he was not convicted on physical evidence so why would expect it to link him?
random thoughts Send a noteboard - 01/10/2015 05:39:40 PM
That is one of those BS misleading facts that tend to cast doubt on the honesty of the person making them. The state never claimed he was present during the killing but that he paid someone else to kill the man. it has be examined and reexamined and was even retired and he was found guilty by tow different juries. I was convicted on the testimony of his accomplice and because the fact that his boss was looking into him stealing.
There really is nothing unusual about this case and we convict people everyday on similar evidence. It is wrong to kill man who turns out be innocent but it is also wrong to keep a man prison for decades who is innocent. Should we stop convicting based on eye witness testimony?
will an innocent man be executed tomorrow?
- 29/09/2015 10:52:46 PM
1607 Views
It is a travesty that should disgust every decent person who hears about it. *NM*
- 30/09/2015 01:20:20 AM
322 Views
*NM*
For those of you no paying attention moondog is full of shit
- 30/09/2015 08:55:43 PM
636 Views
Would you like to die on the word of one snitch who lowered his own sentence by implicating another?
- 30/09/2015 09:28:03 PM
584 Views
I actually don't support the death penalty in this or most cases
- 01/10/2015 02:01:04 PM
660 Views
Then actually have quite a bit of common ground. 
- 01/10/2015 05:49:05 PM
605 Views
- 01/10/2015 05:49:05 PM
605 Views
I'm not following the logical progression from "taxes" to "death." *NM*
- 02/10/2015 09:11:16 PM
320 Views
No? Hold a seance with Eric Garner's spirit. It might be able to clue you in.
- 04/10/2015 04:33:40 AM
597 Views
If there is reasonsable doubt, and there is,
- 01/10/2015 01:45:12 PM
602 Views
he was not convicted on physical evidence so why would expect it to link him?
- 01/10/2015 05:39:40 PM
588 Views
Bask in my new-found Golden Glory!
- 01/10/2015 05:39:48 PM
588 Views