ope:Far worse - a convicted murdering animal killed a couple of people and a security guard - he told his two worthless attorneys that he also killed all of them - he was charged with the murders but not the security guard - another man was charged and convicted for that murder - meanwhile, these two attorneys knew all along that this innocent man did nothing - the guy did 26 years before these attorneys finally said something (there are also numerous alibis that said the innocent man was not there) - the attorneys allege they were bound by the rules of professional conduct
What I want to know is how they convicted the guy that's been in prison all these years. They must have had a ton of evidence to convict him of murder, didn't they? Why did the jury get it wrong? People "brag" of murders all the time that they did not convict. Why was 60 Minutes so quick to call him innocent?
I missed a few minutes of the piece, so I apologize if I missed where this was discussed.
I missed a few minutes of the piece, so I apologize if I missed where this was discussed.
Jury vote was 10-2 on the death penalty.
Both attorneys showed up at his sentencing, and said if he got death they would have said something.
His two brothers and uncle i think, testified he was home in bed
Unrealhno:
Whatever they say they would have done means shit - they are cowards and have no clue of the pecking order - God happens to be just slightly above the Texas Bar - they should finish their lives sucking the dicks of new inmates in a TX prison - fvck them and their families
I think it was pretty cowardly by those lawyers as well but I really don't know much about that area of the law so it's kind of hard to comment on it. Those lawyers really made it sound like their hands were tied. The strange part was when the lawyer who has been representing the guy that was wrongfully accused and has been trying to get him off, basically said those two lawyers did the right thing and he probably would of done the same in their situation. I did like when he asked those lawyers , so it wasn't ok to let the man get executed (when they went to his trial during the sentencing to make sure he wasn't gonna be executed), but it was ok to let him rot in prison with a life sentence.... good point there.
Still don't get why everyone is so convinced this guy is innocent. People brag of murders they commit all the time. Why should we believe the degenerate murderer's confession? Regarding his alibi, of course he was going to come up with something...he was on trial for murder. Home sleeping is an obvious choice.
So, in summary, people think that he should be released because some other deranged killer bragged of doing it and his family said he was home sleeping. Don't you need a bit more than that to set him free. Why was the murder pinned on this guy in the first place...they must have had some evidence?
So, in summary, people think that he should be released because some other deranged killer bragged of doing it and his family said he was home sleeping. Don't you need a bit more than that to set him free. Why was the murder pinned on this guy in the first place...they must have had some evidence?
