[rogue yam]

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?

Dude.

The "new evidence" actually described in the article (i.e. the clothing with blood of a different blood-type than the accused's) was evidence in the separate armed robbery case, not in the case where the victim was murdered. Two separate events, two separate sets of charges, two trials, one defendant.

Get it now?

As I stated plainly before, the article describes neither the evidence by which the defendant was initially convicted of murder, nor the evidence in the second murder trial that led to his acquittal for murder.

If you want to say stupid, ignorant things while underhandedly accusing others of racism you should go to a leftist board. We're supposed to be better than that here.

[Vendome]

I can’t believe you read the article.

Now I am going to have to read it.

[Vendome]

Actually, I am not going to read the article.

The Defendants name is John Thompson and as we all know Jim Thompson sometimes goes by that alias.

GUILTY!