Posted on 09/19/2018 2:28:48 PM PDT by Rummyfan
After 27 years in prison, a man who loves golf walked free today. Not only that, he was given back his innocence. Of course, the state can regift innocence about as capably as it can 27 years.
Nevertheless, the Erie County District Court in Buffalo, N.Y., has vacated the murder conviction of Valentino Dixon, 48, who was serving a 39-years-to-life sentence—the bulk of it in the infamous Attica Correctional Facility—for the 1991 killing of Torriano Jackson. On that hot August night long ago, both were at a loud street party with underage drinking when a fistfight over a girl turned to gunfire.
But before we dive into what really happened, a quick refresher on why golfers might care extra about Valentino Dixon. Six years ago, Golf Digest profiled this inmate who grinds colored pencils to their nubs drawing meticulously detailed golf-scapes. Although Dixon has never hit a ball or even stepped foot on a course, the game hooked him when a golfing warden brought in a photograph of Augusta National’s 12th hole for the inmate to render as a favor. In the din and darkness of his stone cell, the placid composition of grass, sky, water and trees spoke to Dixon. And the endless permutations of bunkers and contours gave him a subject he could play with.
(Excerpt) Read more at golfdigest.com ...
Hope it's true, but they seem to gloss over about Dixon because he draws with crayons.
But at 21, Dixon was a mid-level drug dealer. On the night of the shooting, he was out on bail, awaiting sentencing for two drug-related shootings.
Food for thought.
Uh, huh.
At least the criminal was off the street for 27 years.
So he was one of the usual suspects and that made it okay to convict him for a crime he didn’t commit?
He was no angel, for sure, but there is no justification for a deliberately wrongful conviction.
Uh, no it doesn't. It simply means "not guilty," which means that for any of a million reasons, the conviction could not be upheld. It could be a procedural technicality, introduction of new evidence, an irregularity in the case, credible allegations of corruption, etc.. But it does NOT mean innocence.
You hear this lie all the time from the legal second-guessers.
Right arm. I have been on a few juries. Some of the tards think we have to find the perp guilty or innocent. I inform them that it is either guilty or not guilty.
I have explained to several that there is a gigantic difference between innocent and not guilty. Definitely not the same thing.
The reason in this case being another man who claimed responsibility for the shooting and had been claiming that responsibility for over 2 decades. No cross examination by the publicly appointed attorney, shoddy police work with no witnessess to the crime. Yup that about sums up a pretty corrupt investigation and prosecution
“So he was one of the usual suspects and that made it okay to convict him for a crime he didn’t commit?”
He was a flashy cocaine dealer out on bail for drug-related shootings. Story around was he got one of the minors in his gag to take the fall for an accidental shooting.
” no witnessess to the crime.”
Six witnesses filed statements.
Are you referring to the coke gang leader out on bail for two drug-related shootings?
Oh I’m sorry,
“zero physical evidence linking Dixon, conflicting testimony of unreliable witnesses, the videotaped confession to the crime by another man, a public defender who didn’t call a witness at trial, and perjury charges against those who said Dixon didn’t do it.”
Jail most likely saved him from an early death.
“a public defender who didn’t call a witness at trial, “
LOL! They were all called by the prosecution!
You REALLY fall for one-sided sources ...
This is from another article.
This came up on FR a few months back.
As I recall 2 of the victims knew Dixon and identified him as the shooter.
Difficult to ascertain the truth when witnesses and/or defendants lie.
I've learned not to trust a single story on an issue.
Remember...the media lies.
On the contrary. It DID do so. Incorrectly, as it turns out. Facilely. Corruptly. Negligently. But if conviction = proof, then you can't argue that the system didn't prove him guilty.
His exoneration does not mean he's innocent, any more than an acquittal in his trial would have meant he was innocent. He would simply have been found NOT guilty.
The absence of a negative is not a positive.
I’d find it EXTREMELY rare that in a murder trial that took place at a party that an attorney doesn’t call a single witness on behalf of the defense.
Agree
“and perjury charges against those who said Dixon didn’t do it.”
The were NO perjury charges. Only the known lied saying they were threatened with charges.
But go on drinking the koolaid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.