BTW, I went to the links provided by jigsaw (post 9).
Per his appeals petition, there WAS evidence (his petition argues that he did not get adequate access to the evidence, including photographs and "toy items".) The most damning appears to be tape marks on the victims face.
There is definitely more to this case than the article implies.
You mean these tape marks?:
(from the article)
"The photographs were then examined by a forensic photographer in Miami, John Valor, using all modern techniques. Valor's four-page notarized report detailed his impressive expertise, including service as the lead forensic photographer in the trial of serial-killer Ted Bundy.
Valor's sworn statement dated January 8, 1998 stated that the pictures of Linda showed absolutely no scratches, tape marks or abnormalities of any kind, and that marks would have been clearly visible if there had been any."
I looked at the links too.
When I first saw the headline, I thought "feminism strikes again" but the article fails to mention half of what really happened.
Gotta love that MSM!
Posting without reading, or reading without comprehension, can and should lead to embarrassment.
"Per his appeals petition, there WAS evidence (his petition argues that he did not get adequate access to the evidence, including photographs and "toy items".) The most damning appears to be tape marks on the victims face."
But per the judge's ruling on that same petition, all that is bunk. He had access to those photographs at the time of trial and did not use them, and had access to appellate relief and did not use that properly, either. Should we let all the convicts out who had shitty lawyers? That'd be about, um, let me think, ALL of them! Just ask them!