I want to see exactly what the Op actually knows about the case, before he convicts the legal system and the jury on even less evidence than he accuses them of having. Note that he wouldn’t answer my questions.
Really, judging things based upon a few biased media articles is not a good way of doing things. Try some research.
He’s accusing them of making up their minds on little evidence, which is exactly what he’s doing.
Oh, is that what you’re doing? And here I thought you were just being an asshole.
It was pretty clear to me that the dressing in black remark was meant to capture the tone of the drama and not as a statement of fact. Now, if you have a cite that rebuts the claim of the articles that the guy’s trial was a farce, we’ll all be more than happy to look at them and discuss it. But if you’re simply going to make snarky remarks, well that’s not really fun for anyone, is it?
I totally mis-parsed that thread title and came in here to find out how dressing in black could get someone freed from prison. :o
While you haven’t even read that.
Ah, yes, well when you put it that way, I have no choice but to agree with you.
They let Johnny Cash out of Folsom and San Quentin, didn’t they?
I too wanted to express an opinion on this case, but my efforts in tracking down the jury have proven a little fruitless.
Marcie’s on an extended cruise, and Tom isn’t returning my calls. Worse still, old Dan died of a heart attack, so even if I can track the others down, I could still only score a maximum of 11/12, which I guess means neither me, nor anyone else, is ever going to be able to hold a valid point of view.
What a shame.
Here’s what i know about the case - I lived in Ft. Collins at the time of the murder and followed the investigation. I know that a large number of people, including some of the police involved in prosecuting the case, had decided that the conviction was bogus and the prosecutors hid exculpatory evidence. I know that these people convinced the Ft. Collins authorities to take a new look at the evidence in the case and it resulted in testing the DNA evidence which proved that Masters was not guilty. I’ve read multiple newspaper accounts of the case. Do you think that all the reporters were taking a cofee break when the prosecutors showed the jury a videotape of Masters commiting the crime and his teary confession?
Take a seat on the bench reserved for those who wade into a discussion they have no business being in, and can’t admit when they’re wrong. Zoe and Brazil84 have been keeping it warm for you.
Surely no one here is saying that the average jury isn’t swayed by things like dressing in black, listening to metal, drawing gory pictures, etc.
Have you interviewed every single person who’s ever served on a jury? Well, have you?
Dude, I’m on your side- I’m saying juries are swayed by stuff like this, maybe I just didn’t phrase my smarm properly. Check out my thread on the railroading of the WM3 
don’t look up, I suspect.
Just to set the record straight, as you will see in that cite:
(bolding mine)
Interviewed the jury members? Seriously? Listen you to yourself. Are you completely out of your mind?
True, but they should never have been filed in the first place.
Indeed I have, as a reading of my posts will show.
Yes, indeed I can hardly expect the OP to interview the entire jury. But maybe he could have read a reporters interview of even one member of the jury. No.
And, getting the transcript and reading it isn’t too hard.
I am unimpressed about the factoid that the Op lived in the same town. :rolleyes:
Well, what exactly WAS he guilty of then, genius?
Having just read your posts, I’d say that you are a pissy snot who has unrealistic and stupid ideas about pit threads and who needs to shut the fuck up.
But I haven’t interviewed you, so what do I know?
Just to watch him die.
Daniel
Are you equally unimpressed at the fact that tomorrow his conviction will be vacated and he will be a free man? Do you think the judge who is going to set him free has read the transcripts?
Please do carry on bleating the same lines over and over again even though they have no point.
His conviction being vacated has nothing to do with the Original evidence against him being insuffient. That was undoubtedly fought over in various Courts of Appeals years ago and found to be suff for a conviction. His new trial is based upon new DNA evidence coming forward.
I am not disputing that the new evidence should make his free. Can you find any post where I said that?
What I am disputing is your hypocrisy and lack of any real knowledge about the orginal case. You claim the only evidence against him was that he dressed in black.
:rolleyes:
You condemn the original Judge and Jury of thus condeming an innocent man upon no evidence at all, wheras you have no fucking idea of what evidence they actually heard or what evidence convinced the jury. You are thus guilty of convicting them with evidence as scanty as you accuse them of having.
It’s great that the poor kid has got new DNA evidence that will set him free. That does not mean that the original evidence against him was in any way as shoddy as you claimed it to be.