Translation: "I wanted something that would justify those already emotionally inclined to blindly accept any kind of scandalous iconoclastic claims offered up to them. I really did not expect anyone to hold me to the same standards of proof I am wrongfully berating a court for not meeting."

Why do you call it the cannoli stamp of approval? I thought it would be YOUR stamp of approval, given your demands for truth and evidence. This article is lacking in both. It, for example, completely lies about the number of witnesses, which was over 30. And there were shell casings as well, so it lies about the lack of physical evidence too! Apparently all that reading you did on the subject was heavily ideologically biased.

This is a very strange position for someone to cite, when he is arguing based on the assertions of seven people that slight details might be different than what they said.



Well the messenger should not be so stupid as to give such a half-assed message. The "message" you offer is basically an article from a publication that opposes the death penalty, citing the erroneous and mendacious arguments of people either equally opposed to the death penalty, or else paid to advocate for Davis' innocence. If you were really sincere in your desire for justice and the truth being known, you'd have examined this yourself. I'm shooting the messenger because he is hiding behind a poorly argued case and other people's errors and falsehoods which he nonetheless took it upon himself to disseminate and make outrageous statements expressing his support for those claims. Grow a spine and stand by what you post.