I would like to read the evidence against the autistic guy who was convicted and then released eight years later, after an appeal.
Was his release the result of one of those Innocence Project style scams, where Reasonable Doubt is introduced years after the trial, and then defense lawyers and Hard Left activists dance around in the street, pretending he was innocent all along?
Full Disclosure - even when a guilty man is released, I still believe in the legal standard of Guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt.
That's exactly what happened to a girl that was murdered from my high school in 1983. The murdering scum was known to her family. He picked her up when she was walking to school. By his own admission, he got enraged at her when she called him "trash" after he tried to hit on her. He drove to a secluded spot, raped and strangled her.
35 years later, his case got reviewed. With evidence gone and witnesses dead, the state let him go. Now he drives around the country making jewelry out of his van, and he has a nice Innocence Project page proclaiming he was wrongly accused.
Most Innocent Project releases are made on new DNA evidence because of the huge strides made in that area.
New DNA evidence usually causes a readonable doubt.