And the PUBLIC SERVANTS probably KNEW that they were innocent, or that the case against them was pathetic but went for the easy win and hashmark for politickin’-n-campaignin’.
1. You had two suspects, and one of them testifying against the other.
2. One of the suspects apparently had some kind of a deal for a reduced sentence, but his case went to trial anyway (this should raise a huge red flag with any lawyer).
3. The "reduced sentence" was nine years to life, and the guy was still in prison 22 years later ... which meant he effectively got the same sentence as his alleged accomplice.
4. All of this unfolded even though the guy who was supposed to get the reduced sentence was a minor at the time of the crime.
There's a lot here that isn't being reported -- that's for sure.