Gunny
Gold Member
You're right, if what the article says is true (that 7 out of the 9 witnesses have recanted their testimony and the 2 that haven't are another suspect and someone who originally said he didn't know who the killer was), then it seems almost blatantly obvious that there should be some sort of review. If this guy is innocent, I think it really is the responsibility of any state with the death penalty to seal all doubt. It's just a really bad precedent not to do so.
But nobody's interested in that, I'm guessing partly because of what I call the "Collins" effect, which usually renders threads useless. It is pretty curious, though, to see some bashing others for derailing a thread and at the same time never getting back on topic themselves.
It's pretty curious too to see such an ignorant statement when it is quite obvious the screeching banshee wouldn't allow it to get back on track.