4 ms·
I see lots of these "wrongful conviction" articles that are not very convincing. Claiming that we somehow know better decades later with less than 1% of the evi
by silexia 4y ago
I see lots of these "wrongful conviction" articles that are not very convincing. Claiming that we somehow know better decades later with less than 1% of the evidence still available that the original judge and jury had seems egotistical and foolish.
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoYet this case had zero evidence other than a coerced confession. There was 100% (of zero) evidence available. The original judge and jury had nothing to go on but the confession.
- silexia 4y agoAre you sure? You sat there in that courtroom decades ago and heard all the testimony and viewed all the evidence? Or are you going off of a blog post written decades later?
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoRead the article again.