Dying wife recants statement about murders

[Judi Lynn]

Dying wife recants statement about murders

By Jeff Coen
Tribune staff reporter
Published January 19, 2006, 9:18 PM CST


The estranged wife of Alstory Simon has given a videotaped deposition recanting statements that helped get Simon charged with two murders and aided the effort to see Anthony Porter released from Death Row.

Lawyers for Simon are expected to file a transcript of the deposition Friday in support of their push to get Simon a new hearing. Simon now contends he was tricked into confessing to a 1982 double murder to investigators working for a Northwestern University journalism professor.

That confession, and statements from key witnesses including his wife, Inez Jackson Simon, led to Simon being charged with the Washington Park slayings of Jerry Hillard, 18, and his fiance, Marilyn Green, 19. Originally charged with those murders, Porter was exonerated in 1999 just 48 hours before he was to be executed.

In a copy of the videotape reviewed by the Tribune, Inez Jackson Simon reclines in her Milwaukee home, breathing oxygen through a tube to her nose. She was asked during questioning by defense lawyer Terry Ekl why she wanted to make a new statement.

"'Cause I didn't want to die carrying it to my grave, knowing he was innocent," said Simon, who has AIDS and emphysema.
(snip/...)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060119simon,1,1483114.story?coll=chi-news-hed
(Free registration required)

[DS1]

1. Fucking bitch

She got what she deserved

[seriousstan]

2. Oh yes, AIDS is nothing but God's revenge for people's sins.

:puke:

[DS1]

4. "What" she got is irrelevant, just so long as she got something

I can't imagine a person inhuman enough to knowingly allow someone to go to jail for something they didn't do.

[SoCalDem]

6. He may still have trouble getting out..

"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached". Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

[Judi Lynn]

8. Maybe the sickest statement ever voiced.He should have been removed

on the spot.

[SoCalDem]

9. It's from the Herrera v Collins ruling

http://www.gyyv.net/isaac3rd/liveandletdie.htm

[depakid]

10. Herrera show be thrown in the far right's face

at every opportunity. As should their belief that Americans don't have a right to privacy.

Why the Dems RARELY if EVER do that has been one of the great mysteries about their downfall.

[anotherdrew]

23. if we want things done, they will have to be done ourselves

politics is dead

[Tight_rope]

7. You said it...Fucking bitch. May she rot in eternal hell!

[DavidDvorkin]

3. Another innocent man escapes being executed

So clearly no innocent person has ever been executed in this country, and we should keep the death penalty because it acts as a deterrent.

My logic is impeccable and Nah Nah Nah Nah I can't hear you I can't hear you.

[redqueen]

5. hahahahah

:D

[LisaL]

12. No, the man escaped execution based on her testimony,

which she now says was false.
Which means perhaps he was guilty after all.

[Mithras61]

13. Wrong... read the article...

she said she didn't want to go to her grave knowing he was innocent and that her lying testimony had convicted him.

[LisaL]

14. Read the article yourself.

The first man was convicted of the murder and faced the death penalty. Later on, she testified against a second man (her husband). The first man was released from prison and her husband was convicted of the murders. Now she says her testimony was false. So, the guy who escaped execution (the first guy) did so based on her supposedly false testimony. The second guy (her husband) was never on death row, but he is in prison for it now.

[Mithras61]

22. Okay... here's some more info for you...

http://www.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/wrong/Ill/porter6.html

It seems that her testimony was only used in implicating her husband and that there was quite extensive evidence that Porter was actually innocent. He maintained from the beginning that he was innocent and was beaten by Chicago police into confessing.

More information here: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/exonerations/Porterchart.pdf

He had witnesses that testified he was at his mother's home when the murders occurred.

In fact, according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Porter">here, it appears that Porter was convicted based on the testimony of one "witness" who may in fact have been coerced (that is, intensively interrogated) by the police.

[LisaL]

24. Well, the second guy (her husband), now says the same

thing. That he was coerced into confession. Now his wife also says she was coerced into confession. Either they kept arresting the wrong men for the murders-oh WTF knows what's going on. And the first guy was released from death row because of the confession of the second guy and his wife, not some other evidence. It does not sound like they got any physical evidence against either one of them, it's all was based on testimony and confessions.

[0007]

11. Whew! Goddamn, is this female a human or just a

superstitious witch that wants to either create more shit or is trying to turn into an esoteric angel?

[MGKrebs]

15. Porter's lucky.

Can't be tried again I presume.

[LisaL]

16. Actually, maybe he can.

Considering he was convicted the first time, I am not sure that would constitute double jeopardy.

[LisaL]

17. Here is another article that explains the situation a bit better.

"But in a recent interview taped for Simon's lawyers, Inez Jackson Simon, now suffering from years of drug and alcohol abuse, says she was not even in the park when the murders occurred.

Simon claims seven years ago she was coached and coaxed into fingering her husband with promises of money from future book and movie deals on the Anthony Porter story. Walter Jackson has now told Alstory Simon's lawyers that Simon never told him he was the killer."


http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=3741531

[CAcyclist]

18. Maybe she's just suffering from dementia

Maybe she's not telling the truth , now, either. That statement about the professor offering her money just strikes a discordant note with me.

[LisaL]

19. No way to know. It's a mess. But it's obvious her

testimony can not be trusted. So, there is no way to say which one is guilty, and which one is innocent.

[superconnected]

20. How could anyone believe anything she says now.

I vote total no confidence. And yes, she got an innocent man locked up, which ever one it is.

[LisaL]

21. She didn't get the first one locked up.

She got the second one locked up. So it does very much matter which one it is.

[superconnected]

25. Okay, I skimmed the artical.