you got so wrapped up in your own importance that you are now qualified to make up your own new words. LOL LOL

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Death Penalty Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
when is bobby joe long's execution date? (Jan '08) Nov 17 CRSchaefer 243
News US Army's Bowe Bergdahl pleads guilty to desert... Nov 7 Red Crosse 54
News Laboy guilty of stabbing (May '11) Nov 1 BitchTryMe 67
News Prosecutors at beheading trial putting on evide... Oct 31 gatlinburggates 1
News a Stocking Stranglera Carlton Garya s attorneys... Oct '17 William Audabon 3
News Lawyers want Supreme Court to block Texas from ... Oct '17 Hilton Head 4
News Throw away the key (Jul '08) Oct '17 Djs 4
More from around the web