Was Joe Hill a murderer?

Puppycow · 18th December 2012, 05:51 AM

I was just looking through the Wikipedia article on him and I'm not sure.

Let's put aside political predispositions and try to answer the question based on logic and reasoning.

Joe Hill^WP

catsmate1 · 18th December 2012, 06:42 AM

You're basing your opinion purely on Wiki?

Puppycow · 18th December 2012, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by catsmate1

You're basing your opinion purely on Wiki?

Did I give an opinion?

Psi Baba · 18th December 2012, 08:22 AM

From that account, it sounds like he had nothing to do with it. There was no explanation as to why, if he killed the two men, he himself would have been shot. The article didn't say that the victims returned fire. A lot of railroading went on in those days just to have a scapegoat, such as the case of Bruno Hauptmann and the Lindbergh kidnapping.

catsmate1 · 18th December 2012, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Did I give an opinion?

Well the only source you like to suggests he wasn't guilty. But then so do most sources, such as this website, and various books about the case.

The Central Scrutinizer · 18th December 2012, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by Psi Baba

From that account, it sounds like he had nothing to do with it. There was no explanation as to why, if he killed the two men, he himself would have been shot. The article didn't say that the victims returned fire. A lot of railroading went on in those days just to have a scapegoat, such as the case of Bruno Hauptmann and the Lindbergh kidnapping.

Bad example. Hauptmann is almost certainly guilty.

fuelair · 18th December 2012, 08:59 AM

Discount the one yes vote, I just went on line after just getting up and hit the wrong one. Mea culpa!!. I meant to hit NO......

Psi Baba · 18th December 2012, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Bad example. Hauptmann is almost certainly guilty.

Good example. The investigation was taking too long and the public was clamoring for a scapegoat, so as soon as another suspect was named for whatever reason, his fate was sealed. The evidence was flimsy and circumstantial at best. But I don't wish to derail this thread.

sackett · 18th December 2012, 11:49 AM

It's hard for a labor man to admit it, but I think that Joe probably did knock that place over. And his alibi never materialised. However, the bosses and their tame cops -- and judges, and newspaper scribblers -- meant to do him in, and as shamefully as possible, so his conviction was foregone from the first moment.

As sometimes happens, though, they got exactly the reverse of what they wanted, and

I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,
Alive as you and me.
But Joe, I said, you're ten years dead.
"I never died," said he.

Don't mourn, organize.

The Central Scrutinizer · 18th December 2012, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Psi Baba

Good example. The investigation was taking too long and the public was clamoring for a scapegoat, so as soon as another suspect was named for whatever reason, his fate was sealed. The evidence was flimsy and circumstantial at best. But I don't wish to derail this thread.

No.

Charlie Wilkes · 18th December 2012, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Psi Baba

Good example. The investigation was taking too long and the public was clamoring for a scapegoat, so as soon as another suspect was named for whatever reason, his fate was sealed. The evidence was flimsy and circumstantial at best. But I don't wish to derail this thread.

I don't think you're derailing the thread, because it makes sense to compare cases and look broadly at what does and does not constitute real evidence of guilt.

Hauptmann ended up with the ransom money, he was a German, like whoever wrote the ransom notes seemed to be, and it would have been difficult to modify the ladder to frame him, as some have alleged. There's a good case that he was guilty.

With Joe Hill, there's a good case that he was guilty of being a Wobbly, and that's about it.

Giz · 18th December 2012, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Bad example. Hauptmann is almost certainly guilty.

Yeah, Hauptman was almost certainly guilty. Not necessarily solely guilty (he may well have had accomplices who were not brought to justice) but it is rather implausible that he wasn't mixed up in the kidnapping in some manner.

fuelair · 18th December 2012, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

I don't think you're derailing the thread, because it makes sense to compare cases and look broadly at what does and does not constitute real evidence of guilt.

Hauptmann ended up with the ransom money, he was a German, like whoever wrote the ransom notes seemed to be, and it would have been difficult to modify the ladder to frame him, as some have alleged. There's a good case that he was guilty.

With Joe Hill, there's a good case that he was guilty of being a Wobbly, and that's about it.

That ladder point reminded me that at least forty five years ago I read a book from an ex-Forestry (as I recall) lab specialist and he described as one small part of it the specific forensic work the Service did to verify the wood in the ladder. It was quite logical and at my level of understanding of chem/bio/forensics it seemed well done.

Brattus · 21st December 2012, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Psi Baba

Good example. The investigation was taking too long and the public was clamoring for a scapegoat, so as soon as another suspect was named for whatever reason, his fate was sealed. The evidence was flimsy and circumstantial at best. But I don't wish to derail this thread.

I find this post very Fischy indeed.

Tiktaalik · 22nd December 2012, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by sackett

It's hard for a labor man to admit it, but I think that Joe probably did knock that place over. And his alibi never materialised. However, the bosses and their tame cops -- and judges, and newspaper scribblers -- meant to do him in, and as shamefully as possible, so his conviction was foregone from the first moment.

As sometimes happens, though, they got exactly the reverse of what they wanted, and

I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,
Alive as you and me.
But Joe, I said, you're ten years dead.
"I never died," said he.

Don't mourn, organize.

I've had that song stuck in my head ever since I saw this thread title, thanks.

Puppycow · 23rd December 2012, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by sackett

It's hard for a labor man to admit it, but I think that Joe probably did knock that place over. And his alibi never materialised.

Yeah, his lack of a good alibi is the part that makes me think maybe he did it.
I realize that the burden is not supposed to be on the defendant to prove his innocence, but I also imagine that if his alibi were true he would have probably been able to provide more details about it.

Quote:

In a letter to the court, Hill continued to deny that the state had a right to inquire into the origins of his wound, leaving little doubt that the judges would affirm the conviction. Chief Justice Daniel Straup wrote that his unexplained wound was "a distinguishing mark," and that "the defendant may not avoid the natural and reasonable inferences of remaining silent."[9]

Kevin_Lowe · 6th January 2013, 06:39 PM

Based only upon the wiki and no proper research at all, the prosecution case seems to have sucked. All they had was a red hankie and the fact he had been shot. Lots of people have red hankies and four other people were shot that same night in that same town, plus there didn't even seem to be any evidence linking the fact he was shot to the murder.

That shouldn't have amounted to a hill of beans, let alone to proof beyond reasonable doubt.

He didn't have an alibi, but then again he didn't have a motive or a history of similar crimes.

I'll revise my opinion if more relevant evidence shows up but for now I'd say he was more likely than not innocent, and the murder was carried out by someone else who had it in for the victim.

A preponderance of the evidence suggests probably yes.	5	16.67%
A preponderance of the evidence suggests probably no.	11	36.67%
The evidence is inconclusive.	8	26.67%
On Planet X Joe Hill is still alive.	6	20.00%
Voters: 30. You may not vote on this poll

18th December 2012, 05:51 AM	#1
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,701	Was Joe Hill a murderer? I was just looking through the Wikipedia article on him and I'm not sure. Let's put aside political predispositions and try to answer the question based on logic and reasoning. Joe Hill^WP
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

18th December 2012, 08:10 AM	#3
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,701	Originally Posted by catsmate1 You're basing your opinion purely on Wiki? Did I give an opinion?
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

18th December 2012, 08:22 AM	#4
Psi Baba Homo Skepticalis Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Occupying my barstool Posts: 3,177	From that account, it sounds like he had nothing to do with it. There was no explanation as to why, if he killed the two men, he himself would have been shot. The article didn't say that the victims returned fire. A lot of railroading went on in those days just to have a scapegoat, such as the case of Bruno Hauptmann and the Lindbergh kidnapping.
	__________________ Save Caribbean Rum! (seriously)

18th December 2012, 08:28 AM	#5
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,089	Originally Posted by Puppycow Did I give an opinion? Well the only source you like to suggests he wasn't guilty. But then so do most sources, such as this website, and various books about the case.
	__________________ Yes I gave in and configured an avatar.

18th December 2012, 06:42 AM	#2
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,089	You're basing your opinion purely on Wiki?

18th December 2012, 08:53 AM	#6
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,264	Originally Posted by Psi Baba From that account, it sounds like he had nothing to do with it. There was no explanation as to why, if he killed the two men, he himself would have been shot. The article didn't say that the victims returned fire. A lot of railroading went on in those days just to have a scapegoat, such as the case of Bruno Hauptmann and the Lindbergh kidnapping. Bad example. Hauptmann is almost certainly guilty.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

18th December 2012, 08:59 AM	#7
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881	Discount the one yes vote, I just went on line after just getting up and hit the wrong one. Mea culpa!!. I meant to hit NO......
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

18th December 2012, 11:40 AM	#8
Psi Baba Homo Skepticalis Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Occupying my barstool Posts: 3,177	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer Bad example. Hauptmann is almost certainly guilty. Good example. The investigation was taking too long and the public was clamoring for a scapegoat, so as soon as another suspect was named for whatever reason, his fate was sealed. The evidence was flimsy and circumstantial at best. But I don't wish to derail this thread.
	__________________ Save Caribbean Rum! (seriously)

18th December 2012, 11:49 AM	#9
sackett Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Detroit Posts: 3,609	It's hard for a labor man to admit it, but I think that Joe probably did knock that place over. And his alibi never materialised. However, the bosses and their tame cops -- and judges, and newspaper scribblers -- meant to do him in, and as shamefully as possible, so his conviction was foregone from the first moment. As sometimes happens, though, they got exactly the reverse of what they wanted, and I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night, Alive as you and me. But Joe, I said, you're ten years dead. "I never died," said he. Don't mourn, organize.
	__________________ Dyslexic and prond!

18th December 2012, 11:51 AM	#10
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,264	Originally Posted by Psi Baba Good example. The investigation was taking too long and the public was clamoring for a scapegoat, so as soon as another suspect was named for whatever reason, his fate was sealed. The evidence was flimsy and circumstantial at best. But I don't wish to derail this thread. No.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

18th December 2012, 11:54 AM	#11
Charlie Wilkes Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 1,980	Originally Posted by Psi Baba Good example. The investigation was taking too long and the public was clamoring for a scapegoat, so as soon as another suspect was named for whatever reason, his fate was sealed. The evidence was flimsy and circumstantial at best. But I don't wish to derail this thread. I don't think you're derailing the thread, because it makes sense to compare cases and look broadly at what does and does not constitute real evidence of guilt. Hauptmann ended up with the ransom money, he was a German, like whoever wrote the ransom notes seemed to be, and it would have been difficult to modify the ladder to frame him, as some have alleged. There's a good case that he was guilty. With Joe Hill, there's a good case that he was guilty of being a Wobbly, and that's about it.

18th December 2012, 12:57 PM	#12
Giz Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: UK/US Posts: 3,422	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer Bad example. Hauptmann is almost certainly guilty. Yeah, Hauptman was almost certainly guilty. Not necessarily solely guilty (he may well have had accomplices who were not brought to justice) but it is rather implausible that he wasn't mixed up in the kidnapping in some manner.

18th December 2012, 08:54 PM	#13
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881	Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes I don't think you're derailing the thread, because it makes sense to compare cases and look broadly at what does and does not constitute real evidence of guilt. Hauptmann ended up with the ransom money, he was a German, like whoever wrote the ransom notes seemed to be, and it would have been difficult to modify the ladder to frame him, as some have alleged. There's a good case that he was guilty. With Joe Hill, there's a good case that he was guilty of being a Wobbly, and that's about it. That ladder point reminded me that at least forty five years ago I read a book from an ex-Forestry (as I recall) lab specialist and he described as one small part of it the specific forensic work the Service did to verify the wood in the ladder. It was quite logical and at my level of understanding of chem/bio/forensics it seemed well done.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,881	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

21st December 2012, 01:42 PM	#14
Brattus Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: The bowels of death and despair Posts: 1,223	Originally Posted by Psi Baba Good example. The investigation was taking too long and the public was clamoring for a scapegoat, so as soon as another suspect was named for whatever reason, his fate was sealed. The evidence was flimsy and circumstantial at best. But I don't wish to derail this thread. I find this post very Fischy indeed.
	__________________ Whatever Brattus types is correct. - Brattus Anyone who quotes themselves is way cool - Brattus

22nd December 2012, 01:21 PM	#15
Tiktaalik Half True Scotsperson Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,978	Originally Posted by sackett It's hard for a labor man to admit it, but I think that Joe probably did knock that place over. And his alibi never materialised. However, the bosses and their tame cops -- and judges, and newspaper scribblers -- meant to do him in, and as shamefully as possible, so his conviction was foregone from the first moment. As sometimes happens, though, they got exactly the reverse of what they wanted, and I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night, Alive as you and me. But Joe, I said, you're ten years dead. "I never died," said he. Don't mourn, organize. I've had that song stuck in my head ever since I saw this thread title, thanks.

23rd December 2012, 08:00 PM	#16
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,701	Originally Posted by sackett It's hard for a labor man to admit it, but I think that Joe probably did knock that place over. And his alibi never materialised. Yeah, his lack of a good alibi is the part that makes me think maybe he did it. I realize that the burden is not supposed to be on the defendant to prove his innocence, but I also imagine that if his alibi were true he would have probably been able to provide more details about it. Quote: In a letter to the court, Hill continued to deny that the state had a right to inquire into the origins of his wound, leaving little doubt that the judges would affirm the conviction. Chief Justice Daniel Straup wrote that his unexplained wound was "a distinguishing mark," and that "the defendant may not avoid the natural and reasonable inferences of remaining silent."[9]
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

6th January 2013, 06:39 PM	#17
Kevin_Lowe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Queensland Posts: 10,259	Based only upon the wiki and no proper research at all, the prosecution case seems to have sucked. All they had was a red hankie and the fact he had been shot. Lots of people have red hankies and four other people were shot that same night in that same town, plus there didn't even seem to be any evidence linking the fact he was shot to the murder. That shouldn't have amounted to a hill of beans, let alone to proof beyond reasonable doubt. He didn't have an alibi, but then again he didn't have a motive or a history of similar crimes. I'll revise my opinion if more relevant evidence shows up but for now I'd say he was more likely than not innocent, and the murder was carried out by someone else who had it in for the victim.
	__________________ Thinking is skilled work....People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge-players, or pianists. -- Alfred Mander