9 ms·

Ms Haddaway made a secret deal with the prosecutors and the prosecutors did not reveal this. But did she lie? What this article forgets to mention is that Ms H

Ms Haddaway made a secret deal with the prosecutors and the prosecutors did not reveal this. But did she lie? What this article forgets to mention is that Ms Haddaway wore a wire and got Jonathan Smith on tape that he committed the murder in order to get $60000 [1]. Here's part of the dialog for reader's convenience: "[BH:]Why were you in that field with blood all over ya? And they take, I seen ya goin’up the road that day, you know it? And you had a blue coat on and Ray [Andrews] and you both had huntin’hats on. And then when I come back by there and you were in that cornfield and you said that blood come off a dog, but I think that you held her and David [Faulkner] killed her or one of you three done it. [JS:]They never found out yet have they? [BH:]I know, that’s why I want to know ‘fore I die. I seen ya, did I ever tell anybody? You know I ain’t gonna tell on ya, goddamn, you’re my blood. I just wanted to know if you done it. I didn’t really think you did. I think crazy David did [JS:]It’s a secret. It’s a secret when one person knows[.] It aint [sic] a secret when two people know. [BH:]Well, the three of you know. [JS:]Right, there’s only two left. [BH:]It was you and Ray and David. [JS:]Ray wasn’t there until after it was over. [BH:]Where was he? [JS:]Down the road. [BH:]Ray was right with you in the goddamn field. [JS:]Yeah. That was after it was all done with. ... [BH:] Tell me. I ain’t gonna tell nobody, I just want to know (inaudible). [JS:]He didn’t do it. [BH:]You done it. [JS:]Uh huh. [BH:]You said you did it before. Why did you kill her? I thought she let you in there when you went fishin’[.]... What, you didn’t know her? [JS:]I knew she had money. [BH:]You knew she had money. [JS:]She had money." [1] https://www.courts.state.md.us/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions/0619s18.pdf https://www.courts.state.md.us/sites/default/files/unreporte...

fortran77 6y ago
I suspect at least half the people exonerated by the Innocence Project are in fact guilty. However, I think that sloppy police work should never be rewarded with a guilty verdict, even if it's likely the defendant is guilty.
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.
  - peteretep 6y ago
    Do you know what indict means?
    - emmelaich 6y ago
      It's a reference to this quote: > New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler was famously quoted by Tom Wolfe in The Bonfire of the Vanities that "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ham_sandwich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ham_sandwich
      - peteretep 6y ago
        Yes, I'm well aware. Indictment is in no way being found guilty by a jury of your peers though and has wildly different standards of evidence.
    - MertsA 6y ago
      It's still a valid point, a prosecutor is the one presenting a case to a grand jury and has ample opportunity to tip the scales towards indictment or not. It's not like the accused have any similar opportunity to present their case to the grand jury, it's completely one-sided. Not saying there's anything wrong with that, but it's important to note that an indictment is not comparable to a case that's been tried in court.
- nwiswell 6y ago
  So are at least half the people acquitted by juries. That's the whole point of the reasonable doubt standard. We believe as a society that it is far more intolerable to imprison innocents than to let the guilty occasionally escape justice.
  - macintux 6y ago
    > We believe as a society that it is far more intolerable to imprison innocents than to let the guilty occasionally escape justice. That's quite debatable. Our founding fathers believed that, but today's justice and penal systems (and political system that buttresses them) do not reflect that belief.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      That may be more money than people speaking to some of those ideas. While I agree with you on that core idea being debatable, I also see a lot more support for it than not. Clearly, my experiences are anecdotal, but they do come from a wide swath of the nation. One of my tasty pleasures on business travel is to strike up some conversations with people. I have done it with all walks of life from homeless to rando joe and jane bag of doughnuts to people of serious means. For profit prison is growing unpopular. I think it should. And that profit motive does drive a lot of policy aimed at keeping cells full, often justified in dubious ways. One point in your favor is our trend toward aggressive punishment. People want to see the big, sexy verdicts and game over sentencing and often equate that to a greater measure of their own safety and security. There is also very low support for better answers to what people do when they have paid, are out again and unable to build a life for ongoing punishment as an ex con. Fewer than I would prefer to see equate that to a lesser measure of security and safety in their lives. All that said, I am definitely on the err on the side of guilt, meaning some guilty people are not convicted. I am also on the side of corrections. The goal should be for people to pay their debt to society for wrong doing, AND while paying it, arrive at some plan, skills, resources to try again where it makes sense. Not doing those things means releasing people who are extremely likely to fail and our results reflect that reality. Sadly, very large numbers of people respond to those facts with even more aggressive sentences, often openly saying we just do not need those people. Rough topic, IMHO. There is work to do here. Not sure the will exists to do it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- plank_time 6y ago
  I have a friend who works for ICE. She has literally deported assassins for the Mexican cartels. She said the hardest part of her job is that cities like San Francisco give millions of dollars to activist lawyers to help keep these criminals in the US. The activist lawyers and even SF know that these are real criminals but they don’t care. That money could be going to help the cases of real illegal immigrants who are making life better in the US but it’s instead going to defend these criminals. She says it’s really disheartening that they don’t care, they are blinded by trying to beat ICE.
  - lazyasciiart 6y ago
    Perhaps ICE should focus their resources on these criminals instead of attempting to deport every person who ever crossed the border. Has she ever considered that this change might even be within their own power?
    - plank_time 6y ago
      They don’t. That’s the problem. All you read about is the propaganda. My friend genuinely cares about making sure that there is justice but the media paints her like she’s some immigrant-hating Trump MAGA warrior. She has worked under Obama and Trump, and her job hasn’t changed.
      - lazyasciiart 6y ago
        No, I read first hand experiences. Your friend can be whatever she wants, but if she is trying to argue that ICE doesn't pursue non-criminals, she is untrustworthy.
        hervature 6y ago
        Technically, crossing the border is a crime. You should clarify you mean violent criminals.
        6y ago
- mbg721 6y ago
  I agree with your second sentence. By the time the Innocence Project gets a result, the moral standard of "letting a hundred guilty people go free to avoid convicting one innocent one" is far gone in any case.
- jmcgough 6y ago
  They don't have a lot of resources so they only take on cases that are clear injustices. Usually this means that there's good evidence that the person is actually innocent and the trial was completely botched. There are plenty of rural areas where the court decides that someone "seems" guilty and then suppresses any evidence that doesn't support that.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  I disagree with this. The police aren't made any better off by getting a guilty verdict. They take their salaries home either way. As it should be. Society benefits when the guilty are in prison and suffers when they go free. If a person is guilty and the police made a mistake, we should correct the mistake the police made, including by firing people responsible or pressing criminal charges if appropriate, but malpractice by the police should not exonerate a guilty person.
  - curryst 6y ago
    > If a person is guilty and the police made a mistake, we should correct the mistake the police made, including by firing people responsible or pressing criminal charges if appropriate, but malpractice by the police should not exonerate a guilty person. The purpose of that is to disincentivize malpractice. That's why we have the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine for improperly obtained evidence. There's no point in illegally breaking into someone's house to get evidence because that evidence is inadmissable. The alternative solution is to allow the evidence and prosecute the people who gathered it illegally. The problem there is that there's a clear conflict of interest: they were gathering that evidence for the prosecutor. The same prosecutor who will try to convict them for gathering that evidence. That prosecutor is incentivized to let them walk so they can keep getting illegal evidence. The second issue is that it's not always clear whether it's actually legal to gather some evidence in a particular way. We either have to prosecute negligence the same as malice, which seems unfair, or we leave a gaping loophole where we have to prove malice. All you have to do to get away with is shrug and go "I had no idea that it was illegal for me to just walk into the house if the door was already unlocked, and no, no one can verify the door was unlocked before I got there".
- MomoXenosaga 6y ago
  "Beyond a reasonable doubt" The defendant doesn't have to prove his innocence the DA has to prove his guilt. I hope you never do jury duty.
plank_time 6y ago
It’s funny how these inconvenient facts are never brought up. Thank you for this, it’s pretty eye opening.
- jmcgough 6y ago
  As someone who listens to true crime podcasts, there are loads of people who brag to their friends about committing a crime they didn't do.
  - MomoXenosaga 6y ago
    People literally confess crimes during interrogation that they didn't do. I know of a case we're they worked on someone for 15 hours straight and the poor sod just confessed because he wanted it to be over. Not everyone is a trained spy or psychopath. A confession should never be the sole evidence of convicting anyone.
- brendoelfrendo 6y ago
  It's not eye opening at all. The evidence that exonerated Smith was a confession from another individual accompanied by physical evidence of that individual at the scene of the crime. Much more compelling than Smith's "uh huh." The comment you're replying to is being deceitful.
  - bb88 6y ago
    OP is cherry-picking one piece out of the story. Getting karma for it, but in a most sleazy way possible.
- wilsynet 6y ago
  How do we know the so called taped evidence wasn’t manufactured? I’m not usually given to conspiracy theories, but we already have plenty of evidence that the prosecution lied repeatedly in this case.
  - plank_time 6y ago
joshuamorton 6y ago
> What this article forgets to mention is that Ms Haddaway wore a wire and got Jonathan Smith on tape that he committed the murder in order to get $60000 [1]. Here's part of the dialog for reader's convenience: Of course, the state reviewed that evidence, and along side it evidence of a confession by a different individual, along with palm prints tying that person to the crime scene, which is included in the same document.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
So this confession is "uh huh," which is about the extent of what Smith said throughout. The part that discusses the $60,000 and Smith describing the details of the crime is for some reason not included in the transcript. Frankly, his excuse of trying to get a strange pestering woman to leave him alone sounds fairly plausible, particularly a woman with a note from her doctor that she has "an extensive emotional and psychological problem."
bb88 6y ago
I think you should actually read the unanimous opinion by the Maryland Court of Appeals before sleazifying the work of the innocence project so vilely: https://law.justia.com/cases/maryland/court-of-appeals/2020/42-19.html https://law.justia.com/cases/maryland/court-of-appeals/2020/... In its analysis of the palmprint evidence, the circuit court lost sight of the forest for the trees. The points of overriding importance are: (1) Ty Brooks burglarized Ms. Wilford’s house in break-in that was never reported by Ms. Wilford; (2) Thomas’s confession that he committed the burglary and murder is corroborated by his statement putting Ty Brooks in the house and identifying the murder weapon as a butcher knife long before those facts were publicly known; and (3) ... To break it down for you, they already had a confession in evidence!
- credit_guy 6y ago
  Thanks for the link. Just to make a grand summary for everyone: * writ of innocence does not mean the court of appeals deems someone innocent. It means it finds that in light of the new evidence a retrial is warranted, and the accused enjoys the benefit of doubt once again (therefore he's "innocent until proven guilty"). It is certainly not an exoneration * both David Faulkner and Jonathan Smith were granted the writ of innocence * the prosecutors decided to not pursue David Faulkner anymore (either they think he's innocent, or they think he served enough time, or they think they don't have enough evidence to prove him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt) * the prosecutors decided to try Jonathan Smith in July [1]. A judge decided to deny him bond until that time and to be under house arrest. The judge was obviously aware of the writ of innocence, and found the weight of evidence sufficient to not grant him bail. * Finally, Jonathan Smith entered an Alford Plea [2], which is a type of no-contest plea. With this plea, the state let him go free. This type of plea does not imply the defendant is guilty, but does not imply that he's innocent either. *crucially, the Alford plea does not imply prosecutorial misconduct. Now, if I was "sleazyfing" the work of the Innocence Project, what did they do in regards to the work of the prosecutors? Is there any way to read their article without inferring massive prosecutorial misconduct? [1] https://www.stardem.com/emergency_notice/jonathan-smith-denied-bond-house-arrest-ahead-of-retrial-for-1987-murder/article_dcb06528-cb1e-59c3-98b5-a415248ee666.html https://www.stardem.com/emergency_notice/jonathan-smith-deni... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea
szc 6y ago
I've read the full report. Quoting just this is disturbingly misleading. There is a family relationship between JS and BH. Even in 1987 (the time of the murder) it appears to be hostile. At the time this snippet was recorded it was 13 years later and BH had manipulated the police into agreeing to drop drug charges against her grandson in exchange for testimony. Oddly this seems like a pattern, because BH also offered to help police with the same evidence in 1994 when a Shawn Haddaway was being charged for 3 offenses -- no explanation for this is given, or the relationship. [edit: From the other link posted by bb88 (thanks, reading now), Shawn Haddaway was the son of BH] What other conversations, that were not recorded, occurred between JS and BH prior to this "wiretap"? Had BH been badgering JS for days and the responses JS gave were just "giving her what she wanted" -- if so, it would be classic broken family relationship crap -- I recommended reading some of Deborah Tannen's books. This snippet also doesn't explain why someone else also admitted to the murder, for which there was physical evidence available, but was suppressed. What happened is very sad -- a person was murdered. But it is far, far more complicated than what is in this snippet.
- bb88 6y ago
  > What happened is very sad Doubly so when they sent the wrong guys to jail. Because now it's three innocent lives that were affected adversely.

fortran77 6y ago

I suspect at least half the people exonerated by the Innocence Project are in fact guilty. However, I think that sloppy police work should never be rewarded with a guilty verdict, even if it's likely the defendant is guilty.

WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.
- peteretep 6y ago
  Do you know what indict means?
  - emmelaich 6y ago
    It's a reference to this quote: > New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler was famously quoted by Tom Wolfe in The Bonfire of the Vanities that "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ham_sandwich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ham_sandwich
    - peteretep 6y ago
      Yes, I'm well aware. Indictment is in no way being found guilty by a jury of your peers though and has wildly different standards of evidence.
  - MertsA 6y ago
    It's still a valid point, a prosecutor is the one presenting a case to a grand jury and has ample opportunity to tip the scales towards indictment or not. It's not like the accused have any similar opportunity to present their case to the grand jury, it's completely one-sided. Not saying there's anything wrong with that, but it's important to note that an indictment is not comparable to a case that's been tried in court.
nwiswell 6y ago
So are at least half the people acquitted by juries. That's the whole point of the reasonable doubt standard. We believe as a society that it is far more intolerable to imprison innocents than to let the guilty occasionally escape justice.
- macintux 6y ago
  > We believe as a society that it is far more intolerable to imprison innocents than to let the guilty occasionally escape justice. That's quite debatable. Our founding fathers believed that, but today's justice and penal systems (and political system that buttresses them) do not reflect that belief.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    That may be more money than people speaking to some of those ideas. While I agree with you on that core idea being debatable, I also see a lot more support for it than not. Clearly, my experiences are anecdotal, but they do come from a wide swath of the nation. One of my tasty pleasures on business travel is to strike up some conversations with people. I have done it with all walks of life from homeless to rando joe and jane bag of doughnuts to people of serious means. For profit prison is growing unpopular. I think it should. And that profit motive does drive a lot of policy aimed at keeping cells full, often justified in dubious ways. One point in your favor is our trend toward aggressive punishment. People want to see the big, sexy verdicts and game over sentencing and often equate that to a greater measure of their own safety and security. There is also very low support for better answers to what people do when they have paid, are out again and unable to build a life for ongoing punishment as an ex con. Fewer than I would prefer to see equate that to a lesser measure of security and safety in their lives. All that said, I am definitely on the err on the side of guilt, meaning some guilty people are not convicted. I am also on the side of corrections. The goal should be for people to pay their debt to society for wrong doing, AND while paying it, arrive at some plan, skills, resources to try again where it makes sense. Not doing those things means releasing people who are extremely likely to fail and our results reflect that reality. Sadly, very large numbers of people respond to those facts with even more aggressive sentences, often openly saying we just do not need those people. Rough topic, IMHO. There is work to do here. Not sure the will exists to do it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
plank_time 6y ago
I have a friend who works for ICE. She has literally deported assassins for the Mexican cartels. She said the hardest part of her job is that cities like San Francisco give millions of dollars to activist lawyers to help keep these criminals in the US. The activist lawyers and even SF know that these are real criminals but they don’t care. That money could be going to help the cases of real illegal immigrants who are making life better in the US but it’s instead going to defend these criminals. She says it’s really disheartening that they don’t care, they are blinded by trying to beat ICE.
- lazyasciiart 6y ago
  Perhaps ICE should focus their resources on these criminals instead of attempting to deport every person who ever crossed the border. Has she ever considered that this change might even be within their own power?
  - plank_time 6y ago
    They don’t. That’s the problem. All you read about is the propaganda. My friend genuinely cares about making sure that there is justice but the media paints her like she’s some immigrant-hating Trump MAGA warrior. She has worked under Obama and Trump, and her job hasn’t changed.
    - lazyasciiart 6y ago
      No, I read first hand experiences. Your friend can be whatever she wants, but if she is trying to argue that ICE doesn't pursue non-criminals, she is untrustworthy.
      - hervature 6y ago
        Technically, crossing the border is a crime. You should clarify you mean violent criminals.
        6y ago
mbg721 6y ago
I agree with your second sentence. By the time the Innocence Project gets a result, the moral standard of "letting a hundred guilty people go free to avoid convicting one innocent one" is far gone in any case.
jmcgough 6y ago
They don't have a lot of resources so they only take on cases that are clear injustices. Usually this means that there's good evidence that the person is actually innocent and the trial was completely botched. There are plenty of rural areas where the court decides that someone "seems" guilty and then suppresses any evidence that doesn't support that.
ALittleLight 6y ago
I disagree with this. The police aren't made any better off by getting a guilty verdict. They take their salaries home either way. As it should be. Society benefits when the guilty are in prison and suffers when they go free. If a person is guilty and the police made a mistake, we should correct the mistake the police made, including by firing people responsible or pressing criminal charges if appropriate, but malpractice by the police should not exonerate a guilty person.
- curryst 6y ago
  > If a person is guilty and the police made a mistake, we should correct the mistake the police made, including by firing people responsible or pressing criminal charges if appropriate, but malpractice by the police should not exonerate a guilty person. The purpose of that is to disincentivize malpractice. That's why we have the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine for improperly obtained evidence. There's no point in illegally breaking into someone's house to get evidence because that evidence is inadmissable. The alternative solution is to allow the evidence and prosecute the people who gathered it illegally. The problem there is that there's a clear conflict of interest: they were gathering that evidence for the prosecutor. The same prosecutor who will try to convict them for gathering that evidence. That prosecutor is incentivized to let them walk so they can keep getting illegal evidence. The second issue is that it's not always clear whether it's actually legal to gather some evidence in a particular way. We either have to prosecute negligence the same as malice, which seems unfair, or we leave a gaping loophole where we have to prove malice. All you have to do to get away with is shrug and go "I had no idea that it was illegal for me to just walk into the house if the door was already unlocked, and no, no one can verify the door was unlocked before I got there".
MomoXenosaga 6y ago
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" The defendant doesn't have to prove his innocence the DA has to prove his guilt. I hope you never do jury duty.

plank_time 6y ago

It’s funny how these inconvenient facts are never brought up. Thank you for this, it’s pretty eye opening.

jmcgough 6y ago
As someone who listens to true crime podcasts, there are loads of people who brag to their friends about committing a crime they didn't do.
- MomoXenosaga 6y ago
  People literally confess crimes during interrogation that they didn't do. I know of a case we're they worked on someone for 15 hours straight and the poor sod just confessed because he wanted it to be over. Not everyone is a trained spy or psychopath. A confession should never be the sole evidence of convicting anyone.
brendoelfrendo 6y ago
It's not eye opening at all. The evidence that exonerated Smith was a confession from another individual accompanied by physical evidence of that individual at the scene of the crime. Much more compelling than Smith's "uh huh." The comment you're replying to is being deceitful.
- bb88 6y ago
  OP is cherry-picking one piece out of the story. Getting karma for it, but in a most sleazy way possible.
wilsynet 6y ago
How do we know the so called taped evidence wasn’t manufactured? I’m not usually given to conspiracy theories, but we already have plenty of evidence that the prosecution lied repeatedly in this case.
- plank_time 6y ago

joshuamorton 6y ago

> What this article forgets to mention is that Ms Haddaway wore a wire and got Jonathan Smith on tape that he committed the murder in order to get $60000 [1]. Here's part of the dialog for reader's convenience: Of course, the state reviewed that evidence, and along side it evidence of a confession by a different individual, along with palm prints tying that person to the crime scene, which is included in the same document.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

So this confession is "uh huh," which is about the extent of what Smith said throughout. The part that discusses the $60,000 and Smith describing the details of the crime is for some reason not included in the transcript. Frankly, his excuse of trying to get a strange pestering woman to leave him alone sounds fairly plausible, particularly a woman with a note from her doctor that she has "an extensive emotional and psychological problem."

bb88 6y ago

I think you should actually read the unanimous opinion by the Maryland Court of Appeals before sleazifying the work of the innocence project so vilely: https://law.justia.com/cases/maryland/court-of-appeals/2020/42-19.html https://law.justia.com/cases/maryland/court-of-appeals/2020/... In its analysis of the palmprint evidence, the circuit court lost sight of the forest for the trees. The points of overriding importance are: (1) Ty Brooks burglarized Ms. Wilford’s house in break-in that was never reported by Ms. Wilford; (2) Thomas’s confession that he committed the burglary and murder is corroborated by his statement putting Ty Brooks in the house and identifying the murder weapon as a butcher knife long before those facts were publicly known; and (3) ... To break it down for you, they already had a confession in evidence!

credit_guy 6y ago
Thanks for the link. Just to make a grand summary for everyone: * writ of innocence does not mean the court of appeals deems someone innocent. It means it finds that in light of the new evidence a retrial is warranted, and the accused enjoys the benefit of doubt once again (therefore he's "innocent until proven guilty"). It is certainly not an exoneration * both David Faulkner and Jonathan Smith were granted the writ of innocence * the prosecutors decided to not pursue David Faulkner anymore (either they think he's innocent, or they think he served enough time, or they think they don't have enough evidence to prove him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt) * the prosecutors decided to try Jonathan Smith in July [1]. A judge decided to deny him bond until that time and to be under house arrest. The judge was obviously aware of the writ of innocence, and found the weight of evidence sufficient to not grant him bail. * Finally, Jonathan Smith entered an Alford Plea [2], which is a type of no-contest plea. With this plea, the state let him go free. This type of plea does not imply the defendant is guilty, but does not imply that he's innocent either. *crucially, the Alford plea does not imply prosecutorial misconduct. Now, if I was "sleazyfing" the work of the Innocence Project, what did they do in regards to the work of the prosecutors? Is there any way to read their article without inferring massive prosecutorial misconduct? [1] https://www.stardem.com/emergency_notice/jonathan-smith-denied-bond-house-arrest-ahead-of-retrial-for-1987-murder/article_dcb06528-cb1e-59c3-98b5-a415248ee666.html https://www.stardem.com/emergency_notice/jonathan-smith-deni... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea

szc 6y ago

I've read the full report. Quoting just this is disturbingly misleading. There is a family relationship between JS and BH. Even in 1987 (the time of the murder) it appears to be hostile. At the time this snippet was recorded it was 13 years later and BH had manipulated the police into agreeing to drop drug charges against her grandson in exchange for testimony. Oddly this seems like a pattern, because BH also offered to help police with the same evidence in 1994 when a Shawn Haddaway was being charged for 3 offenses -- no explanation for this is given, or the relationship. [edit: From the other link posted by bb88 (thanks, reading now), Shawn Haddaway was the son of BH] What other conversations, that were not recorded, occurred between JS and BH prior to this "wiretap"? Had BH been badgering JS for days and the responses JS gave were just "giving her what she wanted" -- if so, it would be classic broken family relationship crap -- I recommended reading some of Deborah Tannen's books. This snippet also doesn't explain why someone else also admitted to the murder, for which there was physical evidence available, but was suppressed. What happened is very sad -- a person was murdered. But it is far, far more complicated than what is in this snippet.

bb88 6y ago
> What happened is very sad Doubly so when they sent the wrong guys to jail. Because now it's three innocent lives that were affected adversely.