Posted on 09/19/2018 2:28:48 PM PDT by Rummyfan
Hope it's true, but they seem to gloss over about Dixon because he draws with crayons.
But at 21, Dixon was a mid-level drug dealer. On the night of the shooting, he was out on bail, awaiting sentencing for two drug-related shootings.
Food for thought.
Uh, huh.
At least the criminal was off the street for 27 years.
So he was one of the usual suspects and that made it okay to convict him for a crime he didn’t commit?
He was no angel, for sure, but there is no justification for a deliberately wrongful conviction.
Uh, no it doesn't. It simply means "not guilty," which means that for any of a million reasons, the conviction could not be upheld. It could be a procedural technicality, introduction of new evidence, an irregularity in the case, credible allegations of corruption, etc.. But it does NOT mean innocence.
You hear this lie all the time from the legal second-guessers.
Right arm. I have been on a few juries. Some of the tards think we have to find the perp guilty or innocent. I inform them that it is either guilty or not guilty.
I have explained to several that there is a gigantic difference between innocent and not guilty. Definitely not the same thing.
The reason in this case being another man who claimed responsibility for the shooting and had been claiming that responsibility for over 2 decades. No cross examination by the publicly appointed attorney, shoddy police work with no witnessess to the crime. Yup that about sums up a pretty corrupt investigation and prosecution
“So he was one of the usual suspects and that made it okay to convict him for a crime he didnt commit?”
He was a flashy cocaine dealer out on bail for drug-related shootings. Story around was he got one of the minors in his gag to take the fall for an accidental shooting.
” no witnessess to the crime.”
Six witnesses filed statements.
Are you referring to the coke gang leader out on bail for two drug-related shootings?
Oh Im sorry,
zero physical evidence linking Dixon, conflicting testimony of unreliable witnesses, the videotaped confession to the crime by another man, a public defender who didnt call a witness at trial, and perjury charges against those who said Dixon didnt do it.
Jail most likely saved him from an early death.
“a public defender who didnt call a witness at trial, “
LOL! They were all called by the prosecution!
You REALLY fall for one-sided sources ...
This is from another article.
This came up on FR a few months back.
As I recall 2 of the victims knew Dixon and identified him as the shooter.
Difficult to ascertain the truth when witnesses and/or defendants lie.
I've learned not to trust a single story on an issue.
Remember...the media lies.
On the contrary. It DID do so. Incorrectly, as it turns out. Facilely. Corruptly. Negligently. But if conviction = proof, then you can't argue that the system didn't prove him guilty.
His exoneration does not mean he's innocent, any more than an acquittal in his trial would have meant he was innocent. He would simply have been found NOT guilty.
The absence of a negative is not a positive.
Id find it EXTREMELY rare that in a murder trial that took place at a party that an attorney doesnt call a single witness on behalf of the defense.
Agree
“and perjury charges against those who said Dixon didnt do it.
The were NO perjury charges. Only the known lied saying they were threatened with charges.
But go on drinking the koolaid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.