Death row inmates introduce "new" evidence in an effort to stall.
No more stalling, at least not in Texas.
The man was not "innocent."
Still stalking me, sinky?
Regardless, your "points" are pointless. You have no way of proving your assertions, since his evidence was not permitted to be considered.
And again, regardless, it's moot -- because the issue isn't whether HIS evidence was what you suggest, but rather, the issue is that there is precedent for denying the potentially innocent due process because of a technicality.
It's one thing to rail against the guilty being set free "on a technicality", as the hardcase "lawnorder" types love to do. It's something entirely different to smugly accept the idea of the innocent being killed "on a technicality."
But this doesn't surprise me, since you're prepared to let this innocent woman be killed on some really shaky technicalities.
Stop nipping at my ankles, or I'll report you.
Another bunch of bull from DJ.
Report me, if you want. If you don't like my posts to you, don't respond.
When did you start defending death row murderers?