37 3 mins 8 yrs

Lisa Coleman is dead.

She was legally and judicially executed on Wednesday evening at 6.24 p.m. Central time. No one knows what the substance used to kill her, was called, or its component parts, but it did the job, and she was pronounced dead twelve minutes after the lethal dose commenced.

The terrible injuries sustained by this little boy, most of which were still apparent on his tortured body, did not end his life; that trophy was accomplished by a combination of malnutrition and pneumonia. His body, which weighed about half that of a normal boy his age, had been subject to 250 separate injuries, including cigarette burns and the result of blows from a golf club.

Strangely enough, though I thoroughly approve of her execution, I totally disagree with the State of Texas in its method of judicial execution. To allow this evil woman to quietly expire over a twelve-minute period, in deep sedation and presumably with a minimum of pain; after the torture and trauma suffered by her small victim, her lover’s child and son; is just not right! I, and probably many, many others, would have thought a more appropriate punishment would have been to beat and to starve this creature, just as she did this small boy, until she suffered the same death as her small victim. But, hey, thats just a father, a grandfather and an Englishman thinking out loud.

I note that the Guardian, from which I take this report, is more concerned with the method and efficacy of the compounds used for these executions, than concern about the victims callously erased by these killers, on the grounds that Texas has continually refused to declare what the substances are, and whether they are ‘out of date’. Bit like not eating strawberries because they are ‘pas their sell-by date’, but just a bit more lethal, really.

Well done Texas, and the United States of America, for keeping up the good work, and cleansing Society of just a few of the living bacteria which really needed killing.


Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

37 thoughts on “Some really good news from Huntsville

  1. I must agree with you, although no doubt many will regard such an attitude as making one as barbaric as murderer. Nevertheless, there’s still a lot to be said for the Biblical “An eye for an eye……”.

  2. The problem with stating that I oppose the death penalty is that I must oppose it in all cases, even one as barbaric as this.
    But what to do with this animal, if not put her to death? I think it should be a prison cell for life, with pictures of her little boy screened 24-7 through a large TV. pictures of him in happier times, and pictures of the injuries she inflicted, along with shots of the doctor’s and coroner’s reports, until she knows them all by heart. She should be reminded every day of why she is there and what she did. She should be reminded of every significant milestone in his life – today was his birthday. He would have been7, 10, 16, 21…Today he would have started university. Today he would have graduated with full honours. Today he might have met his true love. Today might have been his wedding day. Today would have marked the birth of his first child. Today, you’re grandchild would have been a year old. And so on and so on. Never let her forget what she had, what she did, and what she destroyed.

    I suppose some here would call me a wooly-headed liberal for suggesting this, but like I said, if I say I oppose the death penalty, i must oppose it in all cases. That doesn’t mean I think there should be no punishment…

  3. //But what to do with this animal, if not put her to death? //

    First of all, she isn’t an animal. Like it or not, she’s one of the very wide range of human beings we have on this planet.

    So, how about committing her to some kind of medical, psychological, social laboratory where she can be investigated at length?

    You see, maybe then we will learn something about why certain people enjoy seeing other people suffer, how that desire started and how it manifests itself.

    It’s possible we could learn something from people like this woman and Mike.

    If this practice were followed over a range of cases, with people in different places and from different backgrounds, maybe some general rules can be learned that could help us stop the phenomenon emerging in the first place and prevent this kind of murder in the future.

    If it prevented even one or two cases, it would be worthwhile. (I’m presuming people are genuinely interested in the welfare of these “small victims” more than the relish they feel in continuing a cycle of violence.

  4. Seimi an honest question. Are you also anti-abortion ?

    You find a lot of people here that are pro-life against abortion are also pro-death penalty.

    Personally I’m pro-choice and pro death penalty, what I find interesting is how many are anti-death penalty yet pro-choice.

  5. You are right, Noel. Animal is the wrong term to use. that was the parent, shocked at such brutal torture of a small child, coming out in me. I respectfully withdraw the term.

  6. Ok, you asked an honest question, I’ll give an honest answer.

    I am pro-choice. There are circumstances where the woman has become pregnant against her wishes (not by accident) where I feel it is her right to continue with her own life, unburdened by the responsibility of a child she didn’t plan or wish to have in the first place.

  7. I am no less horrified and disgusted by her crimes than those who favor capital punishment. Since the early 1980s Texas has executed over 500 people, most of them awful rotten souls, but some who were quite likely innocent. It is odd to me how the most vocal critics of government incompetence find no problem in the government executing people.

  8. The industrial scale execution process in Texas, a state where capital trials can be very slipshod ( there are recorded incidents of court appointed attorneys falling asleep, etc ), and in other states, is all but guaranteed to result in the execution of innocents.

    I’ve written repeatedly here about cases where innocents were nearly executed. Guys like Mike Cunningham never made any comments when such cases were brought up. They don’t care.

    It’s a good thing that there is no hell, because if there was one, those who support the death penalty as it is practiced in the United States would most certainly all be in it. They are not guilty of premeditated murder in any individual case, but they are culpable in supporting a system that they know or should know will result in the death of the wrongly accused.

  9. http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jul/15/news/mn-53250

    During the 17-day trial, Benn’s performance took a turn for the worse: He fell asleep.

    “Benn slept during great portions of the witness testimony,” juror Mary Louisa Jensen said in an affidavit five years later. “It was so blatant and disgusting that it was the subject of conversation within the jury panel a couple of times.”

    Months after the trial ended with a conviction and death sentence, Benn was asked at a court hearing about his snoozing. “I’m 72 years old,” he said. “I customarily take a short nap in the afternoon.”

    This is the system that death penalty fans support.

  10. So, how about committing her to some kind of medical, psychological, social laboratory where she can be investigated at length?

    There’s actually a history of case law pertaining to this question. Much of it pertains to the need for ‘informed consent’ — Giving informed consent freely is rather difficult when the object of study doesn’t hold the keys to his/her own cell. In any event, if you’ve ever read an informed consent document…they’re pretty complicated and half the prisoners (guessing) in the US can’t read.

  11. Ok Seimi thanks for answering.

    How do reconcile your stance that no adult that has committed heinous crimes under any circumstances should be put to death, yet an innocent life can be killed because it is considered a burden?

    The logical conclusion of your position is that to me anyway you see the life of an innocent of less value of the life of someone who committed heinous crimes.

    A person that butchers other people can’t be killed by your rules, yet a child can be killed because a woman was stupid when she spread her legs.

    Can you explain so that I can understand what I see as contradictory in your beliefs?

  12. A person that butchers other people can’t be killed by your rules, yet a child can be killed because a woman was stupid when she spread her legs.

    Put up an abortion thread Troll if you have the balls, but don’t derail this thread or bait Seimi because of his anti-death penalty beliefs.

    The two can’t be conflated, they’re entirely separate issues.

  13. A person that butchers other people can’t be killed by your rules, yet a child can be killed because a woman was stupid when she spread her legs.

    You clearly didn’t read what I wrote properly. And I didn’t equate the two subjects, as I told you I didn’t see the relevance of the abortion question on this thread. But hey, knock yourself out making wrong assumptions about what I believe. It won’t be the first time.

  14. Seimi I’m not trying to fight with you I’m trying to understand.

    The relevance of the two is an abortion and an execution are both the taking of a life, it’s that simple. No trick in the question.

    Every time the topic of the morality of executions is raised in the states the question is asked about the morality of abortion.

    There are a lot of people that share your exact position. Against execution, yet pro choice. I wasn’t making a judgement. I am also pro-choice, but I am pro-execution.

    If you are unable to grasp why the taking of a life by artificial means in both cases are relative to each other well than I’ll never be able to explain it to you.

  15. Like I said, Troll, you clearly didn’t read what I wrote. I wrote

    I am pro-choice. There are circumstances where the woman has become pregnant against her wishes (not by accident) where I feel it is her right to continue with her own life, unburdened by the responsibility of a child she didn’t plan or wish to have in the first place.

    There are circumstances, such as rape, where I think it is the woman’s right to abort the foetus, rather than carry the physical memory of her ordeal inside her. That is why I wrote ‘against her wishes (not by accident)’. Or are you saying that a woman who has been raped ‘was stupid when she spread her legs’?

    This is completely different to Capital Punishment. I don’t believe in the right of any government killing it’s own people, no matter what their crime. I think it is as barbaric as many of the offences of the executed prisoner, and, as we have seen over the years in your country, it is a system which is flawed, causing innocent people to be murdered by their own government.

    I believe that Life should mean Life. I believe the convicted should be reminded each and every day of the crime they have committed and the consequences of that.

    I also think Noel made a good point about studying people like the woman in the original post, in the hope of finding ways to prevent such crimes in the future.

    Your pro-death penalty stance just means more bodies in the ground.

  16. rape incest or the threat to a mothers life is also a position that even those that aren’t pro-choice agree abortion should be an option.

    You were vague with your “against her wishes” statement, and you were vague purposefully.

    You then got insulting. I read what you wrote, and I understood that you avoided the question by being vague.

    You don’t understand why the question was asked because you are not familiar with the fact that the two subjects are always tied together here in the states. So you took a hostile stance.

    I was trying to engage in conversation, nothing more. You show that you would rather be hostile, so I won’t bother to try to have the conversation of how the issue is connected.

  17. How was I being hostile? Or vague? What else can ‘against her wishes’ mean?Just because you didn’t understand what I wrote doesn’t make me either of those things. And please show me where I was insulting? Or are you such a sensitive, delicate flower, that pointing out that you didn’t read what I wrote is seen as an insult by you?

    By the way, you weren’t trying to engage in conversation. You were asking leading questions in order to unveil your ‘Ah, but how can you agree with one yet disagree with the other’ argument.

  18. And I do understand why the question was asked, as I pointed out above, and also I am aware of how some Americans equate abortion with state-sanctioned execution of adult prisoners.

  19. rape incest or the threat to a mothers life is also a position that even those that aren’t pro-choice agree abortion should be an option.

    That is completely untrue.

    A huge part of the anti abortion movement in America does not wish there to be any exceptions in the case of rape and incest. I actually know some of these very committed anti abortion people and they don’t want exceptions in the case of rape and incest. They say ” why should the child be killed because of the sins of the father

    The ban all abortion with no exceptionst movement have had very considerable success in US state legislatures.

    In 2011, and 2012—another unprecedented year for abortion restrictions—have galvanized pro-lifers to undo a set of rights that they had previously left well enough alone: exceptions for victims of rape and incest. A new report out from the National Women’s Law Center found that a staggering number of new curtailments on abortion rights don’t make exceptions when a woman has become pregnant by rape


    Again, you may wish to to the first bit of research before you pontificate on matters.

  20. Phantom how many ant-abortion people do you actually know, and have actually talked to?

    Please show me the most stringent anti-abortion law that has been tried to get passed and I’ll bet you a dollar that there is specific language in it that excludes those 3 things.

    This is a case of you once again spouting propaganda. Now I am pro-choice, but I know many in the pro-life community, and it is always the same thing. The only time they believe an abortion should take place is under those 3 conditions… They stress it like the fact that would “accept” those conditions is a big thing.

    Please provide examples “multiple” of proposed legislation that backs up your statement.

  21. Your Republican Party had an anti abortion plank with no exception for rape or incest. It was all the way back in 2012, so I understand that you have forgotten it.


    Mississippi Republicans passed an anti abortion bill in April 2014 with no exception for rape. That was five months ago, so I guess that’s a long time ago too.

    One anti-abortion measure introduced in Mississippi stated: “The State of Mississippi shall not punish the crime of sexual assault with the death penalty, and neither shall persons conceived through a sexual assault be punished with the loss of his or her life.”



    It is a dopey question to ask how many people I know who are ” pro life “, but I do know a decent number including a relative who has been arrested several times for aggressive protesting / civil disobedience on the issue.

    You may want to do at least 30 seconds of research before you speak about major issues like this, where it is so easy to find the truth.

  22. I’m not taking a pro or anti abortion position here either.

    But it is true that a number of anti abortion people a) don’t want exceptions for rape or incest and b) are pro death penalty.

    I will leave ” a ” alone, but supporting the death penalty, especially as practiced in the US, is the polar opposite of a pro-life position.

  23. Exactly. The actual pro-life, as opposed to just anti-abortion, position is that life begins at conception and it is morally wrong from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death to end someone’s life.

  24. Phantom do yourself a favor so that you at least look intelligent.

    First off if your going to say Republicans say this or they say that, try posting as your proof something from a Republican.

    The NPR link that you post first states right in it that the Republican Party adopted the same languauge on abortion that was in their platform in 2004 and 2008 which did include those exceptions. It also points out that Republican candidate that suggested that it shouldn’t was condemned by the party and his Financial Pac.

    Think Progress is a communist site, that is known for anything but it’s accuracy. and dosen’t even rate a response. That you use a site like that as your source on what Republicans are doing only shows how truly ill-informed you are and why.

    The Time article is about a ban on LATE TERM ABORTION 20 weeks, there aren’t any restrictions before the 20 weeks.

    You also didn’t answer the question of who you know that’s pro-life which means you don’t know anyone.

    You try to sell yourself as a great thinker and a man of sound reason, but you report spin and then scramble to find anything you can to back up what you’ve spouted out.

    Once again you have been proven wrong, and due to your own incompetence.

    It’s ok to oppose something or someone, but people of reason do it out of fact. You do it because you’re a kneejerk liberal who needs or wants no facts.

    If your arguments were sound you wouldn’t have to lie, but you get caught repeatedly making things up or repeating things that have made up by others out of laziness.

    Last thing as I said I am Pro-Choice, I know the positions of those that are Pro-Life because quite a few of the people I associate with hold that position, and I have had the discussion with them because of my pro-choice stance. Unlike you I speak from actually talking to the people you lie about.

    You keep saying My Republican Party, I am not a Republican. One more fact that you choose to ignore. You say like me you are an independent, so I guess since because I hold Conservative views you feel comfortable with the falsehood that I am a Republican. I guess I’ll just call you a Democrat then, since you share their views it’s the same way you label me. It must be ok to label you in the same manner.

  25. The NPR link shows that at that time the GOP plank did not include exceptions for rape or incest. There are many other links at the time to back this up.

    Mississippi could not ban abortion outright – though they would like to – because it would go against Roe vs Wade.

    The -ban- that exists in Mississippi has time limits – which were not discussed here- and that ban does not include any exceptions for rape and incest.

    And I said above that I do know people that are very pro-life. ( Who have traveled across the country to for weeks long protests and who have been arrested at those protests.)

    You didn’t read that, and it’s apparent that you do not know how.

  26. Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life….

    Republican Party platform, August 27 2012, which is as I understand it, still in effect.

    They wish to ban abortion period, with no exceptions. Which was the case in many states before Roe vs Wade.

    You are entitled to your own opinion, but you will never be allowed your own facts.

    And again – I’m not arguing the pros and cons of abortion here. Its the most brutal of issues.

  27. this is what it says

    With little discussion, the committee on Tuesday adopted the same anti-abortion language it included in GOP platforms in 2004 and 2008. It seeks passage of a constitutional amendment that would extend legal rights to the unborn, essentially banning abortion.

    The language in the platform includes no exceptions for rape or incest.

    That’s an issue this year in large part because of comments this week by Missouri Republican Rep. Todd Akin, the party’s nominee for the U.S. Senate. He suggested anti-abortion laws don’t need exceptions for rape, stating that “legitimate rape” rarely results in pregnancy because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

    Tony Perkins, a delegate from Louisiana and head of the Family Research Council, said exceptions for rape and incest don’t belong in the Republican platform because it’s a document that outlines broad government principles, not specifics.

    Perkins says the Family Research Council condemns Akin’s remarks but is still standing behind him because of his overall conservative record.

    You talk about FACTS and as I said and you do not dispute, you have had NO conversations with Anyone that holds a pro-life position. Which was the question, and as usual you refuse to answer.

  28. Thanks for reprinting the platform statement, which, as i said, contains no exception for rape and incest, exceptions which the Mississippi ( time limited ) ban doesn’t have either. Thank you very much for that.

    I have had conversations with pro life people. Past tense. I still talk to them, they’re still friends and family, but minds a re wired shut on this issue more than any other.

    The hard line pro lifers can be in a world of their own. I know of one woman who goes to demonstrations all the time, to save the unborn. She has no time for her six grown children, and does not speak to them, since they do not agree with her on this.

  29. Posts/threads are not derailed. They meander in whatever direction the conversation takes them. It does not matter if the subject changes, only the level of discourse.

  30. Seimi

    If a single question can derail a thread as you put it than a single response, or another question could put it right back on.

    Show me any thread that went past more than 5 comments that stayed only on the topic of the post.

    Change the subject back. It’s that simple

  31. Show me any thread that went past more than 5 comments that stayed only on the topic of the post.

    Read this site. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of them.

    Change the subject back. It’s that simple

    You derailed it, you bring it back on course.

    Posts/threads are not derailed. They meander in whatever direction the conversation takes them. It does not matter if the subject changes, only the level of discourse.

    Colm, you don’t seem to remember LU’s derailments of numerous posts, or Allan’s constant attempts to derail posts, or Agit8ed’s constant derailments etc etc. Posts/threads absolutely do get derailed, and most times on purpose.

Comments are closed.