Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lookout123
HM are there any doubts in anyone's mind that she killed her children? If they were talking about the only piece of evidence that was used to convict being tainted, that is one thing. that isn't the case here. she did it, everyone knows it. quit screwing around with the legal wrangling and be done with it.
|
It's not about her. It's about not letting corrupt prosecutions slide. If someone committed murder on national TV and signed a confession in Wrigley Field with 3000 witnesses, and the prosecution still felt the need to give false evidence in order to bump up the sentence - even though a conviction was guaranteed - then that prosecution deserves to lose, and the person deserves a new trial, with REAL evidence. If you can say "but that's a
bad person, they don't deserve a fair trial", then you don't believe in fair trials at all.