Replies

Yeah, and there are always Freepers who can look at a man falsely convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison and say, “Well, he must have been guilty of something.”

I expected ugly and unintelligent responses to my post. Thank you for breaking the ice.

Here are a couple of points for you to contemplate:

(1) I did not say the the freed man was guilty.

(2) The article does not provide any information upon which to base the conclusion that the freed man was innocent of murder.

(3) I stated No 2 and you responded with criticism that I had stated No. 1.

Logic FAIL!

(1) I did not say the the freed man was guilty.

What you said was that the jury may have freed a "guilty murderer" to "get back at the man."

2) The article does not provide any information upon which to base the conclusion that the freed man was innocent of murder.

It did, however, give information that was enough to support the new jury's verdict that someone else did it. Don't forget that, while disputing the damages award, the DA's office admits unethical and illegal denial of exculpatory evidence. But I suppose maybe the jury didn't care about the evidence that someone else committed the murder and the fact that the DA's office lied and covered up evidence and would have released him if he'd stood up in court and shouted "Yeah, I killed him" because they're only interesting in sticking it to the man. Because that's how those people are, right?