I do some law enforcement activity as a medical officer for the local sheriff, and watch these “he was innocent” dramas.
There seems to be a soft spot in the hearts of libs for perps.
These dredged up prosecutions of people convicted of capital offenses, usually, always get plenty of media attention with people appearing to testify the convicted person is innocent and some DNA evidence from the scene that is exculpatory.
Sometimes when a conviction is based on eye witness who saw the crime and the perp, the advocacy crowd has an advantage because the witnesses are gone or dead or intimidated for the replay and the originally prosecutors are on to a new job.
It’s not ike you can make a living or benefit from being the witness to a crime or that lawyers and cops stay in the same job all their lives.
The DNA evidence thing is always interesting to me–considering that DNA evidence is so circumstatial in many of these revised prosecutions, and not always reliable.
Besides, except for semen in a rape case, we’re talking skin or other body sheds that only create a likely that one person was in a place. Unless you could vacuum up the scene of the crime, the sampling could be cherry pickin’ and spend a lot of time checking out every specimin, you don’t know, but sampling can create the sacred talisman–reasonable doubt.
Here’s a great story about a cheesy academic lawyer on a crusade to exonnerate a double murderer convicted with two eye witnesses. Politics in Chicago, Illinois, the most corrupt city and state in the US.
Spicing up the whole thing is the leftist conviction that capital punishment is inhumane, and crime is the product of environment–the deterministic approach to culpabiity–nobody’s guilty, they are all victims. Poverty causes crime–yadayada.
Funny how the great depression didn’t become a crime wave, isn’t it?
I thought this example but as a general rule when you hear some Dan Rather wannabee talking innocent convicted person, realize the story is being reframed, the prosecution as originally presented usually is not, because the witnesses and the prosecutors are not as enthusiastic and effective as the “innocence” advocates.
The perp is usually the perp, but my experience is that most inmates are not guilty, they were framed or they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and not really the criminal who committed the crime.