Either state why the trial was a sham, the specific flaws in the proceedings, or stop with the nonsense.
Did you read what I wrote? He was found wounded and unable to move at the scene of the murder. The dead officer’s bullet was in his chest. Five rounds from the gun he purchased, found at his side, were the in dead officer’s body. That’s what the cops found at the scene, before the eyewitnesses were even in play.
There’s not a reasonable doubt in this case. Frankly, there’s not any doubt, beyond the sort of “maybe the CIA framed him” kind of nut-job explanation. He is guilty. And that’s what the jury found, and countless appeals did not overturn. What exactly does your “maybe the witnesses were mistaken” comment signify? You do realize he was given a trial, where the evidence was offered, weighed and the defense had every opportunity to discredit it, right? What was your point as it relates to this case, exactly?
Also, you have an inventory of “you conservatives suck” platitudes that you use for any occasion, whether it’s a non sequitur or not, don’t you? How is an appeals court upholding a lower court judgment an instance of activism, pray tell?
By the way, come to Philly and talk to the liberal folks familiar with the case. They’ll tell you he’s guilty too. We’re all weary with the celebrity jerks and loonies who continue to talk out of their asses about something they obviously know nothing about. Only the fringe, ax-to-grind fanatics disagree. That’s the frustration you’re sensing–we live here, and we wish everyone else would shut the fuck up already or actually offer something substantial and new. As Mr. Miskatonic said, it’s offensive, the suggestion that our court system permitted–encouraged–some sort of racist abomination of a trial. Why you think this is a conservative cause or a “we hate the black guy” issue is transparent: because that’s easier to argue against, since there is nothing credible you’ve offered to suggest the trial wasn’t fair.
“I have no knowledge of this case, but from what you are describing, the main evidence seems to be eye witness testimony, something which is famously unreliable. SO if that is the only evidence and it occured at night, well yes there is doubt.”
I read it just fine. You don’t have a clue but are making assumptions that aren’t even based on what the previous poster described.
Try again.
AK84 is trying to say that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.
One witness, maybe. When multiple witnesses agree, not so much.
I can’t believe this shit’s been dragged out since I was in college. Name me one other criminal who’s gotten such a free ride. All those meals this man has eaten at the taxpayer’s expense these last three decades, I’d rather have seen them go to hungry children.
We all know eyewitness testimony is unreliable, but what AK84 was saying was that the “main evidence seems to be eye witness testimony,” which as Mr. Miskatonic said, is simply false.
Well personally I would rather he had been sentenced to life without possibility of parole, and the money saved from the last 30 years of appeals been used to feed more hungry children than you would have fed. And I am sure that if convicted prisoners were executed on the day of their conviction, all the saved money would go to charitable ventures…
I’m left leaning and outside of Philly proper, but this pretty much sums it up. I only oppose having him put to death out of opposition to capital punishment. He’s guilty as fuck and I’d have no problems with him serving life without the possibility of parole.