Jump to content


Save Linda Carty

Recommended Posts

LETS SAVE LINDA CARTY CAMPAIGN.

 

British Citizen Linda Carty is sat on death row in Texas, having been sentenced to death without being afforded proper legal support by our British Government; having been the casualty of wholly ineffective, novice defence Texas lawyer, who did not fully investigate her background and troubled life ( see BBC 4 ). How can this British Citizen be subjected to this whilst our British Government stands idly by and so many others claim their Human Rights. Does the State of Texas not subscribe to Human Rights ?.

 

SUPPORT THE LINDA CARTY CAMPAIGN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SAVE LINDA CARTY CAMPAIGN = British Citizen, not supported by effective Defenc Lawyers, now sat on death row in Texas; does the State of Texas not subscribe to Human Rights.

 

Why does the British Government not intervene and give her the Legal Defence representation she deserves.

 

SUPPORT THE " SAVE LINDA CARTY CAMPAIGN".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just watched this documentary and am totally disgusted with the legal representation of this poor woman. If I was her family I would sue him for every cent he has, he was bloody useless.

 

This campaign deserves everyones support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Her lawyer is known as the undertaker, she knew that when she employed him, but could not afford alternate representation. Clive stafford smith did a documentary years ago about Edward Earl Johnson which was mentioned briefly in this programme. What was not mentioned was that, subsequent to his execution, Mr Johnson was completely exonorated, due in part to Mr Stafford Smiths work. I used to be pro death penalty but you seem to hear more and more instances of people getting wrongly executed, meaning there become more victims who never get justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have just watched this documentary and am totally disgusted with the legal representation of this poor woman. If I was her family I would sue him for every cent he has, he was bloody useless.

 

This campaign deserves everyones support.

 

Thats what I thought, until I read the courts judgment:

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6472626658958142624&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholar

 

"For example, in 1992, Carty was arrested for auto theft when she rented a car that she never paid for or returned. To rent the car, Carty identified herself as an FBI agent, so the FBI also investigated her for impersonating an officer. Carty pleaded guilty and was placed on a ten-year term of probation (she was still on probation when arrested for murdering Rodriguez). The state agreed to dismiss the auto theft charge if Carty would act as an informant. Although she provided information leading to two arrests, her supervising officer concluded that she was an uncontrollable informant. Her service came to an end when she was arrested on drug charges. Police officers had been observing a large drug transaction when Carty entered the house under observation with a package. When she left, the police followed her. She led them on a high-speed chase. During the chase, Carty attempted to run over an officer. The police eventually recovered two pistols, $3,900 in cash, and fifty pounds of marijuana from her car"

 

seems quite at odds with the picture they painted in the documentary of someone of good character.

 

I don't agree with the death penalty at all, but given the above I am skeptical (mainly because the above suggests the documentary is only presenting partial information favourable to their point of view of innocence, and not all the facts the court was shown) she is innocent - I wonder what else the documentary failed to inform me of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats what I thought, until I read the courts judgment:

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6472626658958142624&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholar

 

seems quite at odds with the picture they painted in the documentary of someone of good character.

Unrelated cases shouldn't, and can't be used as evidence to the crime that she is accused of.

 

Your link though, could probably convince people that she is a bad person, and equally could be put forward to influence their jury decision if it was brought before them. A juror spoke on the documentary saying much the same, based on his knowledge, and what his knowledge was.

I don't agree with the death penalty at all, but given the above I am skeptical (mainly because the above suggests the documentary is only presenting partial information favourable to their point of view of innocence, and not all the facts the court was shown) she is innocent - I wonder what else the documentary failed to inform me of?

You quoted stuff, so I guess you read it first, and equally, people admitted things to get a plea bargain...

 

she may have concocted all of this... I don't know. But like you, I don't agree with the DP, and this case, however you view it, at best, leaves too many holes to legally murder someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does the State of Texas not subscribe to Human Rights ?.

 

It does not. Nor does any other state in the USA, nor the country as a whole at federal level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So she was dim - so are most people in jail.

 

Does being thick make her any less guilty? We all walk past, and interact with, plent of people in the 70-80 IQ bracket every day - they're all around us, just as common as people in the 130-140 region, so it's a bit rich calling her 'disabled'. She was just a thick criminal, and good riddance.

 

edit - this post was in reply to comments on another thread about her having a so-called disability because she's of under-average intelligence. It would seem threads have been merged.

Edited by Conrod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unrelated cases shouldn't, and can't be used as evidence to the crime that she is accused of.

 

 

Its evidence she is "not of good character", something the documentary claims the lawyer failed to establish which if established would result in not getting the death penalty. So it seems rather pertinent if the Jury did hear evidence she was not of good character - something the documentary omitted to mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its evidence she is "not of good character", something the documentary claims the lawyer failed to establish which if established would result in not getting the death penalty. So it seems rather pertinent if the Jury did hear evidence she was not of good character - something the documentary omitted to mention.

 

:huh::confused:

 

The documentary claimed that the defense didn't show the evidence of 'being a good character' - something that the documentary looked in to, and that her lawyer allegedly did not.

 

Why would her lawyer want to establish that their client was 'not of good character'?

Edited by *_ash_*
one word change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would her lawyer fail to establish that their client was 'not of good character'?

 

I don't think that's what he intended to say, although the post is not as well written as it might have been.

 

The documentary claimed that she was of good character but her defence lawyer failed to make that case in court.

The evidence the documentary didn't show, is things showing that she was not of good character, which rather imply that it is not her lawyer's fault for failing to show she was.

 

 

As for me I know nothing about the case, so other than being opposed to the death penalty on logical grounds, I won't comment on the specifics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that's what he intended to say, although the post is not as well written as it might have been.

 

The documentary claimed that she was of good character but her defence lawyer failed to make that case in court.

The evidence the documentary didn't show, is things showing that she was not of good character, which rather imply that it is not her lawyer's fault for failing to show she was.

 

 

As for me I know nothing about the case, so other than being opposed to the death penalty on logical grounds, I won't comment on the specifics.

I realised one of my words made my post difficult to read too, so I've changed it, it didn't change the meaning, just to make more clear. You understood it though :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.