Let me see if I have this right. You believe that people were bribed to testify against guy, a man convicted of the murder of a 12 year old, because he says it happened. His lawyer, who's job it is to muddy the waters to avoid execution for his client say so?
Forget the fact that the prosecutors office, police who were involved, prison officials etc ALL say it never happened?
Yep, that is a world I want to live in where the word of a child murderer is more accepted than the word of everyone in the justice system.
Where do you see this in the article?
The prosecutor said it was baseless, but was he referring to payments to inmates for testimony, or the overall defense argument?
The only way the defense would bring up the payment to prisoner witnesses is if they were later deposed by the defense.
There is nothing in the article that denies those payments or favors. You think a prosecutor wouldn't lie about this? If so, are you ever naive.
Have you not been reading about all the cases where DNA evidence has exonerated a number of people convicted of crimes they didn't commit?
I didn't say I accepted the word of the alleged criminal. I simply take the position that there is evidence that the prosecutor denied the constitutional rights of the accused. Nothing more; nothing less.
In the state of Washington, there is no evidence that should lead a citizen to believe a large number of people in the judicial system wouldn't lie.
Cops are some of the worst liars that there are. Too often, they think it is their job to put someone away, not tell the truth. Do a search on "testilying" and see what you come up with.
parsy, who knows.