[liberallarry]

Presumably the Parole Board had done all of these things. Why do you assume that their conclusion is wrong?

Because, based on their quoted statements, I don't trust them.
Because I cannot see justice in their actions.
Because they've provided no explanation of why their conclusions differ from the prosecution.

And because I want to know why the Prosecution acted as it did.

[gridlock]

Maybe it is just a different point of view, but I don't see anything in their statements that indicate that they should not be taken at face value. They have a certain job to do, and they are doing it. They are to determine rehabilitation and fitness for release. They are not to determine justice, or the appropriateness of the sentence. They are to look at the record and decide whether or not to parole.

As for why their conclusion differs from the Prosecution, there is not necessarily any contradiction. The Prosecution presents a case in order to get a conviction, which they did. In doing so, they will make all sorts of strategic decisions about what to present and what not to present. The Parole Board is doing an entirely different job.

A healthy dose of skepticism of public employees is a healthy thing, of course. But there is nothing here that makes me think the Parole Board is not doing the job correctly. Thirty years in jail for a multi-repeat violent offender who broke into a house and beat up a little old lady is not outside the range of acceptable results, IMHO.