5 ms·
>1. 12 < 27. If I'm reading that correctly, one of the convictions was reversed; he wasn't found innocent. I don't understand. He served 27 years. You say he
by tyrust 8y ago
>1. 12 < 27. If I'm reading that correctly, one of the convictions was reversed; he wasn't found innocent.
I don't understand. He served 27 years. You say he should have served up to 15. The difference is 12 years that the justice system has to answer for.
>2. There's more to this case than most of the responders seem to believe.
Unless you have something substantive to reference you're just muddying the waters with this statement.
- mcguire 8y agoI honestly have no idea what the first point was supposed to mean. Sorry. Substantive points: * Dixon is innocent of shooting Jackson. * There was significant prosecutorial malfeasance in his prosecution, along with limited defense competence. * According to Scott in the ESPN article, Dixon did supply the weapon and drove the two of them to the location. * According to the prosecutor, Scott worked for Dixon, who was admittedly dealing drugs. * Dixon was also convicted of supplying the illegal weapon with which Jackson was shot. He was not innocent. "What kind of person sends an innocent man to prison just to score a win in a case?" -- fjcp "The prosecutors will not face any real consequences for ruining an innocent man's life." -- gizmo "They clearly knew that this guy wasn't guilty of murder since somebody else confessed to the murder yet they let the innocent guy behind bars probably thinking "i got no hard feelings, that guy would have ended up killing someone one day"." -- onemoresoop This is not the case of someone saying "He's a bad guy, so he deserved to be in jail anyway".