Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SeaHawkFan

Due process was given at trial. Reasonable doubt was tested at trial. Every appeal has re-examined the issues. Minds can differ.


13 posted on 09/21/2011 10:59:44 AM PDT by shankbear (Al-Qaeda grew while Monica blew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: shankbear
You assume the prosecutor was seeking justice rather than just a conviction. Due process is no guarantee of an honest trial.

I base this history and personal experience.

Eyewitness testimony is infamously unreliable. There was no other evidence in this case; no DNA, no physical evidence - NOTHING.

This was a high profile case an it is very possible that the prosecutor wanted a conviction in the case more than he was interested in convicting the right person. After all this time, you think a prosecutor is more interested in admitting there were mistakes than in doing justice?

There are many instances when in the face of undeniable proof of innocence, a prosecutor will still claim he guy was guilty. It happens all the time.

19 posted on 09/21/2011 11:08:47 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson