[cwiz24]

This hooker ought to be put away for providing false information to the police and for perjury. How could she sleep at night?

[writer33]

My same thought. Why does it take someone 23 years to come forward?

[Buck W.]

"This hooker ought to be put away for providing false information to the police and for perjury. How could she sleep at night?"

As a hooker, she doesn't have to...

[Prime Choice]

Woman Changes Prostitute Murder Story 23 Years Later

Okay, fine. Stick her dumb ass in the jail and let's see what her story is 23 years from now. That should do just fine.

[FormerLib]

Guess it's a good thing they didn't execute him.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Really fast death penalty application would stop this sort of thing from happening.

[Grut]

Prosecutors believe, for instance, that the only thing wrong with the Crucifixion was that the state didn't do it again when the opportunity arose. Therefore, the official line will be that the guy was rightly convicted despite this recantation and he'll stay in jail.

[Henchman]

Once convicted, it is my opinion that the 5th Amendment does not apply to the convicted person for that crime. It should be mandatory in all possible Capital Cases, that the person be given a lie detector test under sodium pentathal (or better if available) and at least 2X. If they pass, a death sentence would be ruled out and a reinvestigation mandatory. JMO

[Martin Tell]

So she's said she lied 23 years ago?

And we are supposed to believe her NOW?

[gridlock]

No comment, except to say the grammar in this piece is really, really bad.

[mlocher]

"A woman who helped put away a Fall River, Mass., man for life for a gruesome ritualistic murder"

either way, this poor guy got screwed

[monday]

you said; "This hooker ought to be put away for providing false information to the police and for perjury."

from the article; "She said she was threatened into lying on the stand by prosecutors and Murphy."

I suppose the prosecutors should be doing time for witness tampering if she is telling the truth. I mean if we are to believe her when she says she lied in her testimony back then, why should we doubt her when she explains why she did it. Why else would she have bothered to lie.

Murphy must have gotten a deal. She probably wouldn't have gotten that deal if it wasn't for the 'false' testimony of Fletcher.

[drhogan]

the problem with the article is that it doesn't give any real info about the case. what was going on? what was the relationship bewteen the various people? what other evidence was there against the guy who was convicted? what was his defense? would he have been convicted without the lying woman's testimony?

[Ignatz]

How could she sleep at night?

Ummm....I'm guessing she "works" nights. Probably third "trick".

[Ignatz]

Here's some background info from Carl Drew himself